Tokina F/4 at-X Pro fx Lens for Canon, AF-X 17-35mm

very satisfied with the quality of this lens. it might get a bit soft on the edges at 35mm but the zoom is quick and very accurate. colors and excellent. worth every dollar. definitely recommended

I purchased this as my new WA lens. However, it was not what I hoped for.PROS:Great rangeConstant apertureGreat build qualitySmooth operationSharp as a tack (when in focus, see below).CONS:Somewhat softer at the long end, but not bad.AF operation what hit and miss on this copy (Front focus errors sometimes). I have had several Tokina lenses, so that was a surprise.Minor niggle: Zoom ring could be wider.Overall, this represents a great value in its class, and from what I see, others have better AF performance than I did. So, I might have given 5 stars had my copy been good with AF.

it captures light very good. I used it to shoot image at night and it gave a very nice color. The only problem is its auto focus it a little bit weird. I got some pics in blur.Updated: After a few years of using it ( not much though) The Focus ring and its sound was very loud. It makes click sound very loud, I can hear it 2 feet away. I thought this lens was build like this but it was getting louder everytime i used it. And one day, the AF stopped working, The MF ring was also very difficult to rotate. Only the 17mm is in focus and when zoom to any other 20-35mm will be out of focus.I Threw it away. No repair needed - image quality getting bad through time of use.

I can't believe that a lens can be this horrifically soft. I used to rock the Tokina 11-16 EF-S on my Canon 7D and it was pretty good. Not the sharpest, but definitely passable for the price and ultra wide angle with minimal distortion. When I bought my 5D mark iii, I sold the Tokina 11-16 and bought this 17-35 to replace it (since the 5D is full format and not compatible with EF-S lenses). Since it has the same body as the 11-16, I figured that it would be equivalently sharp, even though it was slower (f/4 compared to f/2.8). Boy was I wrong. This 17-35 is the softest lens I have ever used, even worse than crappy Sigma lenses. Even at f/5.6, which is supposed to be it's sweet spot, the lens is hazey, dull, and soft. It's just plain ugly. The only good thing I can say about it is that the distortion is very minimal and 17-35 is a good focal range for an ultra wide angle. I hated this lens so much that I immediately sent it back and got the Tokina 16-28. Wow! What a difference! The 16-28 is superb. It's just as sharp as my Canon 24-105L and my Nikkor prime lenses. Don't waste your money on this 17-35, spend the extra $200 and get the 16-28. Sure, the 16-28 doesn't have filter threads, but it at least takes great images/video and is a little bit wider. I have a D|Focus mattebox that wits around the barrel of the 16-28 that allows me to use filters. However, with such a wide angle, I have to be zoomed in to about 22mm in order to frame out the mattebox. I guess you can't have it all, but if I had to choose, I would take image quality over filter threads any day. In summary, the Tokina 17-35 sucks and the Tokina 16-28 rocks.

Well packed and quickly shipped. Optics of the lens good. There was a slightly loose plastic part in the front - the plastic ring which has the filter thread.

I can not say enough good things about this lens, the photos are crisp and clean and it performs amazingly even when comparing it to its name brand counter parts. In the last month my lens bag has gone from looking like a canon advertisement to carrying a majority of Tokina, Sigma and Rokinon lenses. I will not replace my canon EF S lenses but... moving forward, any EF lens I purchase will more than likely have one of those 3 names on it.

I calibrate all my lenses using Reikan FoCal software, which sets the micro focus adjustment on cameras that support it, on both a Canon 70D and a 6D, and the first copy of this lens I purchased simply could not be calibrated at 35mm on either camera -- all the test points the software tried, even after going into extended tests, could not get consistent readings at any setting. The only time I had this problem on any other lens was an older Canon lens that the manufacturer's service team later determined was defective.At the wide, 17mm end, however, the lens was easily calibrated with only a 1-point micro adjustment, with sharpness figures peaking remarkably well at maximum f4 aperture.Thinking I might have a bad copy, I returned the 1st lens and ordered a 2nd, which the software was easily able to calibrate at 35mm, although it required a high adjustment factor to do so -- +11 on the 6D and +14 on the 70D. Like the first lens, the 17mm end was easily calibrated with minimal -1 adjustment on the 6D and +3 on the 70D. Sharpness was again at an excellent-best wide open at f4.Bottom line: The wide-end of this lens performs admirably and consistently. Its maximum focal length, however, proved unusable on one copy I tested, and required significant adjustment to calibrate another copy. I'll keep the 2nd copy since I have other lenses to cover the longer focal lengths (it was the wide end that I purchased it for), but I'd consider other options if you want something with consistent quality throughout the zoom range.

I bought this lens to use with my Canon 6D as a replacement of my Canon 10-22mm on a 7D. I'm pleasantly surprised at the quality and build of the lens for the price. Results are comparable to the Canon 10-22mm. Better build with good sharpness and low distortion. AF can be a little noisy but nothing to complain about. Seeing some CA but not as bad as in the Canon 10-22mm.UPDATE: About one year after purchasing this lens it died in the middle of a photo shoot and I'm in the process of sending it in for repair. Luckily it has a 3 year warranty but I've lost trust in being able to depend on the lens. I'm really missing the range of this lens on my camera and I'm considering an upgrade to the Canon 16-35mm F4.