On Sun, 24 Mar 2002 19:04:15 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Subject: EOS Tokina 17mm-good choice?
> Hi, > I was thinking about the Tokina AT-X 17 mm lens. > Is it a good choice? Or how about new Sigma > 15-30mm? New Canon 16-35L is a bit too expensive > for me, and 17-35L a lot of mixed reviews. So, > what is the best way to go beyond 20mm lens? > S. For almost the last 20 years I've owned a Tokina 17mm lens of one form or another. I started with a Canon FD model, went to a Nikon autofocus variety and back to Canon with the EOS model. Most of that time, the next widest lens I owned was a 28mm. While at many times I've wished I had a lens between 17mm and 28mm, I've never regretted owing one of these. 17 -> 28 is a big gap as far as angle of view goes - 104 degrees compared to 75 degrees (diagonal). Many times a bit of quick footwork has been able to get me to a spot which gave me the (narrower) view I wanted, but not always the perspective. The same field of view / area of coverage (not angle of view) with a 35mm lens gives a different perspective from the same field of view with a 17mm lens - the resulting photos can be quite different. So to an extent you CAN make up for the gap, but I've often wished for a zoom in that range. Of course there are times when that bit of footwork might take 10 minutes, so you make do :-) I had often given thought what would be most suitable as an intermediate lens, but never actually came up with an answer - 20mm is too close to 17mm and 24mm is too close to 28mm, so I never came up with a satisfactory answer - at least as far as prime lenses went. The 16-35 L lens seems to fill the gap (and more) quite nicely and produces EXCELLENT results. On the side of the prime, the 17mm is half the weight and size of the 16-35 which also means that you'r more likely to take it with you and it's less backbreaking when you do. It gives pretty impressive results. There are fewer design compromises in a prime than in a zoom, so they are more affordable while still giving great results. I have a 30 inch x 20 inch print on my wall taken with my first Canon FD Tokina 17 SL and at that size you can see some colour fringing at the corners (it's hard to correct that in an ultrawide - at least it was 15 years ago when I took the shot!) and the corners are not as sharp as the centre, but you have to be pretty close to see that AND it's a BIG print. They've also come quite a way in lens design since then - the AT-X model has aspheric elements etc to correct those problems, so while I don't have any prints as large from the AT-X, it's quality is at LEAST as good. The other advantage is that primes focus closer than zooms - most 17-35's etc only focus to 0.5m compared to 0.25m for the Tokina, so with the prime you can get the outrageous perspectives that an ultrawide can give. In the case of the 16-35 it focuses to 0.28m, but that's quite unusual for a zoom. A 17mm lens is great fun to play with - it can take a long time to fully appreciate their use and you need to be very careful with your composition, but whichever way you go, I can recommend the focal length. And also the Tokina AT-X. Regards Gary This mail has passed through an insecure network. All enquires should be directed to the message author. * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
