|
aja
Aug 1, 2006, 7:46 PM
Post #1 of 17
(3848 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 25, 2005
Posts: 15
|
First, I did a thread search and did not find any 411 on this lens.
Just looking to see if anyone has any views, comments or input on this lens?
thanks,
Andrea
|
|
|
|
|
grayhghost
Aug 1, 2006, 7:55 PM
Post #2 of 17
(3848 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 21, 2002
Posts: 444
|
You get what you pay for. You should only buy Canon brand lenses if you want to get the best image quality possible. Same goes for Nikon.
|
|
|
|
|
jercech
Aug 1, 2006, 10:46 PM
Post #3 of 17
(3848 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 12, 2004
Posts: 45
|
In reply to: You get what you pay for. You should only buy Canon brand lenses if you want to get the best image quality possible. Same goes for Nikon.
That is just about the most inflamitory statement I've ever read. Everyone knows that Pentax makes the best lenses.
|
|
|
|
|
pico23
Aug 2, 2006, 5:39 AM
Post #4 of 17
(3848 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 14, 2003
Posts: 2378
|
In reply to: In reply to: You get what you pay for. You should only buy Canon brand lenses if you want to get the best image quality possible. Same goes for Nikon. That is just about the most inflamitory statement I've ever read. Everyone knows that Pentax makes the best lenses.
I personally agree. line of resolution for line of resolution pentax is often better then Nikon or Canon. Toss in THE BEST lens coating. You know the coating that Nikon partially licensed from Pentax and that Canon chose not to. It's not really fair to compare a $200 Pentax f5.6 consumer lens to canon L. Go pick up the 80-200 2.8. an excellent lens. So is the 15mm 3.5. If canon makes a better 15mm send it to me and I'll a switch to canon. Also, have you tried the limited series? 77mm 1.7 is sweet on a DSLR. It's compared not to Canon quality but Ziess quality. It's also my next lens by October when the $100 rebate ends.
I read something recently about a guy (pro) that switched from medium format to Canon digital and I laughed when he said, Canon is fun to shoot with but I wish the lenses were better. BTW, his kit was all L series stuff.
That said I'm not busting on Canon. Just illustrating that there is at least one other manufacturer out there with quality glass if you don't need to shoot 8fps. The added feature of Pentax is far more ergonomic bodies over canon. Pickup the istD with the vertical grip if you don't believe me.
|
|
|
|
|
jercech
Aug 2, 2006, 9:41 PM
Post #5 of 17
(3848 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 12, 2004
Posts: 45
|
I won't say a thing about Pentax's lack of a pro body since the LX, or their autofocus system, or their dealer network, but Pentax's comittment to k-mount backwards compatability is refressing and the new K100d sure looks like a nice camera.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
pico23
Aug 3, 2006, 12:09 AM
Post #7 of 17
(3848 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 14, 2003
Posts: 2378
|
In reply to: I won't say a thing about Pentax's lack of a pro body since the LX, or their autofocus system, or their dealer network, but Pentax's comittment to k-mount backwards compatability is refressing and the new K100d sure looks like a nice camera.
Let me address your misinformed statement:
I should add that neither canon nor nikon make/made a medium format system. When they do let me know. Pentax has always said it doesn't consider 35mm professional and this isn't something it came up with after it lost the 35mm war. To a point I'd have to agree. That said, while I will eventually invest in a medium format system I don't intend on carrying one climbing with me. BTW, take a look at the credits for a large percent of pro medium format photos in the big mags. Very, very, often it's a pentax body and lens.
LX was a great camera and better then anything Nikon or Canon produced at the time. Unfortunately they threw in the towel on competing with the big two in 35mm. The PZ-1 was also a pro level camera. Look at the specs vs. canon at the time it was released (4.5fps built in and a real spot meter). However, it was also for all purposes MF which was disappointing for a 35mm camera in 1995. And the MZ-S was again a very capable pro body with a sound AF system. Solidly built and a joy to handle. So Pentax has had 3 pro level SLR's not just one.
http://enzzo.ms-06s.org/mzs&20mm-2.jpg
The 77mm Limited compared to Zeiss, not Canon L.
http://www.pentax.se/...images/large/775.jpg
The 31mm Limited, again not compared to Canon L. In a different class.
http://www.pricescan.com/...s/ImagesL/519811.jpg
In anycase while I will agree that the Pentax AF is still at least 3rd (perhaps 4th or 5th) behind Nikon and Canon the current Safox system is quite good.
The K100D is a entry level camera with IS, but Pentax is releasing a 10MP camera this October. And yes it will once again be compatible with the whole line of lenses from screw mounts to modern AF's. Nikon and Pentax have a history of supporting there glass and I would hope that won't change. I should also note that quite a few canon users by M42 adapters to use pentax screwmounts on their canons.
By the way, I agree a big white lens is essential for good photography, and I think that is the point of this thread.
http://www.markcassino.com/essays/w07.jpg
http://k47.pbase.com/....XqbeUQQd.thegun.jpg
http://i.pbase.com/...pzNq.biglensshot.jpg
Looks kinda crazy next to the mens canons. they should have a little girls section for everyone else.
http://k47.pbase.com/...4M.leadinthepack.jpg
|
|
|
|
|
dbrayack
Aug 8, 2006, 2:43 PM
Post #8 of 17
(3848 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 1260
|
HELLLLLLOOO PEOPEL, THIS ISN'T A POST ABOUT WHICH LENS IS BETTER, The dude's asking about the particular lens.
Sheesh.
I'm kinda curious myself, anyone have the lens, like it, not like it etc etc?
-Danno
|
|
|
|
|
pico23
Aug 9, 2006, 2:47 AM
Post #9 of 17
(3848 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 14, 2003
Posts: 2378
|
hey...you don't understand...read between the lines...OR
"Only Canon makes good lenses"
"All Canon lenses must be good, I see them at the Olympics"
With logic like that how can you argue.
To summarize, Tokina is crap because read above.
|
|
|
|
|
aja
Aug 10, 2006, 8:55 PM
Post #10 of 17
(3848 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 25, 2005
Posts: 15
|
Yeah man...I could care less who prefers Canon over Pentax. I shoot w/ a Nikon anyways. BUT...that's not what I was asking.
Doesn't matter, I did my research and found a new wide angle lens that I'm rather content with.
Thanks for all the hot air guys, the pics are GREAT! hahahaha. :P
And thank you, dbrayack for clarifying my post. I was trying to hold back as long as I could.
I'm really a chick, but dude is okay too :wink:
peace,
Andrea'
|
|
|
|
|
pico23
Aug 11, 2006, 5:49 AM
Post #11 of 17
(3848 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 14, 2003
Posts: 2378
|
so aja which lens did you decide on afterall?
fill us in!!!
|
|
|
|
|
herre
Aug 23, 2006, 9:36 AM
Post #12 of 17
(3848 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 17, 2005
Posts: 16
|
I have the tokina 12-24mm.
I bought it because:
1) i didn't had the money for a wide angle lens of nikon, canon, whatever...
2) i thought the reviews where better for the tokina than for the sigma equivalent lense
3) my amateur eye can't see the difference between the nikon wide angle and the tokina wide angle.
Negative point: the weight... climbing with a heavy lens in hard routes is a bit tricky.
I like the extreme wide angle part of the lens, so I shoot mostly at 12mm (wich is converted tot 18mm due to my nikon d50 body).
I climb with it in snow, ice and rock. The images are sharp enough for me, and for what I expected from it.
If I had to buy a wide angle lens again, I would buy the same one.
In comparison to the sigma equivalent, the colors are warmer, and the sun makes a more beautifull star when shooting directly into the light. (My climbing mate has the sigma lense).
I use always a circular polarizer (B+W) or a Skylight-filter (B+W) with it.
Some examples I made with the tokina lens:
http://www.hermandesmet.be/...nce/fotos/foto31.jpg
http://www.hermandesmet.be/...nce/fotos/foto27.jpg
http://www.hermandesmet.be/...via/fotos/foto20.jpg
http://www.hermandesmet.be/...via/fotos/foto22.jpg
http://www.hermandesmet.be/...via/fotos/foto29.jpg
Hope this helps.
Herre
PS: more pictures at http://www.hermandesmet.be
|
|
|
|
|
herre
Aug 23, 2006, 9:40 AM
Post #13 of 17
(3848 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 17, 2005
Posts: 16
|
Okay it's too late, but here my contribution.
I have the tokina 12-24mm.
I bought it because:
1) i didn't had the money for a wide angle lens of nikon, canon, whatever...
2) i thought the reviews where better for the tokina than for the sigma equivalent lense
3) my amateur eye can't see the difference between the nikon wide angle and the tokina wide angle.
Negative point: the weight... climbing with a heavy lens in hard routes is a bit tricky.
I like the extreme wide angle part of the lens, so I shoot mostly at 12mm (wich is converted tot 18mm due to my nikon d50 body).
I climb with it in snow, ice and rock. The images are sharp enough for me, and for what I expected from it.
If I had to buy a wide angle lens again, I would buy the same one.
In comparison to the sigma equivalent, the colors are warmer, and the sun makes a more beautifull star when shooting directly into the light. (My climbing mate has the sigma lense).
I use always a circular polarizer (B+W) or a Skylight-filter (B+W) with it.
Some examples I made with the tokina lens:
http://www.hermandesmet.be/...nce/fotos/foto31.jpg
http://www.hermandesmet.be/...nce/fotos/foto27.jpg
http://www.hermandesmet.be/...via/fotos/foto20.jpg
http://www.hermandesmet.be/...via/fotos/foto22.jpg
http://www.hermandesmet.be/...via/fotos/foto29.jpg
Hope this helps.
Herre
PS: more pictures at http://www.hermandesmet.be
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
fourfa
Aug 31, 2006, 12:02 AM
Post #15 of 17
(3848 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 24, 2005
Posts: 39
|
most (all?) reviews say this lens is excellent optically, and outstanding value. To be sure there are tons of shit third-party lenses out there, but this isn't one of them.
I had the Nikon 12-24 before the tokina existed. But comparing them later on, there's little to no difference between them. Ken Rockwell's results match mine.
|
|
|
|
|
nefarius
Oct 2, 2006, 6:52 PM
Post #16 of 17
(3848 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 6, 2003
Posts: 128
|
I have this lens and it's a fine lens. It's frequently regarded as the sharpest of the bunch (UW lenses). The lens is plenty sharp, even wide open. It's as sharp as the 50mm 1.8, which is frequently compared to Canon's "L" glass.
The Canon 10-22mm is crap. It's also WAY overpriced crap. About as sharp as a kit lens with the same construction. Yet, it's $800? This poor "I saw big white lenses at such and such event, so canon makes the best" attitude is what has allowed them to produce this kinda crap and overcharge everyone.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
