Much faster focussing then the Fujifilm 56mm 1.2 R

andrei1989 wrote:

Raymond L wrote:

andrei1989 wrote:

please do tell how "things work"

simply saying "that's not how things work" is not an argument. the only argument, which contradicts you, is the lens construction already posted above which is identical. tokina is a rebranded viltrox lens

Pretty sure this similar line of discussion conversation is playing out in the Nikon Z forums as well (Nikon 28-75 2.8 vs Tamron 28-75 G1).

and what's the consensus there? i don't follow nikon at all...

i'm not saying rebranding a lens is bad, especially in the current market shrinkage situation...but the argument that tokina can't be a rebranded viltrox because they're older and japanese not chinese makes absolutely no sense, especially since tokina hasn't really come up with anything new in the mirrorless age

Edit: my bad, they did make the FIRIN lenses for sony E

This also happened with Pentax DSLR lenses, where they were “similar” to Tamron lenses (24-70, 15-30).

Re: “rebranded” lenses. Again, I don’t think it’s bad like you have stated it really provides more choice. There is more of a lens than the optical design… AF/Lens coating/Firmware support/Weather sealing/Barrel construction/Level of QA

Re: Nikon. I suspect Nikon purchased the optical design from tamron. But they would have probably tweaked the “other factors” - coatings, AF motor, weather resistance, external design. The real bit that has annoyed some audiences, is the “TAX” that nikon has added, in addition to it being the older design.

I do feel sorry for the OP…the OP has posted a review (including pictures), really enjoy reading these kind of reviewers….Then got dragged into a discussion of Tokina 56mm 1.4 == Viltrox 56mm 1.4 … and calling it a rebrand maybe technically correct, but no one has opened the two lenses to review if they were made from the same factory (AF motor, external construction, coating, QA etc) … I rather call it… identical optical design