John Wall's detailed post regarding the Tokina 20-35/2.8 reminds me of my experience with a Tamron 70-210/2.8. The Tamron was quite good optically, but you have to slide a sleeve back to focus manually. Then you sort of reach down into a trough to focus. This was enough of a difference in operation that I eventually replaced the Tamron with Nikon's 80-200/2.8 (when they finally added a tripod collar.) I realize now that using only Nikkors has the advantage that there's some consistency in the mechanical interfaces. Infinity focus is all the same direction - there used to be some consistency in filter sizes , etc. All these are little things, but I appreciate have things work and feel pretty much the same regardless of which lens I happen to have on the camera. When the lights good and things are changing fast I want to concentrate on the subject not the tools I'm using. >Date: Tue, 09 Mar 1999 10:53:14 -0500 >From: "John N. Wall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: Re: Tokina 20-35 f 2.8 [v04.n292/8] >Message: 8 >On the Tokina 20-35 f 2.8 zoom >This lens is apparently optically very fine, exceptionally close to the >Nikkor in quality. >It is also very solidly and professionally made. Someone put it right >when he wrote that this lens is certainly up to professional standards >in optical and build quality. > >It has one quirk that needs to be understood before one buys it. In >playing with this lens, I found this quirk tricky and frustrating. It >also raised durability questions for me.
