Thanks for the question. I shoot with a crop sensor, so I can't give you a straight answer. But on my analog 35mm camera, the corners also looked very sharp. But sometimes you have to stop down to f5.6.
Nothing is sharp on this lens in todays standards, neither the center nor the corners. But if you stop it down it's okay. And if you buy vintage stuff like this, sharpness is not what you should be seeking it for.
@@elitefamilyparkourThanks for your comment. I tested the lens actually today on my lumix s5ii in 6k og and at f5.6 the corners were very sharp. I think nobody would see the difference between a modern lens.
No, they shot the movie with expensive Kowa and Hawk anamorphics. But the Tokina lens has very similar characteristics when it comes to the lens flares ;).
Since when as knowing anything been a requirement for posting an equipment review on YT? There was a run n making 17mm and 18mm primes like this in the late 1970s and early1980s. Those from Olympus and Minolta were distinctly inferior. The 18mm from Nikon was superior in the day, but isn't considered all that good compared to modern lenses. Tamron made a 17mm as part of its SP Adaptall II system which is about the same as the Tokina in sharpness, but better in contrast and does not suffer the distortion and massive lens flare of the Tokina. All of these lenses have been superseded but later designs using new types of glass and coatings. I keep my Tamron 17mm because I almost never use this wide a focal length, and it is good enough when I do.
1:54 I love this shot. Nice review!
Thank you
What about the corners (sharpness)?
Thanks for the question. I shoot with a crop sensor, so I can't give you a straight answer. But on my analog 35mm camera, the corners also looked very sharp. But sometimes you have to stop down to f5.6.
Nothing is sharp on this lens in todays standards, neither the center nor the corners. But if you stop it down it's okay. And if you buy vintage stuff like this, sharpness is not what you should be seeking it for.
@@elitefamilyparkourThanks for your comment. I tested the lens actually today on my lumix s5ii in 6k og and at f5.6 the corners were very sharp. I think nobody would see the difference between a modern lens.
@@omenka Well then I must hav a bad copy cause if I compare it to my Batis 18mm or the Sony 16-35mm its definitely noticeably less sharp.
@@elitefamilyparkour You are probably right, but these lenses are too sharp for cinematic filmmaking and absolut overkill, when it comes to sharpness.
Did they use the Tokina 17mm in Moonlight????
No, they shot the movie with expensive Kowa and Hawk anamorphics. But the Tokina lens has very similar characteristics when it comes to the lens flares ;).
@@omenka I see.
The AT-X Pro version is really good
i never tested the lens, but it sounds very good :)
Thanks for the video.
I use a 14mm f/2.8 Nikkor on my full-frame cameras.
It is my widest wide-angle.
Thanks for commenting. Sounds like a great lens!
great review
Thanks!
Nice Video💪🔥
Thank you!
Are you SURE you're qualified to claim you know what lens THE best lens is :p ?
Nice vid though, the clickbait worked on me ;p
Haha, the best I have ever used ;)
Since when as knowing anything been a requirement for posting an equipment review on YT? There was a run n making 17mm and 18mm primes like this in the late 1970s and early1980s. Those from Olympus and Minolta were distinctly inferior. The 18mm from Nikon was superior in the day, but isn't considered all that good compared to modern lenses. Tamron made a 17mm as part of its SP Adaptall II system which is about the same as the Tokina in sharpness, but better in contrast and does not suffer the distortion and massive lens flare of the Tokina. All of these lenses have been superseded but later designs using new types of glass and coatings. I keep my Tamron 17mm because I almost never use this wide a focal length, and it is good enough when I do.