Tokina AF 80-400mm 4.5-5.6 II [Archive] - Page 2 - Canon Digital Photography Forums

View Full Version : Tokina AF 80-400mm 4.5-5.6 II

Pages : 1 [2]

JaGWiRE

24th of October 2006 (Tue), 20:40

Good to know, definitely something to consider.
I already have a feeling that the 300 prime or 400 will end up in my bag (probably 300, it doesn't look all that big, and with a 1.4x teleconverter it'll have the same f-stop as the 400 at a very close focal length plus IS.) Maybe the 100-400. I really don't know though because of the weight and size factor, I guess I just have to wait and see how this lens pans out. I'm just a little concerned if the fact that a prime with such a high telephoto figure is okay for doing a lot of wild life where I just am walking back a little bit or forward. I don't want to be missing shots cause the lens has too much reach. (well, I guess I could take out my 70-200 and 1.4 then, haha.)

Dorman

25th of October 2006 (Wed), 21:54

If you don't need the flexibility of the zoom you'd probably be better served IQ-wise by the long primes down the road. I'm still heavilly considering this lens for it's compact size and versatile range, my head says it's a good buy but my emotions keep sayingit's not top of the line, you won't be happy with the IQ. I know it's all B.S. but that's the split personality of ALL consumers.

AmericanFirst

25th of October 2006 (Wed), 22:54

Is Tokina making the 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6 ATX II in the SONY-Minolta mount?

And if so, who has it?

Dorman

25th of October 2006 (Wed), 23:02

Just Canon and Nikon mounts AmericanFirst. For a similar range you could look at the Sigma 80-400 OS or 50-500 Bigma that would be made in the minolta/sony mount.

MillCreek

29th of October 2006 (Sun), 10:06

Popular Photography now has their review of this lens on the web: http://www.popphoto.com/cameralenses/3266/lens-test-tokina-at-x-80-400mm-f45-56-af-d.html

condyk

29th of October 2006 (Sun), 11:37

Not sure how they reckon weight on this lens is a minus :lol: :lol: For a lens of this range and speed it is amazingly compact and pretty lightweight despite the metal construction.

Permagrin

29th of October 2006 (Sun), 11:43

Billginthekeys

29th of October 2006 (Sun), 11:45

popular photography. remember folks, whats popular isnt always right. how can you list "rugged construction" as a plus, but "heavy" as a minus. the two go hand in hand. and that ISNT heavy for a lens of that range.

JaGWiRE

29th of October 2006 (Sun), 11:55

Dorman

29th of October 2006 (Sun), 12:03

I too was wondering how heavy and well constructed can be opposites, they go hand-in-hand.

JaGWiRE

29th of October 2006 (Sun), 12:15

I too was wondering how heavy and well constructed can be opposites, they go hand-in-hand.

My 70-200 F/4 isn't heavy and I feel it's built pretty damn well.

ron chappel

8th of November 2006 (Wed), 00:25

Hey, Dave...we agree!?! :lol:

I am surprised that Tokina doesn't get MORE business, if the lens was indicative of their overall quality. I still say it was a great lens that we'd still own if we didn't have 2 others in that range. My husband is actually mourning the sale of it...the 70-300 DO IS is rather heavy for it's size and he's missing the extra 100mm of the 80-400...

Yes you're right. Tokina lenses do tend to have amazing build quality and image quality tends to be excellent as well (of course they do make both great and less good lenses just like all manufacturers)
I suspect if there were just a few more reviews online they would sell a whole lot more.As it is most ignore Tokina because they don't know enough about a particular model.When one thinks of third party lenses one tends to think sigma first (Great quality/cost compromise) then Tamron (several outstanding models)
Unfortunately tokina mostly misses out and it's abit undeserved:(

Neilyb

8th of November 2006 (Wed), 09:36

Permagrin

8th of November 2006 (Wed), 11:37

This lens is heavy and seems well built, but since buying it I have no taken a picture with it. Firstley it was jammed. It was repaired. It didn't focus past 3m. I sent it back. now it needs a part. Africa on Saturday.....looks like I will use my 70-300 IS just recieved from Kerso. Great build quality.

Neil that's terrible! Why didn't they just exchange it for you? How is their customer service? Did you buy the newest version or the AT-X II? (once it's working properly, it really is a very good lens...but that won't help you for Africa....bummer!) Do you have a TC that could extend your range?? A kenko would work w/that 70-300 IS (kenko pro 300 is a vg tc and works w/most lenses)....

Neilyb

8th of November 2006 (Wed), 15:05

Well it was a second hand buy from this forum....

But the place that fixed the jammed zoom and focus rings last week didn't test the focus range or calibrate. Now I need a coil or something...but they have offered to lend me the latest model for my trip, obviously they realise they missed a step of the repair. (last week when I rang them to tell them they sucked they tried to sell me the newer lens... :|) anyhow, if I take it with me I can carry both 350D and 5D with zooms, maybe have to decide how resolution works out with TC's on.

saravrose

8th of November 2006 (Wed), 15:43

so, at the camera store the salesman suggested this tokina in the same breath that he pointed out his promaster series.. so, out of habit I dismissed both.. now i'm re-thinking.. I'm liking the shots Dave has posted.. It is incredibly compact and considering the other lenses i'm considering are the 100-400L and the bigma both of which will get very, very heavy for me.. the little tokina is looking pretty good...

sari

Neilyb

8th of November 2006 (Wed), 15:57

I will need to test the load model I am getting on Friday before I decide if I take it or not. The 70-300 will be backup as it weighs very little,

JaGWiRE

8th of November 2006 (Wed), 20:50

Billginthekeys

8th of November 2006 (Wed), 21:31

Just so we're all on the same page, this lens is not in the same league as the bigma or 100-400L, right?

I still am interested in this lens, but want to hear more opinions. I am seriously considering adding a 300mm F4 prime for wild life, but a zoom would also be nice there.

Is the bokeh any good with the focus accuracy? At 400mm f5.6 should do pretty decent, no?
i would say its not in the same league as those lenses. its probably better than every other 70-300 budget type lens out there, but not near as good as the 100-400 or bigma. I would mainly get one for portability's sake for traveling light and the such.

Dorman

8th of November 2006 (Wed), 21:37

JaGWiRE

8th of November 2006 (Wed), 21:59

I'd have to agree with Bill there, the whole idea is decent usable IQ in a lens small and light enough to take around. That being said, what I've seen from samples and read all indicate that it's a pretty darn good lens, heads above other non pro level superzooms.

What about the Tamron 200-500 and Bigma? Has anyone done a comparison? I mean the 100-400 is pretty far out there in a league of it's own compared to the other super telephoto zooms I think.

Neilyb

10th of November 2006 (Fri), 02:54

JaGWiRE

10th of November 2006 (Fri), 05:12

Well, I tested the 70-300 IS and at f7.1 + is is DAMN sharp. Don't have any shot with me here at work but trust me it looks good. (Thanks Kerso)

Should have the newest model 80-400 in my hands today so I may pop out at lunch and try a quick test.
Sounds excellent! I am really really curious about the bokeh and CA. I also really want some more shots of what the lens looks like, but more importantly post us some sample shots. If you are taking it with you on your trip I'm sure you'll have a lot to say about it when you come back :D.

Neilyb

10th of November 2006 (Fri), 06:24

Yep....it'll sure get well tested!!! :)

Neilyb

10th of November 2006 (Fri), 15:58

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=238139

I comapred Iq of Toki and 70-300 IS. At 300 both were similar but at 400 the Toki lost out to a 70-300 IS with kenko 1.4 TC - shocker! Doesn't go to Africa!

Dorman

10th of November 2006 (Fri), 16:06

JaGWiRE

10th of November 2006 (Fri), 23:53

Surprising! Shocker is right.

Yup. What a bummer. I guess the 300 F/4 will still be waiting for me when I go to buy a super telephoto :D.

mrfourcows

28th of August 2007 (Tue), 07:13

reviving the thread here a little..

anyhow compared this to the 70300IS before?
which is better optically?
which is easier to use on a 'everyday' basis?

AmericanFirst

28th of August 2007 (Tue), 18:12

reviving the thread here a little..

anyhow compared this to the 70300IS before?
which is better optically?
which is easier to use on a 'everyday' basis?

Optically, the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM is a great lens. Unlike the earlier version of the lens (EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM), it is built with an UD-element and most notably the closest thing to an "L" lens without the label. It is the lightest choice (22.2 ounces) but the class of lens is different. Still, a slow focusing lens, in comparison to the 70-200mm f/4 or f/2.8, it renders excellent and sharp results.

The Tokina ATX 840 AF D II 80~400mm f/4.5~5.6 II offers longer focal length ... which cannot be ignored. It also uses an improved SD-element inside it. It is also lightweight (35.9 ounces), compared to other manufacturer's lenses of equal capability. If you are shooting nature or outdoor shots, this is a solid choice, although you give up the anti-shake capability for the length.

Pricewise, the two lenses are nearly the same cost.

Another Canon alternative, but significantly more costly, is the EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS USM ... which gives you the length and the anti-shake you may desire. It is also significantly heavier (49 ounces) than the other two. It is not a comfortable lens to mount, to be sure.

In the field, though, the Tokina may be a bit more rugged than the Canon. Tough call, though ... as we have no idea how much abuse you plan for this lens. :eek:

If you really want to amaze your friends and have your spouse asking you if you are "just plain out of your mind", you could spring for the compact Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM ... for roughly $1050. The DO-version is quite amazing looking with its concentrically designed ringed front element, which causes the light to bend in allowing for the shallower overall length to the lens.

200976

For ease of carrying around, like you asked for ... at 25.4 ounces and with as little room as it takes ... this is the one. Just break out the plastic. :lol:

Regardless, I hope this was helpful to you.

shtang8

10th of November 2007 (Sat), 16:02

Can anyone tell me the difference between a AT-X840D and ATX840 II? Which one is the latest model?

MillCreek

11th of November 2007 (Sun), 14:50

The ATX-D is the latest model, and is the model I used to post pictures earlier in this thread. I have had it for just over a year.

aries

12th of February 2008 (Tue), 06:13

This is my first post here, and I would like to know if there is a real optical difference between the old AT-X II and the newer "D" model. I just bought a secondhand AT-X II and I am wondering if I should have gone for the D model. Any comments or experience comparing both lens? According to the information in the Tokina website, the new D model is adapted to the CMOS od DSRL cameras, avoiding internal reflections, etc., but is there any substantial difference in the final result obtained when using the old or the new version?

Thanks!

Juan

condyk

12th of February 2008 (Tue), 12:22

I;'m not sure many will have used both but I do remember a review somewhere of the D saying it was improved. Frankly, I doubt they will have done much and any improvement will be marginal, but that is a guess. If you paid a nice price for the II then I'd be happy. If you pauid close to a new model price then i probably wouldn't be. i think it is a very decent lens and the test shots I did with mine indicated that on a tripod it would deliver good results. I just couldn't hand-hold it ... I'm slowly moving over to IS only lenses at the longer end, i.e. over 100mm basically!!

aries

12th of February 2008 (Tue), 14:48

thanks for your response condyk. Actually the price for the AT-X II was almost half of the price of the new "D", so I guess it is a nice deal. I've done a search on the net and apparently the new model at 400mm has the same issues with CA than the AT-X II. It may be a question of cosmetical changes or marketing for the new DSRL users. Mine is on the way home, so I am really loooking forward to test my copy.

condyk

12th of February 2008 (Tue), 15:24

Sounds like a good deal.

joruiz

14th of May 2008 (Wed), 20:46

wow... you guys suck at posting pictures!!! this thread is almost picture free!! :(

AngryCorgi

14th of May 2008 (Wed), 21:11

condyk

15th of May 2008 (Thu), 00:58

wow... you guys suck at posting pictures!!! this thread is almost picture free!! :(

Look at the gear list...I found one member that still owns an AT-X 840, and it is not an EOS mount. All the people seem to have sold their handy 80-400 for glass with names ending in "L". :-P

Old thread ... there were pictures originally. I had L's before the Toki and L's after so don't read too much into that ;-) As I say in the review, it lies above the regular cheap big boys and below the Bigma and up criowd, so if you track one down and can hand-hold it at 400mm then it's a valid option.

MillCreek

16th of May 2008 (Fri), 10:32

I still have mine, and I can still see the pictures I posted in this thread. I am quite happy with the lens.

Liphotoman

18th of May 2008 (Sun), 22:30

How do you deal with the purple fringe when shooting at 400mm?
I don't get it in all my pics, but it is there in many. I think it along borders of high contrast, but not convinced that is the cause yet.

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a365/gwesq/fringe1.jpg

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a365/gwesq/Fringe2.jpg

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a365/gwesq/Notethepurplefringeprevalentwiththi.jpg

MillCreek

19th of May 2008 (Mon), 21:43

Hmm, I am not seeing very much CA in my copy of the lens.

Karl Johnston

15th of January 2009 (Thu), 00:38

The purple fringe is chromatic aberration, present in all lenses. I don't see much CA in those pictures, though, the focus seems to be slightly off for them. At full out 400 mm the lenses show their most flaws, though..if thats 400 mm ...and considering this lens is 1000 $ cheaper than its L equivalent (100-400), that's not far off to be considered decent.

Neilyb

15th of January 2009 (Thu), 02:55

Still better off with the 70-300 IS and a Kenko 1.4 Tc :| I stand by that..

lmans

5th of March 2009 (Thu), 11:07

I am not very active on this forum but I bought the Tokina 80-400 (lastest version) for birding and I am happy with it. It is important to realize that birding is a different hobby than just taking nature shots or taking shots of larger animals. You first have to understand how to bird, how to get close to a bird etc...and when you do that, you are ready for any camera lens.

But Tokina is the one I still prefer over Canon Prime 400 or Canon 70-300 etc. I like (a) that it reaches to 400 if I want and at f8, it does fine---while the Canon 300 cannot get over 300 (b) The weight of the Tokina is a heck of a lot less than a Canon 400 Prime...try carrying that Canon around for miles and you will feel it (c) I can use a mono-pod easier than a tripod and the Tokina fits well on it and again, adapts to birding. The Canon 400 needs a tri-pod.

So it really depends on your photography needs. I am a birder first, a photographer second. I am learning to apply photography to my birding craft...see Flikr images below:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/34106305@N05

Anyhow....The Tokina is a good lens, solid.....has the ability to get up to 400 and we need to realize that affordable lens go soft at the top. I shoot many birding shots at 300 to 350 though. So....my two cents..lmans

Jason C

14th of October 2009 (Wed), 15:41

I am possibly interested in this lens for the reach, though I usually do not go beyond 200mm.

I have several events (as a spectator) coming up, and I've been considering getting a 1.4x tc for my 70-200 f/4 becuase 200mm may be short. However, for a few extra clams I could step into the Tokina and an additional 120mm fl.

I just don't know about adding a lens I would not use often, hence a tc seems more viable in that respect.

I'll figure something out.

Thanks for the thread and insight.

Jason C

AlistairD

2nd of March 2010 (Tue), 14:16

Hi All,

Has anyone done a comparison on IQ between this lens and the Sigma 170-500mm. I've got the Sigma but it's pretty heavy and the IQ is ok just wondered whether the Tokina would be a significant change in IQ.

ELSELS

20th of March 2010 (Sat), 12:58

Hello,

I've been considering getting one for my (recently acquired) :-D (used but NEW to me), Canon 7D.

Anyone here have this lens, using it on a Canon 7D camera?

Thanks!

God Bless,
Ed

AlistairD

15th of May 2010 (Sat), 02:10

Well, took the plunge and bought one and I think the IQ is very similar to the Sigma 170-500mm. Main advantages of the Tokina are size and weight...

My 170-500mm is now for sale (shameless plug for my Items for Sale (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=873109)).

TweakMDS

15th of June 2010 (Tue), 04:58

I just got this lens! :D Already made a post here (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=888543).

Thought I'd crosspost the images in this topic (clickable to 100% versions on flickr).

#1 - EXIF: 400mm, f/5.6, 1/500 (handheld), ISO 400.
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4032/4702215579_dc9f8f26a5.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mdstoop/4702215579/)

#2 - EXIF: 400mm, f/7.1, 1/800 (handheld), ISO 640.
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4051/4702848064_34997546a5.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mdstoop/4702848064/)

Thanks for looking, C&C is always welcome and appreciated.

Edit: by the way, this was the newer ATX-D version.

fatdeeman

25th of July 2010 (Sun), 11:03

Well I took mine to an airshow (RIAT) and I was mostly disappointed with the results.

The actual image quality was fine but the focusing was not good at all.

Admittedly the weather was overcast and the subjects tend to be fast but I was shooting at iso400 with shutter speeds consistently over 1/1000th so camera shake wasn't an issue. The focus was mostly out on static subjects as well so I don't think subject movement was making the AF struggle.

I tried using both one shot and AI servo (where admittedly my 350d would be just as weak a link) but it had no effect on the consistency of the results.

Comparing shots taken at 200-300mm with shots taken with my new ef-s 55-250 at the same event it was clear the Tokina was out of focus probably 50-60% of the time whereas the Canon was in focus every time, even when used wide open and I was using the Tokina at F/8 too but it still missed a lot of the time.

The results at 300-400mm were even less reliable, perhaps because of the lesser depth of field.

When a shot was in focus, even at 400mm it was really very good considering the price of the lens with decent sharpness and contrast. I even got one or two snaps at F/5.6 that had acceptable sharpness in the centre but I would say out of 1300 shots I took I only got about 200 keepers and bear in mind that I was taking several copies of each shot it was not 1300 different compositions but simply multiples to try and increase my chances of at least one keeper, refocusing each time and even then I would end up with sequences of 10 shots and not one would be in focus, the Canon on the other hand hit focus on just about every single shot.

Now I'm not a pro and I'm not too proud to admit human error but I think the performance of the canon where focal lengths overlapped ruled out the camera or operator for the most part.

I was disappointed to say the least, when I got home I test the lens out with fixed subjects and although the results were slightly better there was still a big issue with the focusing.

I'm inclined to think that It might be worth selling the lens and going for the newer D version (mine is a MKII) because it is supposed to have better focusing, perhaps my copy of the lens is just not optimal?

I really like the lens in principle still, it's very small for it's range, well built and when it does hit focus the results are good (apart from some CA)

I definitely want a lens in this range so I will probably try a newer version but if I have no joy I will have to reluctantly move on to a bigma or maybe a 100-400 L (if I can ever afford it!)

Anyway, moaning aside I did manage (barely) to get some ok photos, I'm sure better lighting would have been easier on the lens and the eye but you can only work with what you have!

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4100/4824518501_e51804ffe3.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/fatdeeman/4824518501/)

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4137/4825126766_521cbe1d62.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/fatdeeman/4825126766/)

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4094/4824517585_90e63b6347.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/fatdeeman/4824517585/)

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4077/4824516343_8952fba015.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/fatdeeman/4824516343/)

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4119/4818859563_cb6cd5c4ab.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/fatdeeman/4818859563/)

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4093/4818859411_9020c2ebf0.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/fatdeeman/4818859411/)

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4094/4819481724_373fa0ea53.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/fatdeeman/4819481724/)

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4097/4815794235_a7e52ba624.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/fatdeeman/4815794235/)

fatdeeman

25th of July 2010 (Sun), 11:04

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4140/4815792923_389feaacb8.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/fatdeeman/4815792923/)

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4117/4815976360_9d752c6fa2.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/fatdeeman/4815976360/)

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4098/4815352541_21f21d30e5.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/fatdeeman/4815352541/)

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4094/4810667548_0a6ddd8276.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/fatdeeman/4810667548/)

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4074/4810544176_4114228071.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/fatdeeman/4810544176/)

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4138/4810543914_cb1852562d.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/fatdeeman/4810543914/)

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4095/4810543490_e449ef8040.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/fatdeeman/4810543490/)

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4102/4810543260_3a02f5fdef.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/fatdeeman/4810543260/)

jacobsen1

25th of July 2010 (Sun), 20:17

those shots are all great, but if you're tossing more than half the shots due to OOF, then it's not the right lens for what you're shooting. It does make me wonder which would make a bigger improvement though, the lens or the body, but the fact you're getting focused shots reliably with the 55-250 suggests it's almost all the lens...

TweakMDS

23rd of August 2010 (Mon), 02:17

There's many days where I just carry Tokina glass in my bag, such great lenses... To be honest, the 80-400 is my least favorite of the Tokinas I own, and definitely a class below the 50-135, 11-16 and the 35mm macro (which are all at-x pro series), but it's still a really nice lens for the price (I think I paid around 240 euros for mine - used) . I don't have any of the focus errors that fatdeeman described above, but I've been shooting relatively still subjects. Focus seems fast enough to get some decent tracking going on my 40D though, provided I keep it on one focus point and it doesn't get lost completely.
During my lunchbreaks, I've been experimenting with shooting shutter priority at 1/500th and auto iso. This may not always give the best results compared to a tripod, but in limited time, I can pretty much always get a good shot of a subject I see. All shots handheld.

Here's some recent shots of mine (click = flickr):
#1. Exif: 360mm, Tv mode @ 1/500th, f/5.6, ISO 800
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4119/4910410682_cd46395cc4_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mdstoop/4910410682/)

#2. Exif: 400mm, Tv mode @ 1/500th, f/11, ISO 400
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4073/4910409120_e8ac708777_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mdstoop/4910409120/)

#3. Exif: 80mm, Av mode @ f/5.6 (+1/3 ev), 1/20th, ISO 320
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4095/4910407922_6c0dbe3b76_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mdstoop/4910407922/)

Thanks for watching, C&C always welcome and appreciated.

AlistairD

28th of September 2010 (Tue), 15:51

One from our safari, 1D MkII and 80-400mm Tokina

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4150/5086986548_d60feb588f_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/15979825@N04/5086986548/)
Elephant - Juniorwtmk (http://www.flickr.com/photos/15979825@N04/5086986548/) by A&D D (http://www.flickr.com/people/15979825@N04/), on Flickr

TweakMDS

9th of October 2010 (Sat), 07:51

One from about a month ago shot in the Safari Park around here. Kind of a heavy overcast day without much light. Getting the right shutterspeeds took some steady handling...

Exif: 310mm, f/5.0, ISO 800, 1/500th.
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4124/5064808740_2618d4a1ab_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mdstoop/5064808740/)

RAW-Shooter

27th of October 2010 (Wed), 16:53

I am expecting my copy of the newer Tokina ATX- 840 AF D on Friday.
I'd like to post pictures here rather than starting a new thread.

Any thoughts?

Thank you kindly.

BoKo

AlistairD

28th of October 2010 (Thu), 00:02

I am expecting my copy of the newer Tokina ATX- 840 AF D on Friday.
I'd like to post pictures here rather than starting a new thread.

Any thoughts?

Thank you kindly.

BoKo

My personal view, post them here, I'd certainly like to see them compared to my Mk II

TweakMDS

28th of October 2010 (Thu), 06:17

My photos in this thread are with the AF-D version also. Don't think there's much difference between them optically...

shimoyjk

31st of October 2010 (Sun), 11:46

those pics are gorgeous,,, hmm this lens is much better than I thought.

um, what do you guys think about this lens as NEw BIF shooter as a starter lens?

is it gonna be too slow(focusing) ?

RAW-Shooter

31st of October 2010 (Sun), 12:27

Lens arrived Friday.
What I like:
1. Compact - it's shorter than my 70-200
2. Lighter than any xxx-400mm out there
3. Built quality is pretty close to "L"
4. AF speed is pretty good, but no match to USM
5. Price! Price! Price!
6. Did I mention the price?

What I dislike:
1. That tripod ring gets in my way. Need to figure out how to use the zoom ring without swearing at the tripod ring...
2. Focus ring rotates, not a show stopper for me.
3. Soft at 400mm wide open, which I expected.

This is the one of the most underrated lens in the market. Sure, at 400mm I need IS, but I cannot afford it right now. I had my eyes on the Canon 300mm f/4 IS for quite a while, but at $950 for a second hand, I have to wait. Maybe the Canon 100-400 2nd generation will be released in the next 2 years or so or the 400mm with IS. Who knows? A Canon 200-400 L would be my personal dream lens though. Meanwhile I am going to enjoy that Tokina!

Sample pics below.

RAW-Shooter

31st of October 2010 (Sun), 12:30

Sample 1 400mm, f/8, 1/1600s, ISO 250 hand held
Sample 2 160mm, f/8, 1/1000s, ISO 200 hand held

RAW-Shooter

31st of October 2010 (Sun), 12:34

Sample 3 400mm, f/8, 1/400s, ISO 200 Monopod used
Sample 4 400mm, f/8, 1/640s, ISO 200 Monopod used

RAW-Shooter

31st of October 2010 (Sun), 12:37

Sample 5 400mm, f/8, 1/250s, ISO 200 monopod used
Sample 6 400mm, f/5.6, 1/2000s, ISO 400 hand held

RAW-Shooter

31st of October 2010 (Sun), 12:40

Sample 7 400mm, f/7.1, 1/2000s, ISO 400 hand held
Sample 8 80mm, f/9, 1/1000s, ISO 400 hand held

Salma

1st of March 2011 (Tue), 22:01

Can somebody post some wildlife shots taken with this lens?

Thankyou please =]

TweakMDS

2nd of March 2011 (Wed), 07:36

Well, many, many egrets and storks (like 15 couples) are breeding around the office here, I'll give it a go this friday - if the weather is still as nice ;)

dropmyload

26th of September 2011 (Mon), 03:46

Taken on 60D with version I

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6065/6102095693_9dde6aaf0e_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/smandavia/6102095693/)
progress vs. conservation (http://www.flickr.com/photos/smandavia/6102095693/) by babasujaan (http://www.flickr.com/people/smandavia/), on Flickr

Layston

7th of January 2012 (Sat), 13:43

I just got a copy of the Tokina 80-400 AT-X D. I know this isn't the II version listed but I thought I'd share an image directly out of the camera. Hand held outside today. Downy woodpecker in my back yard.

Note:
a) I'm NO birder.
b) This is my first long lens. (I've tried with a Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 with a 2X TC and didn't like the results).
c) My keeper ratio is small at this point, but so far I'm impressed with this lens. Paid less than $500.

Yes there is some purple fringing, but other than that. If you get the focus right and use it at f8.0 it seems more than acceptable to me!

http://www.solidautomation.com/POTN/IMG_1155_small.jpg

And for those who like to pixel peep:
http://www.solidautomation.com/POTN/IMG_1155.jpg