Yes, he said the lens was more flare prone than a SMC lens.
One would have to assume under same conditions. Either
both using hoods or both not using hoods. If his
comparison was with hoods, then adding one didn't help
did it? If the comparison was without hoods my point
is yes, adding hoods may help but lenses that are worse
without hoods also almost always tend to me worse with
hoods too as image light can and does cause flare too
and hoods don't help that.
Yes, I said the lens is more flare prone than SMC lenses. I have not run comparison tests, as I don't waste my time in that kind of things. What I mean is that after hundreds or even thousands of shots with the Tokina ATX Pro II 28-70 2.6-2.8, Pentax FA 28-70 4.0, FA 28-80 3.5-4-7, F 35-70 3.5-4.5, F 35-80 4-5.6, and Tamron SP 24-135 3.5-5.6 AF; I found that the Tokina, in contre-jour shots or with the sun in the frame or near the border of the frame, flares more than the SMC Pentaxes and also a bit more than this particular Tamron lens, and the Tamron coatings are not equal to the ones on Pentax lenses, too, although marginally better than the ones applied to this Tokina lens. I think this is not a great surprise, as I have seen the same thing to be true when comparing Pentax lenses to Nikon or Canon objectives.
Once said that, I think that the Tokina is an excellent, sharp and well built lens, but these 28-70 or 28-80 2.8 zooms can't surpass the performance offered by the best primes, they always show bigger geometric distortion. This Tokina is almost as sharp as a prime. As William said, in most cases the barrel distortion of this lens, which is gone at the 35 mm. setting, is not apparent.
