Tokina 17-35 f4

[tford]

I am just getting started in photography(as i have stated a few times here) and am wanting a wide angle zoom lens. My current camera is a Sony a6000. I have a few lenses at the moment(Nikon 28 f2.8 ais, Nikon 35-70 f2.8d af, Minolta 100 2.8 macro and Sony 50 f2.8 oss) and only one is auto focus(the Sony). I really enjoy manually focusing. So on to the question, can i manually focus the Tokina to infinity for landscape photos? I have read that you should let the auto focus do it but since i am not using a native camera body and i have to use an adapter i don't have this option. This lens was referred to my by a person here on this forum but i forgot to mention the camera i have.

And any personal reviews of this lens would be very helpful as well.

Thank you in advance for the help,
Thetford

[Donald]

Yes, you will be able to manually focus. Although it will be written that you should let auto focus do the work, there is nothing to stop you manually focusing with the lens.

[Stagecoach]

So on to the question, can i manually focus the Tokina to infinity for landscape photos? I have read that you should let the auto focus do it but since i am not using a native camera body and i have to use an adapter i don't have this option.

Thetford, your question appears ambigous

Are you asking;

a) If the lens can be mechanically focused, by rotating the focus barrel to infinity

or

b) If it's feasible to manually focus for landscape photography, and at 'infinity'

I ask because of your comment "I have read that you should let the auto focus do it".

Edit : Donald types faster than me.

[Donald]

Edit : Donald types faster than me.

But with more typos!!

[russellsnr]

Hi, Have to ask why you want to 'manually focus the Tokina to infinity for landscape photos?' If you focus at infinity then your forground is most likley to be OOF, the not sharp from back to front!!

[Krawuntzel]

Hello Thetford
I ask myself, why you would like to have this lens on your APS-C sensor? (equivalence 25.5 - 52.5mm) Or did I get something wrong?
Erwin

[tford]

I suppose i wasn't totally clear in my question, my apologizes. I am aware that i can mechanically manually focus the lens. The lens does not have a hard infinity stop on it. I am also aware of using hyperfocal distance for my focusing. I just wanted to make sure this is a feasible option for landscapes and manually focusing on said lens. Just in case no one knows about the Sony cameras, the have focus peaking(which is amazing for manual focusing) and a focus magnifier that is equally useful for manual focusing.

So ultimately my question is, would this be a good lens for landscape photography given the caveat that i have to manually focus.

Stagecoach, i am asking for landscape photos so everything in the frame is in focus.


As to the question from russellsnr, i have to manually focus because of the camera body i am using, Sony a6000(no auto focus available with adapter)




And to Krawuntzel, these are lenses that i am purchasing for my future camera body which will be a full frame camera. Besides i have seen many great landscapes with much longer focal lengths than the aps-c sensor corrected focal lengths of this lens as you described.

Thank you all for the replies.

[Donald]

So ultimately my question is, would this be a good lens for landscape photography given the caveat that i have to manually focus.

There are two questions contained in the above:-
1) Is the quality of the lens good enough and,
2) Is the 17-35 focal range okay for landscape work?


so:-
1) I have no information about the quality of this lens. I have the 11-16 f2.8 and it's a great lens.
2) Of course it's okay. Any length is okay. You will not be able to make images that you could do if you were using the 11-16mm, or if you were using a 100-400 telezoom. The point is that you will be using this lens and you will make the images from the scenes that can be captured well by this lens with the focal range that it offers. Nonsense about, 'Oh you need an ultra wide angle', or, 'You should have a mid-range zoom' are just that - nonsense. If you can afford these and you want them, then fine. If you can't and don't, then that's fine too.

[rpcrowe]

I used manual focus lenses for ages before I bought my first DSLR about the turn of the Century. In fact, I skipped an entire generation of auto focus Canon cameras (the EF film cameras with EOS lenses) because I was under the impression that I could do a better job focusing "than any darn auto system could".

I was dead wrong! Auto focus beat my manual focus AND those manual focus lenses and cameras were far superior for manual focusing than generally DSLR cameras and lenses are.

The manual focus cameras usually had better ground glass in the viewfinders. Some had interchangeable ground glass. While a few selected DSLR cameras have interchangeable ground glass and there are also some after-market additions to help manual focusing, generally DSLR cameras have non-interchangeable ground glass that is not optimized for manual focus.

Manual focus lenses usually had a longer rotation between close-up and infinity. This longer rotation allowed the photographer greater accuracy in manual focusing...

If a person prefers manual focus, that is fine and the prerogative of the photographer. However, I will never generally manually focus, although I will sometimes tweak the auto focus manually...

The wonderful selection of auto focus modes in my Canon 7D and the even better selection in the 7Dii has pretty well solidified my choice of auto focus forever...

Using autofocus in a shot like this is far-far easier than when I was manually focusing...



Using manual focus, I would usually prefocus on a specific point and wait until the subject came into that range. My 7D auto focus follows the subject as it moves towards ot away from me...

[tford]

Thank you Donald for the response. The Tokina 11-16 f2.8 you have, are you referring to the DX one? That's the only one i can find.

[Donald]

Yes, Thetford, that's it.

[rpcrowe]

Along the Tokina line; if I were looking for a W/A or UWA lens; I might additionally consider the new 12-28mm Tokina f/4. It is one stop slower than the 11-16 mm f/2.8 and there is one mm difference at the wide end. OTOH, most landscape photographers do not shoot wide open and the 12-28 mm focal range has an additional 12 mm on the long side.

The price of the 12-28 mm is $449 from Adorama in New York City. The 11-16 mm f/2.8 Tokina is just a few dollars more at $479. Since you live in the USA, the shipping is free.

I carried my 12-24 mm Tokina on a trip to China for a dual purpose. Obviously for wide angle shots but, also as a back up for my mid-range zoom. The approximately 19-38 mm equivalent would have allowed me to capture many shots if my mid-range zoom had failed (it didn't). The 12-28 mm focal range would give you an 18 to 42 mm equivalent on your Nikon, which is quite a usable range.

Of course, if you want to shoot some low light imagery, the 11-16 mm and its f/2.8 aperture would give you that important extra stop. All lens buying is a series of decisions and compromises. We cannot afford a specific lens for every individual situation and could not carry all of them if we could afford to purchase the glass.

[tford]

Thank you Donald. I thought it was, just wanted to make sure.

Thank you rpcrowe for the response, also.

I just not sure if i want to commit to a APS-C only lens when i plan on purchasing a FF(Sony a7 mark2 or A7r) camera body.

Thank you to everyone for all the responses. I am really leaning toward the 17-35 f4 mainly because it is a FF lens. I plan on purchasing a FF camera at the end of this year or early next year. Either way i do plan on FF in the near future. Should this be the deciding factor? I m really not sure. So many options and so little money. Any help in making this decision, I am open to.