17 tokina or 18 distagon or

ante_portas

Active Member
Hi dear contaxians :),
I am deciding which *super* wide lens would be best for me. I want something more wide than 20mm. There is not many lenses I can choose. I have nothing against distagon 18/4, but (only) filter size is really huge! Over 80, -86mm I think or so. And I want to buy 4, 5 filters at least.
I have heard that MF tokina 17/3,5- filter size 67mm, is also perfect glass (e.g. over 9 ratings from 10, super- FM, deutchland). Have no experiences with both. (i am planning to do 70% landscape, 30% document-people, moments etc. with the lens)
Anyone has experiences with it?, I want to do *large* photos, 60*45cm or so, MC quality is also important for me.
Please send me few lines of your comments, I will be delighted.
Thank you, Pavel
ps: ante_portas@hotmail.com
 

matthias

Active Member
Did you consider the 3.5/15 ? Built in-Filters (no Polarizer, as far as i know), excellent quality.

And the faces of the people when seeing this huge lens (but you will need a second body with a portrait lens) !

matthias
 

ante_portas

Active Member
Hi Matthias,
yeah I considered but not long :)) ( a little bit expensive for me. I am using 70-80% telelenses, so the wide lens will not certainly became my No.1. But I believe that 15 is excellent
And 15mm is maybe too wide for me. A friend of mine has 15 (heliar) and he always shoots also his own shoes..:)
For portrait i have 135, or 50+2x convertor, or also 28-70 etc. In fact, you can do a portrait with anyone lens....if you know how.
Thanks Pavel
ps: maybe sigma or tamron has similar product, I do not know them too- opticaly.
ps:How works built in filters I do not know, only I am guessing....
 

rico

Well-Known Member
Pavel,

In general, I shoot either wide or wider.
The ideal use for ultra-wide rectilinears is straight-line architecture: I live in Chicago and use the 21mm. For people pictures, this kind of lens will cause horrible distortions unless everyone is kept in the center of the frame. Similarly, landscapes can appear odd, and the Cos^4 Law mandates a significant light fall-off, regardless of aperture.

Which brings me to the fisheye. This lens is well-suited to landscape, curved subjects, and groupings of people. I even do "environmental" portraits, meaning the person is kept at a distance of two metres. This lens is much smaller than the 15mm, and quite affordable 2nd-hand. Illumination and sharpness is awesome. Four filters are inbuilt: UV and three colors.

Based on images directly from Canon DSLRs, I observe too much chromatic aberration from the Tokina 17mm, even with 1.6x sensor crop. Carl Zeiss would not approve!
 

swoolf

Well-Known Member
> I have heard that MF tokina 17/3,5- filter size 67mm, is also perfect> glass (e.g. over 9 ratings from 10, super- FM, deutchland).

I nearly bought one of these but was put off by a couple of people who had actually used one saying that the quality was not very good at all - fine if you need that length for the occasional shot , but better to spend money on something better if you will use it alot . Steve
 

paulcontax

Well-Known Member
I have heard that MF tokina 17/3,5- filter size 67mm, is also perfect glass (e.g. over 9 ratings from 10, super- FM, deutchland). > I nearly bought one of these but was put off by a couple of people who had actually used one saying that the quality was not very good at all - fine if you need that length for the occasional shot , but better to spend money on something better if you will use it alot .

I agree: I once bought this lens with a RTS II and some other lenses. The Tokina is really soft wide open and I really thought it must have been haze or so but - shots from the same day with my Distagon 28mm showed me the difference ! The HUGE difference ! The Tokina is quite o.k.if you can stop it down to 8 or 11 - but nothing like the Zeiss-lenses ! You mentioned the problem with 15mm-lenses where you had to take care of your feet. I think you have to pay attention with 17mm as well...... By the way : I used to take a Carl Zeiss Jena Flektogon 2.8/20 with M42-lens mount (screw in) with had far better results than the Tokina ! Paul
 

ante_portas

Active Member
Hi Paul and everybody,
it seems you all do not share ethusiasm for Tokina....:) thats surprises me...:-o
It is true that CZ Jena could be also posibility (simple reduction for M42), some older member in my fotoclub had a good memories for this glass, but concerning MC layers...one have to be observant to aginst-light, even it is Flektogon modell with MC (the newer).
If you put Flektogon between Distagon and Tokina, I would say before, that Tokina must be better, (newer modell, newer MC etc.) but you do not. Interesting, indeed....

Concerning sharpness, I find important that wide lens must be able to be *edge cutting* from minimum aperture; nothing like at 8 or 11 and then its good... such lens is worthless.
Tamron has also 17/3,5 as I found. But in tests Tamron has worst results than tokina. Is there also a Sigma for Contax? Sigma also produce some very good lenses, doesn’t it? I do not know if distagon can be fully exploit for its price. And planar 50 has better results than d18!
Pavel
anybody else knows lenses mentioned above?
 
P

pelmo

Hi all Tokina/Flektogon enemies/friends:

I´ve used both of these lenses (RMC Tokina 3.5/17mm, CZJ Flektogon MC 2.8/20mm)and have compared Tokina 17mm to D18.
Flektogon is the worst. Even the "bad" D25 blew it off miles away in direct comparison in respect of sharpness, contrast and colour rendition.
17mm Tokina comes close to D18, sharpness is slightly worse, also contrast, but distortion is clearly visible, edges are not really sharp.
I found 17mm Tokina acceptable and definitely better than Flektogon 20mm. But I suppose that there exist various batches of these lenses with differing optical performance.
Now I found the optimal solution and bought a D21.

Dieter
 

paulcontax

Well-Known Member
Hi Pavel,=20

of course there are other lenses esp. from Sigma which have to be concerne= d. The Sigmas are well reputated and I have my experiences with the 18-35 = asph. Zoom for my AF-SLR (I have more than one SLR...) :

Wide open it's better than the Tokina 17mm was (although only 18mm) but yo= u need just 1 stop down (that's 4,5 with 18 mm) and then you have really g= ood results ! O.K. - not to compare with a Zeiss-lens but the difference in price may be= worth it =3F The newest Sigma wideangle lenses should be even better....
 

ante_portas

Active Member
Just remark, prices of Tokina (second hand, but good condition, no scratches etc...glass untouched) is aprox. 2,5-3x cheaper than d18 in the same condition. Then D18 should be more then 3x *better* otherwise it is no worth to buy it from this point of view...
FM (fotomagazin)from D comments this glass, in summary (among other things): *ein Spitzenobjektiv* ; and Tokina has better tested parameters then Sigma 18-35.
Your comments?
 

paulcontax

Well-Known Member
Hi Pavel,

I once used the Tokina (2 different types, one for Contax and one for Pentax).

I was not as satisfied with it as has to be expected with such a voterom fotomagazin.

I am using the Sigma 3.5-4.5/18-35 now and it is much better than the Tokina ! Sharper and esp. more contrast !

I can recommend this lens !

Paul
 

crocus63

Well-Known Member
Paval, I have not used the Tokina nor the Zeiss but have used the focal lengths in question. If you consistently reach in your bag for a 17/18 or wish you've had it on your camera most of the time, you should spend the extra $ for the 18 Distagon. I have a preference with wide angles myself but do not use anything less than 21/24 most of the time.

>
 
D

davidfung

Yes, I would love to hear about the differences between the various wide angles. What is this FM comments? Are they posted earlier?
 
D

davidfung

Gary, just wondering, if you had a choice between a 18 with 28 combo or a 21 only, which would you choose. Background, I am trying to determine my Contax outfit. I have narrowed my wide angles to either a 21, or a 18 with 28. I enjoy street, urban and architectural photography. I am planning on as few lenses as possible... the others being 50/1.4 and 85/1.4... What do you think?
 
H

herbi

\/--\/-- >Pavel - first point: the world of quality is not linear... When you pay 100 for a product with 75% of the technically possible quality level (*state of the art*) you pay typically 1000 for the 99,8%- product. That is not only true for optical products, but also for everything else (cars, HiFi....). If you find a product, which gives you 99% at price of 150 (which happens from time to time) this is an absolute high- flyer and exception, and everybody shout catch it!

second point: most cheaper products have larger scattering in their individual s&le-quality! (The good news about CZ and Leica performance is, that you can really rely on the level they claim!) Unfortunately (I own one!) my s&le of the Tokina 17mm is not such a high-flyer. It is a pretty mediocre lens - to be still polite! I criticise the methods of FM and others in that respect, that they do not take the benchmark serious. They should know, that an exceptional result always creates good selling rates with that special product. At least in such an extraordinary result, they should test one or two other s&les (anonymous ones from the market!!!) befor they publish an exceptional test result - because these third party- makers do not claim a specified quality for their products! I can only recommend everybody to test a specific s&le to find out wether it fulfills ones personal expectations!

third point: unfortunately not even the CZ 4/18 is an exceptionally good lens and not up to many other CZ lenses in optical performance. My s&le of Olympus OM 3,5/18mm is very much better (at 1/10 of the geometrical space...) than the CZ 18mm.

fourth point: I recommend the Sigma 15-30mm WA-zoom. I tested two and own one now - they were equal in their high performance! I tested it again and again - because I could not believe it! More good news: the short focal length is the better end of the - nearly uniform - zoom range. And not only the resolution and color transmission is fine - it has probably the lowest degree of vignetting (even wide open) of any lens even in fixed focal length in the 15mm to 21 mm focal length range. And that is worth a lot! (Distortion is not a point for me - in that all zooms are bad....) You get this lens at pretty low price in eBay... if you are patient! This lens is extremly bulky (though lightweight) - but worth every ccm to carry around! Regards Herbert
 
H

herbi

\/--\/-- Sorry for a silly recommendation, if that lens is not available for CZ or Contax-N.... I really do not know it! (I use it on my Canon EOS-cameras...) So forget that part of my mail in that case....

Small piece of explanation: I am not really bonded to a SLR- system, for me the lens counts! That is why I came to CZ- lenses (the 4/18 being the only one that disapointed me in this league!). I try to get and use whatever has been proven excellent in the last 40 years.... Herbert
 

nickser

Well-Known Member
Hi Herbert,
It is a pity there are so few quality lenses for the C/Y fittings these days. Wouldn't it be nice if Zeiss did a set of lenses to suit all the quality bodies, sort of like the Tamron mount. Then we could pick and choose for the shot we want.
Paul
 
H

herbi

\/--\/-- >Sorry for a silly recommendation, if that lens is not available for CZ or Contax-N.... I really do not know it! (I use it on my Canon EOS-cameras...) So forget that part of my mail in that case.... >Small piece of explanation: I am not really bonded to a SLR- system, for me the lens counts! That is why I came to CZ- lenses (the 4/18 being the only one that disapointed me in this league!). I try to get and use whatever has been proven excellent in the last 40 years....

Here I spoke about the Sigma 15-30 mm WA-zoom. And of course meant C/Y or N-mount in the last mail.... Herbert
 

ante_portas

Active Member
FM Comments mean comments from German PhotoMagazin. I consider it is more respectable and accurate testing than photodo, where is only a rating-number without long explanations. You can find there also commentary to single parts of tested lens. BTW, I have bought a couple of lenses and rating is not far from my opinion.
To be precise, lets compare: final rating- 10of 10 is most)
Zeiss distagon 18/4: Excellent optical output, also at minimum aperture , A Superlens, vignetation very slight, distortion very slight optical/ mechanical 9.8/9.4
Zeiss distagon T* 21/2.8 Sharpness and brillance very good at open aperture and large apert.numbers R: 94%, G100%, B: 83%, Vignetation slight, barrel distortion become to edge slight only, 9,4/9,4
and last Tokina 3,5/17 MF Very sharp lens and brillance also at open aperture , slight vignetation, otherwise is not disturbing, distortion slight 9,4/9,2.
All mentioned lenses have also 5 stars of 5.
I am only hestitating wheather rating is respecting other aspects, as price. Tokina 17 has 9,4 (optic output, 35-135 Zeiss 9,2), but Zeiss is nearly 6x expensive. Maybe they respect price,
also ich suche Deutsche, der kennt FM und kann diese Bewertungen glossieren.
Anyway, practice experiences are welcome as well, thats because I am puting this all above here.
Pavel
PS: In this point of view is d18/4 perfect lens, better than 21/2.8...
 
Top