Introduction
During the SLR era Tokina had a bit of a thing for 17mm 3.5 ultra wide angle lenses, as they made three different iterations of it. This is a review of the latest one and the urban legend says that the older manual focus version is actually the better performer. I always found that hard to believe, so I thought it was a good idea to find out myself. So let’s have a closer look at this Tokina 17mm 3.5 AF AT-X Pro.
Sample Images
Most of the sample images in this review can be found in full resolution here.
Contents
Specifications / Version History
There have been three different 17mm 3.5 lenses made by Tokina. Both the AF versions share the same optical design according to Tokina’s history page:
- Tokina 17mm 3.5 SL
300g, 11/9 design (all spherical), unit focus, 6 aperture blades, 67mm filter thread, F/K/FD/CY/OM/MD, 1979-2008 - Tokina 17mm 3.5 AF AT-X
400g, 11/9 design (1 aspherical), floating elements, 7 aperture blades, 72mm filter thread, built-in lens hood, AF/MF switch, EF/F/A, 1993-1998 - Tokina 17mm 3.5 AF AT-X Pro
429g, 11/9 design (1 aspherical), floating elements, 7 aperture blades, 77mm filter thread, removable hood, AF/MF clutch ring, EF/F/A, 1999-2003
This is a review of the latest “Pro” version which has the following specifications:
-
- Diameter: 84 mm
- Field of view: 103°40′ (diagonally)
- Length: 57 mm
- Weight: 429g
- Filter Diameter: 77 mm
- Number of Aperture Blades: 7 (slightly rounded)
- Elements/Groups: 11/9
- Close Focusing Distance: 0.25 m
- Maximum Magnification: 1:10
- Mount: Nikon F, Canon EF, Sony/Minolta A
buy used from ebay.com | ebay.de (affiliate links) starting at $100
Handling / Build Quality
Tokina was actually a bit famous for their solid lens constructions back in the day and also this 17mm 3.5 AF AT-X Pro feels like a well made lens.
I am not sure whether it is made from metal or high quality polycarbonate, but I can tell you that it feels very similar to Nikon’s higher grade AF-D lenses like the Nikon AF 85mm 1.4D or the Nikon AF 28mm 1.4D.
The focus ring has a decent resistance for an AF lens and travels 90° from the minimum focus distance (0.25 m) to infinity. The focus ring is equipped with Tokina’s “clutch” mechanism to switch between manual focus and auto focus. When the focus ring is set to infinity, you can push/pull it to switch between the two settings.
The aperture ring has full-stop click stops and as is typical for Nikon lenses is situated right at the bayonet. There is also a small lock to secure the aperture ring at the f/22 setting, which is helpful when using the lens on an AF (D)SLR or on the FTZ adapter.
The lens also shipped with a plasticky tulip-shaped bayonet type lens hood which can even be mounted reversed for transport. The outside material is not as nice as that of the lens itself, but it does at least feature felt on the inside.
Compared to the earlier manual focus version, this AF lens has grown a bit in size. I still consider it being a compact lens, but only when used on a (D)SLR. When adding an adapter to use it on a mirrorless camera it becomes pretty big, huge even compared to the Samyang 18mm 2.8 AF or the Sigma 17mm 4.0 DG DN C.
The autofocus and aperture control both worked flawlessly on my Nikon F80. This is generally a lens that is compatible to all of Nikon’s AF (D)SLRs as well as the Ai standard manual focus SLRs. On the FTZ II adapter exif transmission and setting the aperture worked as well. I also tried if the AF works via the Monster LA-FE2 adapter on a Sony camera, but that was not the case.
Vignetting
| f/3.5 | 2.5 EV |
| f/5.6 | 2.2 EV |
| f/8.0 - f/16 | 2.0 EV |
When comparing this AF lens to Tokina’s older manual focus version the first thing I noticed was the huge difference in the rear element’s diameter. On digital cameras a bigger rear element often means less vignetting and this is clearly the case here: on a digital sensor this newer 17mm 3.5 AF AT-X Pro has about a stop less vignetting at 3.5 than the older manual focus version. Stopped down however, they perform very similar, both still showing 2.0 EV vignetting at f/11.
It is recommended to have a look at this article first to get an idea how this brightness graph works.
Sharpness
infinity (42mp Sony A7rII)
When it comes to ultra wide angle lenses this is a very important category to me. Generally this lens shows good contrast, but resolution isn’t exactly amazing in the midframe and corner regions – no matter the f/Stop.
Indoors I sometimes used f/3.5 to f/5.6, but generally I preferred using this lenst at f/11 whenever possible. Also stopped down this much it cannot compete with modern high quality lenses though, I am pretty sure the Sigma 17mm 4.0 DG DN C performs better at f/4.0 than this Tokina lens does at any aperture. And even modern affordable zoom lenses like the Tamron 17-28mm 2.8 or the Nikon AF-S 18-35mm 3.5-4.5G do.
As this lens features a floating elements design the correct flange focal distance is crucial to achieve optimal performance with this lens, so when using too short adapters it may show worse image quality.
close (0.25m, 1:10)
Sony A7rII | Tokina 17mm 3.5 AF AT-X Pro | 100% crops from center
A minimum focus distance of 0.25 m is quite alright for a 17mm ultra wide angle lens and allows for interesting close up shots. Thanks to its floating elements design the performance looks pretty good from f/3.5 in the central part of the frame – a huge improvement over the manual focus version, which is noticeably softer at wider apertures in this distance range.
Flare resistance
Flare resistance has been an issue with many Tokina lenses, not only those made before 2000, but still with those made in the 2010s. The manual focus version of this 17mm lens was really awful in this regard and I was always wondering if this later AF version is any better. It turns out, yes, but…
It may not look like it from the pictures above, but ghosting is much less of an issue compared to the earlier manual focus version.
The most issues I encountered with a point light source outside of the frame leading to artefacts in the corners, as those are not always easy to spot in the viewfinder.
Sony A7rII | Tokina 17mm 3.5 AF AT-X Pro | f/3.5
With the sun inside the frame the performance is much better compared to the manual focus version. Here ghosts and artefacts appeared no matter what.
Stopping down does help to improve the performance, but it still won’t be something wo write home about.
Sony A7rII | Tokina 17mm 3.5 AF AT-X Pro | f/11
Because sadly stopped down you can still encounter all kinds of ring flares and other artefacts.
I am really happy that today’s ultra wide angle lenses perform so much better.
Coma
100% crops from extreme corner, focused on center
There is noticeable coma visible in the corners at f/3.5 and still a bit at f/5.6. From there on the situation improves, but some artefacts still remain, even stopped down to f/11.
If you are looking for a lens for astrophotography there are better options available for that task.
Distortion
As was already the case for the manual focus version also this AF version shows a wavy distortion pattern. With straight lines running close to the borders of the frame this is certainly noticeable and sadly there is no profile available in Lightroom.
I did find that the profile for the Samyang/Rokinon 18mm 2.8 AF is doing a pretty good job at correcting this distortion even in demanding situations, so my recommendation would be to use that one instead.
Sunstars
33% crops from center, A7rII
The manual focus version featured six aperture blades leading to pretty awful sunstars. Luckily the situation is significantly better here, as the seven aperture blades of this lens at least lead to well defined sunstars from f/16 to f/22. A big improvement in this category.
If you want to learn more about sunstars have a look at this article.
Chromatic Aberrations
lateral
Not too uncommon for ultra wide angle lenses – especially older ones – this Tokina 17mm 3.5 AF AT-X Pro shows a noticeable amount of lateral CA. The correction e.g. in Lightroom still does a good job, but some other aberrations (Coma/Astigmatism) are also present in the corners and they cannot be fixed as easily.
longitudinal
As this is a very wide and rather slow lens bokeh fringing is nothing to worry about.
When it comes to purple fringing it is hard to spot at f/3.5 and slightly more obvious at f/5.6. It is still on a low level so not really something to worry about.
Conclusion
good
|
average
|
not good
|
Under the right conditions it is still possible to create great pictures with this lens and for $100 (older AF version) to $150 (this newer AF version) it is also a very affordable option, so might still be an interesting entry into the world of ultra wide angle photography.
Compared to modern options it is still somewhat hard to recommend though. Things might be different if it wasn’t for the bad flare resistance, but this is really something with the potential to ruin your shots.
I don’t really share the opinion, that the earlier manual focus version is a better performer though. Sharpness at wider apertures is worse, vignetting at wider apertures is higher and flare resistance is even worse as well. So if you do want one of these Tokina lenses, I would rather go for this late AF version.
buy used from ebay.com | ebay.de (affiliate links) starting at $100
Alternatives
SLR Designs
I already talked about the older manual focus version of this Tokina lens. In the Nikon world there has also been a rare and therefore too expensive 18mm 2.8 and Tamron also had a 17mm 3.5 AF lens. Zeiss offered an 18mm 3.5 manual focus lens. After that we saw the rise of zoom lenses and e.g. the Nikon AF-S 14-24mm 2.8G as well as the Sigma 14-24mm 2.8 Art easily outperform this old prime lens.
Mirrorless Designs
You can find many of the modern ultra wide angle zoom as well as prime lenses discussed in our Guide to Ultra Wide Angle Lenses for the A7 Series. There is one modern 17mm lens worth mentioning though:
Sigma 17mm 4.0 C DG DN:
The Sigma 17mm 4.0 C DG DN is somewhat the spiritual successor to this Tokina lens. It is very lightweight at only 220g and I expect it to outperform this vintage Tokina lens in every category.
buy from amazon.de | amazon.com | ebay.com | ebay.de | B&H (affiliate links) for $599
Other lenses you might want to check out if you are looking for a compact ultra wide angle prime are the Voigtländer 15mm 4.5 SWH, Laowa 14mm 4.0, Laowa 15mm 5.0 Cookie, Samyang 18mm 2.8 AF and Viltrox 20mm 2.8 AF.
Sample Images
Most of the sample images in this review can be found in full resolution here.
Further Reading
- Guide to 9-18mm Ultra Wide Angle Lenses for Sony fullframe E-mount Cameras
- Review: Laowa 9mm 5.6 – The World’s Widest fullframe lens
- Review: Sony FE 12-24mm 2.8 GM
- Review: Sigma 50mm 1.4 EX – Still worth it today?
- Analogue Adventures
Support Us
Did you find this article useful or just liked reading it? Treat us to a coffee!
via Paypal
This site contains affiliate links. If you make a purchase using any of the links marked as affiliate links, I may receive a small commission at no additional cost to you. This helps support the creation of future content.
Latest posts by BastianK (see all)
- Reviewing Lenses isn’t really worth it - August 5, 2025
- Review: Nikon AF-S 70-200mm 2.8E FL ED VR IF - August 2, 2025
- Review: Samyang 50mm 1.4 AF II - July 27, 2025
Ooooh, I remember that one too! I bought it (in 2013ish) on a whim for a hefty sum (for this lens, anyway) of $350 and ordered it from US. Sold it after maybe half a year because I didn’t really need it, and I can’t say I really regret doing that given the pretty poor performance in most metrics demonstrated here.
But you folks have been delving deep… what next, the Sigma 14mm f/2.8 EX? 🙂
I was offered that Sigma lens but I am not going there anytime soon.
I shot blindly when talking about it but it’s one lens I actually own (since 2010 to be precise so it’s the second longest serving member of my lineup). I can’t imagine anyone testing it because it flares like heck and the edge sharpness is piss poor on FF (and so-so even on APS-H). I’m not even using it all that much ever since I switched to an FF camera for the primary body. It’s a lens from the late 90s, after all (last I checked, it was one of the first HSM lenses, if not *the* first).
I also have the Canon 24-85mm lens from around the same era, and this one is fairly decent, for a change. 🙂
The MF Tokina 17 3.5 was also branded as Vivitar.
By reputation, in several magazine tests and in my own experience, the Vivitar version had more even sharpness across the field.
Perhaps they were made to tighter tolerances or were selected samples…
Ahhh too bad those corners suck too badly. The contrast of the center and mid frame also degrade as you stop it down too. However, It actually takes really beautiful and contrasty images with nice colors and a sort of “pop”.
It seems like if you want both great technical performance AND beautiful colors / contrast in an ultra wide lens you have to opt for some nice but pricier options across voigtlander and Venus Optics.
Though, individual lenses that seem to also stick out IMO are the Sigma 16-28, and the newish Schneider-Kreuznach/Samyang 14-24mm. I was surprised by the nice colors and contrast of the sigma 16-28. Maybe because it was one of their budget lenses, they didn’t over correct everything which preserved some of the tones and colors that get filtered out with some of the surgical and sanitized lenses. Curious if you see yourself reviewing the latter two any time
I have a manual focus Adaptall Tamron SP 17 3.5 (with the original hood needed to mount an external filter). It looks like an optically better performer than the Tokina, although it obviously is optically no match for modern ultra wides. But it does have built in filters, is well built, and gives a nice vintage rendering. My impression is that Tokina lenses generally have subpar flare performance.
> I expect [Sigma 17mm f/4] to outperform
> this vintage Tokina lens in every category
— Not in vignetting, though. The Sigma’s extreme corner falloff means digital correction leaves distinct noisy artifacts.
Bastian, does your A7iii have the Kolari UT conversion?
No it doesn’t.