Just got back from a two-day jaunt to Tijuana and back. Not really a
photographic trip, but I did carry the camera and 20-35/4, 35/2,
50/1.7 and 28-105/3.2-4.5 lenses. With the Pentax gear, this all fits
in a nice, small, light bag. Such a difference from trying to carry
my 10D in a similar manner!
All but 10 of the 80 exposures I made were made with the 20-35. (The
other 10 were made with the 35/2 and 28-105; the 50 never got out of
the bag.) This is a perfect focal length range for so much of my
photography, and the optical performance combined with the physically
small, non-intrusive size is a bang-on winner for me.
Switching to the FA35/2 AL, yes, the 35mm prime is a better performer
and made a couple of exposures that would have been difficult with
the f/4 lens. Only 1 stop faster on the Tokina compared to the
FA20-35/4 isn't enough to warrant the additional size and weight,
even if the Tokina is a good performer, IMO.
Godfrey
On Sep 10, 2005, at 10:48 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
Smaller, lighter lenses are preferable, but the extra stop of the
Tokina is
also desirable. Maybe I can find one somewhere and check the quality.
Working with a slower lens, if the quality (i.e., the desired
characteristics) is superior, is worthwhile. Thanks!
================================================
Frantisek wrote:
GD> I have no direct experience with the Tokina. However, on specs
alone,
GD> I wouldn't want the Tokina due to its size and weight.
Specs can be misleading. The Tokina is the smallest 2.8 wide zoom ever
produced, and for the speed and reach, it's quite small.Unfortunately,
the samples I have tried were quite bad on digital, with lot of purple
fringing and other failures. I have heard good things about it on
film, and one news shooter quite liked his paper's, so maybe it could
be worth a look. Perhaps it's sample variation, or whatever.
