possess the lens January-2013.
A WW was missing in my lens-Park and is in certain situations not to ersezten (in my experience, not by assembling images for panorama). I'm not an outspoken WW type, have the large viewing angle so my problems in image composition and Scan also eg landscapes often with >> 24mm. Nevertheless, a WW also offers unique opportunities so that I wanted to have one. Due to the close (for me) applications I did not spend so much money for a EF-S 10-22 by Canon (which I also still than plastic moderately feel ...).
I love solid constructions and have the photograph like a little something in hand
- For processing and stability given the Tokina full marks, it is my L lenses in this respect in every way. (OK, agbesehen thereof that is not sealed it ...)
What I do not like so much the sliding ring to switch from manual focus to AF.
If I focus with the AF and then power down for him the picture I'm never sure the focus by pulling the ring not yet adjusted to have.
In the sharpness it has a WW by design heavier than a Tele (It does "more" image and light it get on the same imaging surface), this circumstance flows in my assessment.
I find the lens at F4 to focus with perceptible CA in the border area (am no pixel fanatics ...) and use it therefore always with F5.6 or F8 still prefer. That's when the principal purpose of a WW (Panorama) possibly with Tripod no problem and the images are then also for my purposes absolutely OK. With Flares I had provided no / little problems, though I also like taking pictures against the light. AF operates reliably and quickly.
I like to take pictures with the Tokina and would not miss it!
Which of course I miss (Attention unjust comparison!) Is the "Woah" sharpness of 100mm 2.8L Macro.
I have recommended no comparison to other WW lenses, according to my standards, the Tokina is for the price, the image quality and especially the excellent solidity.
