Tokina 17mm/3.5 RMC Manual Focus Lens

Larry, in the late 70s and early 80s, I had a 17mm f/3.5 Tokina in a Minolta MD mount. While I can't answer all of your questions, it was a very good ultrawide for its time- and reasonable price, but its design has since been eclipsed by aspherical lenses, like the 18mm f/2.8 AFD Nikkor.

If you stopped down two to three f/stops, the lens was pretty sharp from edge to edge. However, the lens lacked edge sharpness at and around maximum aperture and I doubt that the Tokina lens would be precise enough for astrophotography

I've been in the camera business for 25 years and we sold the both the Tokina and Tamron 17mm f/3.5 lenses. The Tamron lens was somewhat larger thant the Tokina MF lens, as the Tamron had an internal set of rotating filters. I did not regard the Tamron as being as sharp as the Tokina- and I had the ability to buy either lens at dealer net.

I would note that used Tokina 17mm f/3.5 MF lenses seem to be selling in the $100-150 range on ebay. For that price, you could see how you like the lens and sell it without too much of a loss if you didn't care for it.

I was going to post a couple of samples, but can't in this forum; so, I'll email them to you.

It's still a good lens for it's price (probably $120-150 on the used market in excellent shape) and still better than any consumer zoom down at 17mm. IMHO It's pointless to compare this to a $600-1000 current prime, because the cost is so much less.

I personally greatly prefer it to the Tamron 17mm f3.5, but I suspect that my sample of the Tamron is below par, based on the good things I've heard others say. I think 17mm is a reasonable next wide after a 24mm.

One thing that I have never done with any of these lenses is astrophotgraphy, however, and that is a VERY demanding application with respect to how well centered the optic is, and how well corrected for spherical and chromatic aberations, so I really don't know the answer for that specific use. For general purpose ultra-wide shooting, it's quite sufficient for an inexpensive lens.

I like and hate my Tokina 17mm f/3.5 RMC.

Answering your questions:

- Don�t know about ATX AF optical formula, but would like to know too.

- Mine doesn�t have click stops at f/4 and f/4.5, they are full f/3.5 - f/5.6 - f/8 - f/11 - f/16.

- Don�t know about Minolta and Tamron 17mm.

- The jump from 17mm to 28mm (my other lens) is big!

About my toughts... At f/3.5 the lens is very sharp on the center and not so much on corners, and has light fall off. At f/5.6 it becomes better, at f/8 even better. At f/11 or f/16 I haven�t tested yet, my sample has some problems, at f/11 it underexposes -0.3EV and about f/16 -0.7EV. So I avoid those apertures.

Have I said at f/3.5 it is more like a f/4? Compared side by side with my Nikon 28mm with slide film.

At very far corners there is some chromatic aberration in all apertures. The lens has barrel distortion (the worst problem I found), and it flares a bit with sun in the corners. What I really like about this lens is the angle of view and the sharpness. Tomorrow will try to post some samples/crops to show what I am talking about.

Here is a color picture, scanned with Minolta IV without any correction (except color):

Sorry, I will send to your e-mail, can�t believe I can�t post some pictures here, it would be quite useful for some people!

Thank you to Eric, Douglas and Flavio. I have not had a chance yet to check my home email, but thanks for sending me the pix. From your descriptions, I may pass on this lens because you say it is not great wide open. But everyone said it is a lot better than the Tamron and a lot cheaper than the Rokkor (if I could even find one). So I may go for it, just to extend my range of lenses (but that just sounds like lens acquisition syndrome). Already, I range from 24mm -200mm, with no lenses slower than f/2.8. That should probably suffice. Again, thanks for your responses.

Hi: I have experience using both Tokina 17mm and Minolta MD 20mm and so can give you my own assessment of the lens. I am very impressed by the Tokina lens when compared to my old Nikon 20mm F3.5. The Tokina is sharper in all aspects. In fact, in the most recent issue of German photography magazine Foto Magazine, which included test results of 400 lenses, the 17mm SL is given an optical rating of 9.4, the same as the Nikkor 20mm F2.8.

Although the Tokina 17mm is very good, I thought that perhaps the Minolta 17mm was even better. It is difficult to find one. So by chance I got a MD 20mm. I was expecting bettter optical performance than the lowly Tokina. However, through side by side comparisons there was little if any difference in terms of resolution and contrast. The only difference is the MD 20mm has better details in the dark areas.

Since the 17mm F4 is a much older design than the MD 20mm, dating back to the 1960s, the 17mm cannot be better than the 20mm. As a rule almost all MD equavalent lenses perform better than the MC ones, although the build quality is a different story. Therefore, if according to my informal test the Tokina 17mm performs at well as the MD 20mm, it should at least equal the Minolta 17mm.

As a result of this test, I stopped looking for a Minolta 17mm since I know it won't be better than the Tokina. Second, I sold my MD 20mm since the Tokina is equally good and wider.

Hi: Perhaps I should add a little more discussion of Tokina 17mm RMC. At f3.5 the image quality is pretty average. The Minolta 17mm at F4 could be better. However, at F5.6 and on the image quality is very outstanding.

I have heard of sample variations in terms of quality for this lens. I have a friend who used to have the lens and complained it was not sharp. Now he uses a Zeiss 18mm. However, according to the Foto Magazine, the Tokina and the Zeiss both have the same 9.4 optical rating. I guess whether you can get a good copy of the lens needs a little luck. I must have gotten a really good sample.