DPR Forum

Welcome to the Friendly Aisles!
DPRF is a photography forum with people from all over the world freely sharing their knowledge and love of photography. Everybody is welcome, from beginners to the experienced professional. Whether it is Medium Format, fullframe, APS-C, MFT or smaller formats. Digital or film. DPRF is a forum for everybody and for every format.
Enjoy this modern, easy to use software. Look also at our Reviews & Gallery!

17 tokina or 18 distagon or

\/--\/-- >Hello pavel! Most opinions I have read about the two lenses - CZ 4/18 and CZ 2,8/21mm - say the opposite: the 21 mm is better. And that is also my own opinion. The problem of FMs rating is, that all lenses, which are better than the bottom of a bottle are crowding between 8.8 and 10. I have not understood, how they rate. I do not think, price goes into it - that would be stupid! A consumer wants the jutgment on the real properties of a product. He knows the price himself - so he can then create his own opinion about performance/price-ratio! I will tell you as soon as I have found out.... In their verbal comments you can see, that they never want to hurt anybody.... I found their rating is a certain guideline - but it is not much more reliable than photodo... Sometimes I find it confirmed, sometimes obviously not. I really cry after the old times of "Modern Photography". American testers seem to look much more realistic onto the products. Good luck with all the confusion! Herbert
 
It seems that the 18/4 is a good lens, and holds it own against other comparitve focal length lenses. However, the 21/2.8 seems to be an excellent lens that is head and shoulders above the other 21. I have a fairly good price for a 18/4 and a fairly bad price for a 21/2.8, will the 18 disappoint at the end of the day?
 
Hi Pavel,

I don't think that fm is more reliable than any other photo magazin.

I always compared the test results with the other german major magazin (color foto[=cf]) and they often differed very much - fm rating a lens suberb when cf found it quite bad and vice versa.

I also don't think that photodo is always true....

I made several experiences which differ quite a bit from their test results - maybe that was always because of different production qualities (do you believe that - I don't).

So I would go the way you took : Ask some people who have made experiences on their own.

(I gave you mine...)

Best wishes

Paul
 
For those on a tight budget (retired people like me) it could be worth looking at the Exacta 18-28mm f4 to 4.5 zoom which is available in C/Y = fit albeit only AE which on my RX restricts me to aperture priority or = manual. Given the price (Euro150) I did not expect much and on the first lens I = was sent by FotoWalser I was right, also the focus distances were way out. = The replacement was astonishingly good and I have ended up using it a lot = more than I thought. I am told there is also a Cosina 19-35mm lens out there which is also not too bad. On the subject of cheap C/Y lenses, I bought = the Zenit 16mm fish-eye. It's OK if you regard it as an amusing toy and use = it in bright sunlight at small aperture openings but as a serious lens - = forget it. Best regards=20
 
> Having taken the 18/4 all over the world, I can absolutely say it's a great lens and real image saver. While the 21/2.8 is faster and that is a real consideration, it is much larger and heavier. Most of my indoor shots are taken with either a monopod or tripod. In those few cases where I didn't have either, a door jam or pillar provided support. Also the use of the self timer or mirror lock up helped considerably. Outdoors the slow speed wasn't a factor. I can't stress enough the importance of a monopod/tripod. What looks sharp at 8X10 falls apart quickly at 16X20 or larger regardless of how carefully Zeiss designs a lens.

Many of my "money" shots were printed onto an interneg first to keep the tonal scale and grain detail. Some day I may invest in a scanner so I'll be able to share some images.
 
I have a Tokina RMC 17/3.5 and I like it very much. You are right though that it is not good wide open. OK at 5.6 and very good above that.
Cheers,
Mark
 
I also have a Tokina 17/3.5 which unfortunately is very soft (blurry actually) in one corner. The remainder of the image is very sharp. I've cleaned the front and rear elements with no improvement. The mount is also VERY tight on my RX.

Because of the softness and imprecise mount, I cannot recommend this lens. I have other Tokina lenses that I like very much. Overall, Tokina is still my favorite third party manufacturer. (The 17 is a wonderful focal length however.)

David
 
Just a remark,
to people above who spoke about Tokina 17/3,5. There should be two versions of this glass. First, older, is not an MC lens, second shoud be multicoated. How to recognize them I do not know. Some glasses has RMC sign, if they differ from each other also in design - do not know about it, it is possible.
Type without MC should be much worst wide open- optically: ghosts, *softer sharpness* etc. maybe thats was lenses you spoke about (paul fox and some others..)
Pavel
 
Back
Top