answers: 46

  1. Sergei
    21.11.2016

    Ark, thanks for the review, I've always liked the lenses that change the perspective ...

    Reply

  2. Pastor
    21.11.2016

    Cool lens. I tried it a bit, but for some reason I didn't buy it, I decided that since I don't use phishing tools, Zenitar will be enough. And now I regret it, because in fact this is one of the two fishey zooms, while the second is an elk with a high price. And then, having filmed more at the zenith, he became generally interested in the fish picture. Thanks for the interesting review.

    Reply

    • Yuri Molchanov
      21.11.2016

      It is incorrect to compare with Zenitar. At my full-frame Zenitar frames the corners of the frame, only its price of $ 90 saves from complete disappointment.

      Reply

      • Pastor
        22.11.2016

        Well, it catches very slightly for my taste. Again, such glass is unacceptable most often for work, but for the sake of pleasure it’s completely nothing. Especially at 5.6 zenithar is quite sharp.

        Reply

  3. Denis
    21.11.2016

    Thanks for the review, it’s especially nice to see another video review. M guys subscribe to the YouTube channel Arcadia!

    Reply

  4. anonym
    21.11.2016

    These are the legs! And in the source code these photos are not! So Arkady is not fair :)

    Reply

  5. Oleg
    21.11.2016

    macro photos with funny flowers

    Reply

  6. Sergei
    22.11.2016

    Thanks for the review! I had one, used on Canon 60D and 5D2. Excellent lens, sold and very sorry.

    Reply

  7. Igor
    22.11.2016

    Yes, actually it’s a less or less decent picture all over the field from f / 8.0, its plus is that at 17mm it’s wide without a blockage. Shot at f / 11

    Reply

  8. Igor
    22.11.2016

    More on f / 11 Both on FudjiFilmS5Pro

    Reply

  9. Igor
    22.11.2016

    D4 + Tokina 10-17mm. 17mm f / 8/0

    Reply

  10. Igor
    22.11.2016

    D3 + Tokina 10-17mm 17mm f / 5.0

    Reply

    • Arkady Shapoval
      22.11.2016

      Igor, thanks for the examples :)

      Reply

  11. Igor
    22.11.2016

    Please Arkady ...

    Reply

  12. Kirill Yankovsky
    22.11.2016

    This product is just awful. The worst thing that passed through my hands. It is unsuitable even for amateur graphomania “on the table”. Sold the next day after purchase. Samyang 8mm, even in the old version, tears it radically in quality (color, sharpness, detail).
    I think that Tokina’s release of this under-reporting, with all due respect to its build quality, was just a glitch in the Matrix ..

    Reply

    • Michael
      22.11.2016

      Normal product, current diaphragm must be clamped. Not good, but not so bad either. You would give a canonical whale, I would look at your reaction)))

      Reply

      • Oleg
        23.11.2016

        And that whale pinched the diaphragm 5.6-11 at the wide end and you will be happy. I am satisfied with is2. And stm is generally a good series

        Reply

      • Pastor
        23.11.2016

        Here you need to try a whale without a stub :) I tried different whales, but the old unstoppable (not the third version) canon whale is just awful :) A lot of ha, soap, even on covered one and lousy assembly. is2 is actually very good, in general even open normal, in comparison with the old version.

        Reply

      • Kirill Yankovsky
        23.11.2016

        In this product, I somehow did not notice much of a difference between an open hole (a terrible hardening soap) and F10-11. Only at f18-22 did the flaccid signs of sharpening begin. Perhaps the unsuccessful got away with it.

        Reply

      • Arkady Shapoval
        23.11.2016

        At F / 22, the sharpness in the frame is leveled, but small details are completely eaten up by diffraction.

        Reply

      • Michael
        23.11.2016

        Maybe. Or there are a lot of MPix, that's why you see flaws. After f / 8, I have only claims to chromatics, and that is not much.

        Reply

      • Kirill Yankovsky
        23.11.2016

        I tested it on the D7100 .. But on samyang on f22 I didn’t notice the parts being eaten at all

        Reply

      • Michael
        23.11.2016

        Well, such a herd, this lens does not pull at all, it’s a bit old already.

        Reply

      • Anton
        24.09.2019

        Similar. There is plenty of detail at f8. At first I thought without a UV filter there would be solid holes on top, but to my surprise, it does not take the sky very well (maybe because of the bloom of vignetting at an ultra-wide angle ... Although, I have not noticed the darkening at the edges yet). Plus, this is the only one of my lenses on which I manage to shoot at 1/60 sec (and at f4.5 get a reasonable result ... Although, normal sharpness starts after f5,6). And, here is HA - yes, since the editors with one slider correct the situation in most cases. It's a great thing to understand how fishy suits you. I'm not sure, however, whether it is worth 10,5 thousand, but I took a used one. for 4,5 thousand and is very pleased that the city with him is revealed in a completely new way. And, for yourself, you can straighten the distortion to a non-fisheye ultra-wide angle (by 10-14mm) and get an alternative result, although then of course the soap comes out in the corners.

        Reply

      • Michael
        24.09.2019

        HA is not always easy to correct from him, but for such a price you can tolerate)

        Reply

  13. anonym
    23.11.2016

    Really someone is ready to give 50 pieces for this mediocrity. A rare case, the photographs of the review did not touch well at all. (

    Reply

    • Michael
      23.11.2016

      50 for it and do not ask, half current. This is one of the cheapest autofocus fisheries.

      Reply

    • Bkrg
      27.11.2016

      Last year I took one for 15tyr, the other for 19. Both are new, in the store.

      Reply

  14. Dmitriy
    27.11.2016

    Arkady, the very first and for a long time the only zoom fish-eye was the film zoom, oddly enough, also from the Pentax-SMC Pentax-F 17-28mm F3.5-4.5 Fish-Eye. In addition, Samsung Pentax lenses never did. This was done by Schneider-Kreuznach

    Reply

    • Arkady Shapoval
      27.11.2016

      Fixed

      Reply

  15. Bkrg
    27.11.2016

    Option without hood available, marked “NH”
    At 17mm FF it turns into a diagonal fish-eye, and at 10mm it turns into a circular one. The 10mm lens hood on the FF will climb into the frame (I have both options).

    Reply

    • Bkrg
      27.11.2016

      This is on Nikon D610. Previous -10mm, this one - 17mm

      Reply

    • Bkrg
      27.11.2016

      Another 10mm

      Reply

    • Bkrg
      27.11.2016

      On FF at 17mm, both work the same.

      Reply

  16. max
    05.12.2016

    By the way, 58mm filters are perfectly screwed into the built-in hood of this lens. I don’t know if this is intended or is it a “side effect”. The slots just remain and the filter strongly closes the corners, the working FR is somewhere from 14-15 mm.
    Maybe someone will come in handy such infa)

    Reply

  17. Sergei
    11.01.2017

    I was like that, I used it on crop and FF, changed it to 17-40L I really regret it! The glass is excellent!

    Reply

  18. Igor
    17.01.2017

    No, this glass works at a price, I took it 3 years ago, but now something really is not right for a new one in magicians asking for TR 59. I took it from my hands, ideally for 13 tr

    Reply

  19. Novel
    10.07.2021

    Tell me, is this lens suitable for Nikon D5000?

    Reply

    • B. R. P.
      10.07.2021

      It will be established, but there will be no af.

      Reply

    • Arkady Shapoval
      10.07.2021

      Will NOT work, autofocus will not work

      Reply

  20. Alexey
    14.10.2021

    Good day! Can the distortion of this lens be corrected in the editor if necessary?

    Reply

    • Arkady Shapoval
      14.10.2021

      Yes

      Reply

      • Kate
        14.10.2021

        Hello! Is this lens suitable for interior photography of premises (for example, hotel rooms, rooms in an apartment)? Or is it better to use a wide-angle Sigma 10-20 on a crop for this type of shooting? Share your experience please

        Reply

      • B. R. P.
        14.10.2021

        Too much distortion for shooting interiors, in my opinion. Although, depending on what your requirements for the quality of images. What, in your opinion, is the fundamental difference between Sigma 10-20? Slightly already at the long end.

        Reply

      • Arkady Shapoval
        14.10.2021

        Only for 3D tours, usually use something in the cropped area of ​​10mm, stitch panoramas, without strong distortion

        Reply

      • Specialist
        14.10.2021

        Katya, fisheye for interiors? Look at the survey photos here # 2, 22, 24, 28 - he bends the edges into a circle (like a view through a fisheye), you can't understand a curve or a straight element in nature. Sigma 10-20 is even a normal shirik.

        Reply

Reply

 

 

Top
mobility. computer