A Site for Photographers by Photographers

Community > Forums > Canon EOS > Tokina 19-35mm f3.5-4.5 Vs...

Tokina 19-35mm f3.5-4.5 Vs Tokina 20-35mm F3.5-4.5 for Elan II

Sanath Perera , Apr 24, 2004; 12:40 p.m.

Is there is a big difference between these two lenses in terms of optical quality?

Tokina 19-35mm replaced Tokina 20-35mm. 20-35mm is heavier and better built. I can buy a new Tokina 19-35mm or a used Tokina 20-35mm for the same price. I am little uncomfortable buying a used Tokina 20- 35mm because KEH does not say whether they have the version I or II of the lens. I know version II is compatible with Elan II but does not whether version I is compatible or not. Also KEH have some lenses at 72mm filter size and others at 77mm filter size. I will prefer to buy the current model (19-35mm) new, unless 20-35mm is clearly better optically?


Robert Davis , Apr 24, 2004; 02:46 p.m.

Although I cannot give you an opinion on the 20-35mm version, I owned the 19-35mm version for more than a year. It worked well on my EOS 3 and I was impressed with the optical performance considering the price. My suggestion is, if the prices are similiar, why risk an incompatibility?

A word of advice -- treat the lens carefully. It isn't built very well (which is safe to assume considering the price). My version developed a small crack near the filer ring. It still worked well, but I know dust is getting in there.

Best of luck!

Rick Helmke , Apr 24, 2004; 04:15 p.m.

I can't speak to the 20-35 but the 19-35 is quite good. I am using it on a 300D, 10D and an Elan 7. It seems happy on all of them and has given tack sharp images. You can't argue the price. I think this is an often overlooked good deal for a lens in this category.

Rick H.

Jim Mueller , Apr 24, 2004; 05:18 p.m.

Canon also makes a 20-35 Zoom. I would be more inclined to buy the Canon Model.

Sanath Perera , Apr 24, 2004; 06:10 p.m.

Canon 20-35 is more twice the price of the Tokina 19-35. I hear they are similar in optical quality.

Volker Hett , Apr 24, 2004; 07:54 p.m.

I've got a 20-35 with 72mm filter for 89 Euro. Don't know if it's Mk1 or 2 but it works fine on my d60. Af is reasonably fast and a bit noisy compared to a Canon 20-35. I put up a gallery with my first pics here and some party pics here and here. Theres a lot of crap in the albums, I didn't have time to edit them and I hadn't had anything to bounce my 420ex to trick E-TTL.

Have fun

Canon D60, Tokina 20-35/f3.5-4.5, 420ex

Mikael Latorre , Apr 26, 2004; 04:48 a.m.

In that range I´ve used the Canon EF 16-35/2.8L USM, EF 17-35/2.8L USM, Canon EF 20-35/3.5-4.5 USM, Tokina AF 20-35/3.5-4.5 II and the Tokina AF 19-35/3.5-4.5.

If the Tokina AF 20-35/3.5-4.5 has an orange ring at the front It´s the mark II version, otherwise not.

This version is an excellent choice in this price range, a little bit noisy AF but it does the job well. It´s very well built and uses 77mm filters. I normally use It with a Hoya S-HMC Skylight 1B filter or a Hoya circular-polarizing filter, the normal one not the more expensive thin 3mm thick version. It works just fine.

The 20-35 doesn´t collect dust very easily, a big plus! Works well wide open but stopped down one or two stops make the pictures better. Closest focusing distance 0.40m, most of the time that´s close enough. The lens shade (for both 19-35 and 20-35) is not that great, they keep the light out fairly well but they can be a little bit loose. A thing that surprised me was that I didn´t get a wider view with the 19-35 than with my 20-35 ??? why?..I don´t know. I normally use my lenses with a Canon EOS 1V-HS body, so I have a 100% view In my viewfinder. My 19-35 lens was not at all as good as the 20-35 lens, In any way! The 20-35 was sharper, better built, didn´t vignette as easily as the 19-35, the AF worked a little bit faster. A better lens...I think. Maybe I got a good 20-35 sample and a bad 19-35 sample, I don´t know but I just tell you what i´ve experienced.

A few important things; If you can try the 19-35 and the 20-35 at the same place.

1: Check the AF speed, It should be more or less the same. If the 20-35 works more slowly, the Af could be fawlty. I would hesitate to buy it.

2: The used lens should not have a lot of dust inside(look through the lens) If It has, the former owner didn´t take enough care. Don´t buy it !

3: You really need the lens hood, the one I got with my lens is the BH-771. You can buy it separately but it´s not always easy to find. 4: It´s my experience that the 19-35 is an inferior lens, I wouldn´t buy It if I planned to keep the lens for a long time. It´s better to try and find a used Tokina AF 20-35/3.5-4.5 II or even better a Canon EF 20-35/3.5-4.5 USM, used or new.

5: If everything seems to be ok, buy it and enjoy!

Marco L , Nov 13, 2007; 08:43 a.m.

As this article is already old, i would just like to add a comment about the Tokina 20-35mm. First i didnt know which version I had, as i thought it was the 2nd version, while it has a orange ring.

While there are 2 versions of the 20-35mm 1:3.5-4.5, and BOTH have the orange ring in front. Now im the owner of both versions, and can tell the differences. 1.The differences are: 72mm (first version) vs 77mm (second version). 2.The older version has a DOF scale, while the II doesnt have this. 3.And the older version the front element rotates, where the IInd version doesnt. I hope you can now easily notice the difference between these 2. optical differnce i dont know, i didnt run a test.

Back to top

Notify me of Responses