Tokina AF 80-400mm 4.5-5.6 II

[condyk]

Ok, to give this guy his full name:

Tokina AF 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6 SD AT-X 840AF II

This is a very short initial impressions review. When I first started researching this lens I found very little about the new Mk II version, so maybe this will help someone.

The price gap between the decent cheaper stuff like Sigma 70-300mm APO DG or Canon 100-300mm USM and the mid-range options like the superb Sigma 100-300mm 4.0 EX and 50-500mm 4.0-6.3EX is relatively huge to the average punter/amateur; it's even larger when you next look at the Canon 300mm 4.0 IS L, 400mm 5.6 L and 100-400mm 4.5-5.6 IS L rung of the ladder. I'll leave aside the silly money stuff because I really don't care enough about photography to go there.

So, what are you gonna do? Keep the the cheap stuff or set the wallet alight with the bigger stuff? Well, what I did is take a chance on the brand new mark II version of the Tokina 80-400mm and initial impressions are pretty good :D I'm not gonna pixel peep here because I don't need to. I can already tell it will deliver decent results if I use it well, I ran several length and aperture tests, and it has no 'QA issues' that make me want to return it.

http://www.buzzdns.com/tokidown600.jpg

It's not as good as the L's above, but it is enough of an improvement to make it a great, cost effective upgrade from the cheapo stuff. Jury is out about whether it can compete with the Bigma, but at less than half the price even if it gets close I will be happy.

Build is typically Tokina and so it makes the L's look like the poorer, tho' trendier, relations from just a tad over the tracks. Design is old school for sure so we're losing out a tad in the who's coolest competition, but they are the only lenses than seem as solid as my classic old Zeiss and Pentax gear: think metal rather than plastic. Manual focus isn't L or EX quality but when am I gonna use that really? AF is typically a tad noisy, same as pretty much any none USM/HSM motor system. Who cares? Not me.

You get a pretty Ok lens pouch, built in adjustable tripod mount ring, lens hood, front and rear caps of course (front one is typically Tokina - cheesy!) a user manual, and I also got a free 7 year international Mac warranty. I paid less than £300 new ;-)

Filter Size is 72mm and, as you can guess from that, this really is an extremely small big boy zoom. You can see size compared against the 24-105mm 4.0 IS L, which is fine in all respects for day to day use. Dimensions (Length x Diameter) 5.4 in. (136mm) x 3.0in. (77.2mm). Weight is also very friendly at 37.0 oz. (1050g). So, if you want length and you want portable, even walkaround style, then this is a real contenter.

Of course, however small and light it may be we only want to carry the thing if the IQ is decent. There are plenty of super-light zoom that suck in that department so luckily my initial findings are favourable, actually better than I expected.

The previous model was well enough liked but probably not loved, with some reports mentioning CA and softness at 400mm. Again, hardly unique in a longer zoom, but we don't really want too much trouble from that kinda stuff. This is a whole new design with new coatings so Tokina have taken things seriously. It's not just a rehash.

This new model doesn't seem to suffer with CA, tho' I haven't pushed it hard and wouldn't normally anyway in real world use. It shows softness wide open at 400mm 5.6 but show me an affordable zoom that doesn't. I generally use a long zoom at f8.0 and by then this one is nice and sharp, requiring only the same two or three pass mild USM as I apply to my 24-105mm IS L shots.

At the opposite extreme is it pretty sharp wide open and firms up at 5.6, even more by 6.3. It's possibly intended for safari use, tho' I'm more likely to get another 50-500mm Bigma for that next year, so f8.0 isn't going to be an issue except for dawn and dusk shooting. Previous experience shows most of my shots aren't taken at those times so I am not concerned.

First shot above shows the 24-105mm 4.0 IS L next to the Tokina 80-400mm II, with the Tokina hood to the right. Second shot below shows both fully extended based on encouragement from a nosey pot plant and Cat. Yes, it is ultra-tiny for the range ;) My eyes nearly popped out when I saw it!

Final shot below is the first one out the camera using typical 'me' long range settings, i.e. 400mm f8.0. I can't be bothered PPing loads of 100% crops. You can believe me or not :p I never print larger than A4 and I know this lens will do fine.

http://www.buzzdns.com/tokiextend600.jpg
http://www.buzzdns.com/car400.jpg

[lakiluno]

Thanks! It looks like a good lens. Perhaps something to replace my 70-300 in a few months/years when I have the money (300 is a bit short sometimes :o)

If you do post more shots, could you tell me (take it to the zoo for some real safari practice!!!)

[cdifoto]

Looks decent at those sizes...at least at f/8...which it should. Surprisingly compact. Thanks for the thorough analysis, although I'm a bit pixel-peeper curious! :)

[fatdeeman]

Very interesting at that price!

Might have a look more closely when I have some money again.

[cjm]

hmm interesting. Might give it a try someday. Thanks for the info CondyK

[condyk]

If you do post more shots, could you tell me (take it to the zoo for some real safari practice!!!)

I will take it out on my usual weekend walkaround, if not before. I'll then post some shots. My 15-30mm Ex and 24-105mm IS L are both very consistent performers so this lens has tough competition to live up to. Let's hope he does the business and delivers a good keeper ratio.

Thanks for the thorough analysis, although I'm a bit pixel-peeper curious! :)

Can't be bothered with that myself. As long as it delivers a good A4 shot.

[Livinthalife]

Can't be bothered with that myself. As long as it delivers a good A4 shot.

Good idea! Once you start the pixel peeping, you will never be satisfied! :)

nice write up also!

[cdifoto]

Can't be bothered with that myself. As long as it delivers a good A4 shot.

No worries. I don't generally pixel peep either...check focus and that's about it. I'm just curious about what full size does look like. I mean it covers nearly what Bigma covers, and is SO much smaller! Looks like a good lens for poundin' around with though...for sure.

[grego]

So what's the focal length on the cat? And how much does it weigh? Will I need to buy a POTN strap for the cat?

[condyk]

So what's the focal length on the cat? And how much does it weigh? Will I need to buy a POTN strap for the cat?

:lol: :lol: Not sure about focal length but she's got a very large aperture making her excellent at night and indoors without flash. Weight is the problem. Her brother is long, lithe and slinky and she is short and chunky. I tried her with a strap once and no way is that ever gonna happen. She has been fitted with a collar in the past tho', but not sure where I'd attach the tripod :shock:

[cdifoto]

not sure where I'd attach the tripod :shock:

I know this one! *Raises hand* Pick me! Pick me! Ooo oo oo! Pick me! :eek: :)

[condyk]

I know this one! *Raises hand* Pick me! Pick me! Ooo oo oo! Pick me! :eek: :)

No! You are a very naughty boy. Go stand in the corner right now :evil:

[lakiluno]

:D :D :D :D

[Permagrin]

We have this lens (to be more exact, my husband does and I've used it a few times). I like it a lot. The worst part is that with no image stabilization it's hard to keep still without a tripod (I was using it with the MKIIN and it's a heavy combo) on 400mm. But it has nice saturation of colors and pretty good sharpness to the edge of the lens. We use it for wildlife shots. The problem will be finding it. Now Tokina has come out with a new model 80-400 ATX-D and this one isn't available anymore (unless used). I think Amazon sold out of their last one and when we were buying it, we bought the last one BH photo had.

edit: BH appears to have the 80-400 (not the II) and it is a far different lens, with terrible reviews...

[condyk]

Now Tokina has come out with a new model 80-400 ATX-D and this one isn't available anymore (unless used). I think Amazon sold out of their last one and when we were buying it, we bought the last one BH photo had.

edit: BH appears to have the 80-400 (not the II) and it is a far different lens, with terrible reviews...

This is the brand new model just released see here (http://www.thkphoto.com/products/tokina/afl-12.html)

[Permagrin]

This is the brand new model just released see here (http://www.thkphoto.com/products/tokina/afl-12.html)

We just bought the lens, AT-X II and I thought the new one was the AT-X D? Anyway, if the one we have is the brand new one, well, like I said, I like it :D

[In2Photos]

Nice write up Dave.

And B&H (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=429082&is=REG&addedTroughType=categoryNavigation) has this lens for $649.95 In Stock.

[In2Photos]

We just bought the lens, AT-X II and I thought the new one was the AT-X D? Anyway, if the one we have is the brand new one, well, like I said, I like it :D

The AT-X D is how B&H has the new one listed. They also show the older version in stock at $489.95.

[cdifoto]

Dave's pic looks like its of the old one... I'm confused Dave...are you saying you bought the NEW version, or the older one?

[In2Photos]

Dave's pic looks like its of the old one...

Yup it sure does.

[Permagrin]

Couple of photos Dan shot to test the lens.
(Both photos were shot on the same day...it was incredibly foggy at the lighthouse though you really can't tell in the first photo but the second, the sun was shining directly on the lighthouse through the dense fog.)

for color & sharpness: http://static.flickr.com/89/222232061_c4bfa8aa19_b.jpg


for CA: http://static.flickr.com/86/222232059_0518da4115_b.jpg

Both photos were shot on ISO 125 at the low end of the zoom

edit: and neither of them have any (he says he cropped the top one) post processing work...he likes his shots "right out of the camera" (meaning he hates to deal with post processing)

*edit by Mod -images changed to links as they are too large.Please read the new image posting rules http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=51022

[condyk]

Dave's pic looks like its of the old one... I'm confused Dave...are you saying you bought the NEW version, or the older one?

I am confused too. The advert clearly states 'new version with tripod collar' and I checked that version on the Tokina web site two weeks ago and it was the shown as the current version, with the older version also shown under the history section.

Seems this last week or so that the II version has been replaced by the D, which looks identical other than the body has a crinkle finish rather than smooth and different markings. Probably different 'digital' coatings or something!

Hmmm ... well I got it for an amazing price and it takes good shots so I am still happy :D maybe not as happy but the test is always IQ so why worry y'all ;)

Apologies Peregrin, you are right after all ;-) but glad you can confirm it's a decent lens.

[Permagrin]

No prob ;)

I think you'll like the lens. There is absolutely nothing in this price range that can even touch the quality. We'd dropped a lot of money on L lenses, and a DO IS, previous to buying this and when we discovered that the 300mm was not QUITE long enough, we didn't want to spend another fortune on the 100-400L and the "bigma" was out of the question (weight wise)....so we tried this and found it to work just fine for our needs. You are right that it's not an L, but the ATX-II (again, a warning on the ATX "I" version, though it was just called ATX and came without a tripod collar...you'll often see those on ebay and they definitely have critical reviews) is a VG lens for the money.

[nitsch]

Good write up Dave, cheers for taking the time. I have a friend who is looking for a decent tele zoom, I'll suggest he takes a look at this lens. I can't believe how compact it is!

[ron chappel]

Wow- i had no idea this lens was so small :)

Look,thanks for giving this great review and all but could someone,ANYONE please give some comparison pics against a well known lens!!!!!!
It may be 'good enough for A4's' ,'better than the consumer zooms' and 'not as good as an L zooms' but really,these phrases are no real use for anyone who is undecided . SOME OF US JUST WANT TO KNOW exactly **HOW** GOOD IT IS.
You have decided it's good enough for you (which is nice) but others need to see images to decide wether it's good enough for them


I'm not surprised y'all are having fits working out which models you own.D*mn third party manufacturers do this all the time.
I don't think even tokina themselves know how many different models of fast standard zooms they've made in the last 15 years :lol::lol:

[Permagrin]

The longest lens I have to compare it to would be the 70-300 DO IS. Not many people own that one, and given the differing opinions of DO, I'm not sure that would be the comparison you'd want. If you do however, or want a comparison with any of the other lenses I've got listed, at various lengths etc. I'd be happy to do it.

[ron chappel]

Hi Peregrin ,thanks for the offer !:D

While not ideal ,the 70-300DO would be an interesting one to compare with - if only for the reason that it's in a very similar image quality category ..i.e not quite as good as an L zoom.
Comparisons at the long end would be the most usefull because that's where all tele's are at their weakest.(most are happy with sharpness at the short end,it's at the longer end that most buyers have to make tough decisions)
When testing the tokina lens at 400mm ,use the equal magnification method -i.e move the camera forward or back to match other focal length lenses.That way we can get an idea of absolute image quality compared to allmost any other lens :)

[Permagrin]

Well, what I've discovered is grievous for me!! (It appears that the ATX-II out performs my DO!) Excuse the large photos, the mediums came out too small to see results...I can delete this post later if you wish.

fyi: My wall is red, there is no color cast... :D

Control standards:
tripod used
Auto WB
ISO 100
used the widest aperture at each mm
natural lighting, no flash
control lenses 24-105L & 70-300 DO IS
80-400 ATX II will always be the 2nd photo in group
[noparse]
80mm f4.5
24-105L
http://static.flickr.com/69/222428923_f56e4c3a6e.jpg
80-400 ATX II
http://static.flickr.com/74/222428921_a64bfa8343.jpg


100mm f4.5
24-105L
http://static.flickr.com/74/222428926_4535cd836d.jpg
80-400 ATX II
http://static.flickr.com/74/222428924_2f6e2a7db6.jpg

200mm f5.6 (the ATX was at f5...I made a mistake :oops: )
70-300 DO IS
http://static.flickr.com/69/222428928_07bd23d055.jpg
80-400 ATX II
http://static.flickr.com/93/222428929_0e7f7f0c80.jpg

300mm f5.6 (the ATX was at f5...I made a mistake :oops: )
70-300 DO IS
http://static.flickr.com/83/222430197_3189011bd3.jpg
80-400 ATX II
http://static.flickr.com/87/222430196_a481349dcc.jpg

AND 400mmm here: (http://www.flickr.com/photos/peregrin/222430198/)according to the link rules of no photo more than 8.

[condyk]

It may be 'good enough for A4's' ,'better than the consumer zooms' and 'not as good as an L zooms' but really,these phrases are no real use for anyone who is undecided . SOME OF US JUST WANT TO KNOW exactly **HOW** GOOD IT IS.


Ronaldo ... I know what you're saying and as I am on holiday from Saturday and very likely to be bored I will do some cheesy test shots for you and Donaldo CDi to titter and measurbate over. This may actually be more boring to me than being bored, so I hope y'all appreciate the sacrifice.

My last minor 'test' pitted the £6 MF Helios 58mm 2.0 against my mighty 24-105mm IS L 4.0 and most thought the former was the latter :lol: :lol: I'm not sure that when used well most decent lenses are all that different to the standard shooter; that's why the 100% peepin' seems kinda pointless to me. I'm a fit for purpose guy and not filled with Lust, which I know you will understand.

I still think my description is perfect for most folks who just want some very nice reduced shots and don't want to have to pay large $$$'sAu/US for a lens that also does a good job at 100%.

[Permagrin]

:( sorry if the test I did wasn't what you were looking for...it was my first but I thought I understood...

[condyk]

:( sorry if the test I did wasn't what you were looking for...it was my first but I thought I understood...

I thought you did a good job at showing lenses aren't necessarily that different, but that one lens can certainly be rather better value than another. Maybe Ron and Don and happy and I can avoid my test ;-)

I think any difference is about subjective assessment of value anyway and what one person values may not be of as much value to someone else.

Personally, I like a shot that says something, is packed with emotional content, or gives me an appreciation of something I hadn't noticed before. That is why I am more into composition and exposure and less concerned with things like 'sharpness', 'saturation', and so on. Ideally, of course, we get it all ;-)

Most lenses stopped down and with exposure spot on will generate pretty similar results in my experience; it's whether the give or take is worth the hassle. Sure, we need faster apertures and faster and more accurate AF motors for some stuff, but generally most lenses can do a decent job.

So, an OK to slowish lens with a non USM/HSM motor is fit for purpose if you want to shoot safari or distant candids on a tripod/mono most of the time and then reduce to max A4. That is my criteria. As I mentioned before, if some want full sized or blow up images then spend more cash on a top line L or EX.

[ron chappel]

Yep you did a great job Perigrin,Thanks ! :D
That's exactly what i (and many others) needed to see.David can indeed go back to being on holiday ;)

[In2Photos]

Those results are very suprising. The L does have better color but not by much and the Tokina seems to be very consistent and better than the DO. The shot at 400mm seems underexposed for some reason but otherwise would definately be good enough IQ for me.:)

BTW Peregrin, I like your taste in wall color.:D

[Nikolas]

Personally I'd like to see real life examples with a crop to see how good the iq is.

[condyk]

Personally I'd like to see real life examples with a crop to see how good the iq is.

Well matey, as a man who also owns the Zeiss Sonnar 135 f3.5 and Flektogon 35mm f2.4, and Pentax Takumar 50mm f1.4, and 200mm f3.5 (works of art all) I hereby commit myself to supplying you with a real life sample of a brick wall or Duckie or similar at 400mm with 100% crop section :lol: :lol: You may have to wait a few days.

Hope this makes all you lads and ladies happy ;-)

[Macavity]

Personally I'd like to see real life examples with a crop to see how good the iq is.
*GASP*

You mean someone actually uses their equipment outside!!!

I thought we were only allowed to use them in carefully controlled environments while shooting multi-colored cards or black & white lines.

Geesh, now I'll have to get a bag or something.

;)

(All kidding aside, thanks to all who are trying to provide the average Joe with an opinion on this lens. I'll be watching for some up close views of a few door knobs, Dave. :D )

[CyberDyneSystems]

I'll tell you exactly where I'd like to see this lens compared, is Vs. the 70-300mm DO IS..

I have never been pleased with my results for the DO, but I love it's size, (and of course it's amazing AF and IS)

But I would be willing to pass on the AF and IS if the IQ were better. (the extra 100mm is appealing too :) )

Stunned at how small it is. :shock:

[In2Photos]

I'll tell you exactly where I'd like to see this lens compared, is Vs. the 70-300mm DO IS..

I have never been pleased with my results for the DO, but I love it's size, (and of course it's amazing AF and IS)

But I would be willing to pass on the AF and IS if the IQ were better. (the extra 100mm is appealing too :) )

Stunned at how small it is. :shock:

CDS did you see Peregrin's pics?;)

[Permagrin]

I reposted with smaller photos as requested. I was shocked at the results. The Tokina seems tight, edge to edge. I did some other tests later and found that it is definitely harder to hand hold at 400mm. But the color and sharpness seems to hold true, all the way to the edge. Makes me sorry I spent over $1100 on that DO....in order to get the same results, I had to use a plus 1 exposure comp. on the DO (to make it act like a lens 1/3 the price....) sigh. I was wondering why I was having probs with the DO since I got the 5D...I wonder if the full frame has anything to do with it. It shot wonders on my 1DMKIIN.

[Permagrin]

Those results are very suprising. The L does have better color but not by much and the Tokina seems to be very consistent and better than the DO. The shot at 400mm seems underexposed for some reason but otherwise would definately be good enough IQ for me.:)

BTW Peregrin, I like your taste in wall color.:D

Thanks, we just bought our first house (after 22yrs of marriage) and finally I was able to paint the walls exactly the way I wanted :D

By the way, 400mm could have used a boost in exposure comp but I didn't want to change any of the "controls"...

[Permagrin]

I'll tell you exactly where I'd like to see this lens compared, is Vs. the 70-300mm DO IS..

I have never been pleased with my results for the DO, but I love it's size, (and of course it's amazing AF and IS)

But I would be willing to pass on the AF and IS if the IQ were better. (the extra 100mm is appealing too :) )

Stunned at how small it is. :shock:

Most of the tests I posted yesterday were against the 70-DO IS. The results were shocking. The ATX II's color and white balance (all shots were on AWB) were true through the entire length of the lens. On 400 the ATX looked like it could have used maybe a +1/3 exp. comp....but the DO, in order to get the same results, had to be reshot with a +1. The DO is a little sharper in the center and softer on the edges. Frankly, if I could handhold the ATX, I'd carry it in heartbeat over the DO, (and until this test, I was a HUGE fan of DO). Unfortunately, I've got the shakes so I can't get away with a non-IS. The AXT II stayed sharp to the edges...good lens, but now BH doesn't have any in and neither does AMAZON...I just looked.

[CyberDyneSystems]

Yes, thanks for that comparison. I had replied before seeing the second page of the thread! :o

Very interesting results indeed.
It's not an immediate need for me, but I may be tempted top try this one out soon and then decide which if the two to hold on to.

As you say, it's hard to give up the DO once you have it. It's really an amazing little lens.

[condyk]

Straight from camera with no PP other than resize when framed. It was sunny but also raining and so I was shooting ISO 400 on a tripod from under a tree :rolleyes: Not ideal! Chose the location because of the tree for shelter and the gravestone for checking possible CA.

Canon 24-105 4.0 IS L V's Tokina 80-400mm II 4.5-5.6, both wide open 100mm or so.

http://www.buzzdns.com/2.jpg
http://www.buzzdns.com/1.jpg

First is the Tokina and second the Canon.

OK, massive difference there :lol: :lol: and yes, my Canon is a great copy!

Here is the Tokina showing at its weakest 400mm wide open 5.6. No PP.

http://www.buzzdns.com/40056.jpg

Here is the Tokina showing at 400mm 8.0, how I would normally use it I guess. No PP.

http://www.buzzdns.com/40080.jpg

Here is the Tokina at 400mm 11, for curiosity value. No PP. Bokeh starting to get a little underwhelming.

http://www.buzzdns.com/40011.jpg

Here is the 400mm 8.0 shot with minimal PP, one pass minimal USM, auto contrast and some basic curves adjustment, second pass minimal USM, frame/resize.

http://www.buzzdns.com/400mm80PP.jpg

[Dorman]

This lens looks like a great value in a VERY compact and portable package. It may not deliver everything that some are looking for in a lens, but at that price/size there's no reason to complain at all. I'm looking for a new telephoto, once I settle on a range this one may be in consideration. It's nice to see one that fits my price range.

[malla1962]

Looks very good for the money.:D

[ron chappel]

Would anyone like to post 100mm verses 400mm examples taken at the same magnification? (i.e-move back four times as far for the long end shots)
I know this might sound demanding or picky -don't feel obliged !:D

I wonder why no one does tests this way? It's allmost as easy and far more usefull.

[condyk]

Eh? Please explain ... why is that more useful?

[ron chappel]

I find it's a very quick and intuitive way of finding out where a lens stands overall -especially telezooms which can get overly soft at the long end
It's amazing comparing (as would be the case with this focal length) 100mm to 300mm and 400mm.You get an *instant* feel as to wether you'll like the lens at it's long end by the amount of softness it shows there.
I find that what i can learn using this technique correlates extremely well with how good the images are that come later.

[Permagrin]

I would do it but I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean. (I have the 100-400L now to compare it to, but I don't understand why I would need to move the tripod...sorry).

[cc10d]

I think he means both shots with the same lens, at 100 then 400. The distance, camera to subject adjusted to give the same framing for both shots.

[condyk]

I think he means both shots with the same lens, at 100 then 400. The distance, camera to subject adjusted to give the same framing for both shots.

That sounds a real mission to me, moving around and trying to get the length right so the shots are identical. You can tell if a lens is too soft for your own standards anyway. This kind of lens I'm only really interested at 300-400mm 'in the field' and at f8.0 it can do a good job as an easy carry on a hike.

The sharpness isn't there compared to the 3 long L's I've had but this is less than a third of the price and pretty well half the size. A very good upgrade to the Sigma 70-300mm APO DG from memory. I reckon you'd need to spend more than twice as much for a Bigma to get anything better.

The problem I'm having is that it is probably four+ years since I last used a long lens properly in Africa and I am finding with a tripod I like it, but these days handheld I can hardly use it as I'd like at 200mm, let alone 400mm. I'm thinking I'm not gonna get the use from it that I thought for that reason :-(

Here's some slobbering Doggy shot taken at 400mm wide open with tripod :D I tried loads handheld and just couldn't do it!

http://www.birdforum.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=57147"

[Permagrin]

New photos (and last ;) ) test: (tried to keep them framed the same but the compression of the telephoto did have some play...)

controls: widest aperture for each distance
ISO 320 (it's dark in the house)
100-400L vs Tokina 80-400
standard image parameter on 5D
no post processing
tripod mounted with remote shutter..

100-400L @ 100mm f4.5
http://static.flickr.com/85/232231351_0923b92bc1.jpg
80-400 @ 100mm f4.5
http://static.flickr.com/93/232231934_7f1293b0b5.jpg

100-400L @ 200mm f5.0
http://static.flickr.com/85/232231352_e048c8418d.jpg
80-400 @ 200mm f5.0
http://static.flickr.com/85/232231352_e048c8418d.jpg

100-400L @ 300mm f5.6
http://static.flickr.com/81/232231353_a102f24630.jpg
80-400 @ 300mm f5.6
http://static.flickr.com/90/232231356_bee37bef64.jpg

100-400 @ 400mm f5.6
http://static.flickr.com/97/232231354_9fdf56c43e.jpg
80-400 @ 400mm f5.6
http://static.flickr.com/87/232231355_a7d7e78db2.jpg

[condyk]

Great job Peregrin. You can see all through the range that the 100-400mm is a tad sharper, very close at 100mm, and a tad more contrasted. Not much in it tho' and you might just get even closer with some minor post-processing boost. At 400mm you know the Toki is gonna struggle to compete, but it still does pretty well. I am surprised :-)

At the end of the day decent lenses aren't always that different untill you really start spending out silly money; what makes or breaks for me is AF capabilities, USM/HSM and general handling. Build is not a problem here.

[AmericanFirst]

New photos (and last ;) ) test: (tried to keep them framed the same but the compression of the telephoto did have some play...)



There does seem to be some magnification changes between the two lenses. Do you have any accounting for this? I am going to assume the tripod and camera body were in the same location and you swapped lens while at the same setting... or did you keep one lens on... move it back for framing and then repeat the sequence with the other lens? (This seems the more likely, judging from the shots.)

There is a noticable DOF change between the first two shots. Its minor, but detectable. The 100-400mm seems to be a bit sharper, overall, when examing these shots close-up. "Mushroom" on the Cambell's can is a bit more defined.

Overall... they are definitely competitive. It would be hard to tell them apart, under normal circumstances, based on this submission, in my opinion.

How much for the 80-400mm? ;)

[Permagrin]

I did just repeat the sequence with the tokina...I didn't want to switch lenses 7x (for some reason the 5D is a dust magnet after it's been on for a while). So I tried to mark the locations and repeat everything...but yes, there are a few movement errors.

And I was surprised how well it held up to the 100-400L. And in the last test it kicked the heck out of the DO IS! At least on the 5D...the only thing we don't like is the lack of IS. In fact, it rarely gets used because my husband usually uses the DO IS now and I use (go figure) the 100-400L. Maybe I should sell it ;) ....we'll see.

[runninmann]

Even if the positions are exactly the same, there is some industry allowable tolerance in focal lengths, so a 400 mm lens may be somewhat less or more than the nominal.

[lakiluno]

Damn you all...I know have an urge to replace m 70-300 with this, even though I know the kit needs to replaced first.

*goes to the 17-70 thread to try and equal everything out*

[condyk]

Damn you all...I know have an urge to replace m 70-300 with this, even though I know the kit needs to replaced first.

*goes to the 17-70 thread to try and equal everything out*

I think I am now too old and shaky to do this lens justice without carrying my monopod around kid, so am going to sell it and get something else just before heading to Africa next year. Probably still going to be priced more than your meagre pocket money can stretch tho ;)

[adam*]

Damn you dave, your so generous with your prices... it's just so tempting.

But, to be honest for my needs I need a 24-70 > 15-30 first and as usual i'm hardly rolling in cash! I think I may even sell my flektogon to raise some cash :(

I'm starting to think that I really need to be getting some mm for my £, so good mid-telephoto's etc are a necessity.

[Permagrin]

I think I am now too old and shaky to do this lens justice without carrying my monopod around kid, so am going to sell it and get something else just before heading to Africa next year.

? You just bought it? And did the tests? ;)

Humans. Never will I understand them.

[condyk]

? You just bought it? And did the tests? ;)

:lol: :lol: Sure, well when I first got back from living in Africa for a while 4 years ago I could use a Bigma handheld and got some very good shots with it. I assumed I still could do that but I can't ... and I ain't giving up real coffee. Because of that it's not going to be as useful as I expected. Happy to use a monopod but not all the time. I got it at a good price, so someone else can benefit now. No harm done.

[ClickClick]

Is hand held photos possible or is a tripod definately needed?

[Permagrin]

Handholding is fine unless it's low light, then you'll prob. need a tripod. It's not very fast but it's a good lens with good sharpness/saturation.

[condyk]

Click, I think it will be perfectly possible in the right conditions, but even in those conditions I think you'd need a steady hand. Conditions I used it in on Friday where pretty good and I was the problem. The size makes it easier but like any long, non IS lens you will always get the best results held steady on a tri, mono or beanbag. I actually think 4.5-5.6 is pretty good for a long, mid class lens.

[ron chappel]

Thanks once again for the test perigrin! That is seriously usefull :D

[Lightstream]

Nice tests, and very enlightening. Tokina almost seems to be like the redheaded stepchild of the lens manufacturers, they are there, but few talk about them or even own their gear. It's always Sigma or Tamron.

I am very impressed by how small that lens is, it's the pocket rocket of 400mm-capable zooms. You have one very good point about weight, which is unfortunately the reason why I am giving up my Bigma :( it is a superb lens, but the operator is a lightweight who doesn't want to carry it outdoors :( even the Canon 100-400 can be quite chunky at times.

1190gm for the stabilized 300 f/4L and a deal way too good to pass up sealed it for me. Although today I sure wish I had brought my monopod when I was attacked by a shrieking, rabid gull. As my camera dealer said "Remember, smack them with the POD, NOT THE LENS!" http://pix.lightrefineries.org/img/crackup.gif

[lakiluno]

Well...I guess I'll get one of these as my after-next lens...300mm just seems too short :(

[MillCreek]

I have looked on the website and can find nothing on point: any ideas as to if this lens can be used with a teleconverter? I already have a Kenko Pro 300 1.4x, and it would be interesting if this lens was compatible with it.

[Jman13]

Tokina almost seems to be like the redheaded stepchild of the lens manufacturers, they are there, but few talk about them or even own their gear. It's always Sigma or Tamron.


I think a lot of that is because they have a very small lens lineup. There is little choice in the Tokina lens lineup, and they aren't as widely distributed (probaby because of the small lineup), so they get shunted. The thing is, the AT-X Pro line is constructed to L-quality build standards, and the image quality is pretty darn good. Even their consumer lenses (like the 80-400) are very very good for their range, and excellent build.

After buying my Tokina 12-24, I certainly will look there first among the 3rd party lens makers if they have similar focal lengths. It's one reason why the upcoming Tokina 16-50 f/2.8 is #1 on my list, provided the IQ is comparable to the Tamron 17-50. If they're close, it's Tokina all the way. My Tokina 12-24 is my favorite lens, so that'll tell you something.

[Permagrin]

I have looked on the website and can find nothing on point: any ideas as to if this lens can be used with a teleconverter? I already have a Kenko Pro 300 1.4x, and it would be interesting if this lens was compatible with it.

They are supposed to be. On the Tokina website they advertise the Kenko converters, the same company is supposed to make the glass for both lens and converters. I don't have one so I don't know but I am going to get one sometime around Christmas because the Kenko pro line is supposed to work well in AF with all ranges from 100mm up.

And lightstream, the lens is pretty small. It's about the same weight as my 24-70L. It's performance is amazing, I think (that's why we still have it). It's lighter than the DO IS.

[ron chappel]

Yes ,poor tokina does tend to be ignored don't they ,in spite of having outstanding build quality and (overall) very good optics

Actually even tamron wasn't heard of a whole lot until they bought out the 28-200/300 zooms and then the killer 28-75/2.8
For years sigma has been the top dog of third part manufacturers

[Neilyb]

Have just read this entire thread, can't wait to get my Toki....cheers Dave. Will post some duck shots when I get it :) and then some lion/elephant shots in December :)

[condyk]

Have just read this entire thread, can't wait to get my Toki....cheers Dave. Will post some duck shots when I get it :) and then some lion/elephant shots in December :)

:lol: :lol: Spare me the Duck shots matey ;-)

Definately looking forward to the Botswana report and shots tho' you lucky, lucky boy!

You got a nice lens. Hope you enjoy it.

[MillCreek]

Reading this thread and some other comments on the web inspired me to purchase this lens today from B&H. We have a lot of room up here in the upper left hand corner of the United States, and I just needed some more reach than that provided by my Sigma 70-200 2.8 EX and Kenko Pro 1.4 TC or for that matter my Sigma 70-300, which does not work with the TC. And since I do this solely as a hobby, cost was most definitely a factor. I will post upon my experiences when I receive the lens. I will be very interested to see if the Tokina and the Kenko Pro TX play together.

[condyk]

Cool ... it's a bargain really and so easy to carry around that you can't fail. Looking forward to your views and some shots.

[Permagrin]

Reading this thread and some other comments on the web inspired me to purchase this lens today from B&H. We have a lot of room up here in the upper left hand corner of the United States, and I just needed some more reach than that provided by my Sigma 70-200 2.8 EX and Kenko Pro 1.4 TC. And since I do this solely as a hobby, cost was most definitely a factor. I will post upon my experiences when I receive the lens. I will be very interested to see if the Tokina and the Kenko Pro TX play together.

Oh, too bad...I just listed mine for sale :(

[Billginthekeys]

So.. for someone whos used to a 400 5.6 prime, would this be a bad lens to consider as a nature walkaround. i think it would be a great lens to walk around with, and from what ive seen so far it seems to retain reasonable sharpness. On campus going to class i just cant carry my camera with me with my big lens on it. but every day i get more and more pissed by missing a shot. the other day i was waiting around outside, and two hawks went right over my head and landed nearby. i was excited to see them... but pissed i was a ten minute walk from my camera.

[Billginthekeys]

i and i wont even get into how pissed i was when i was walking over to subway to get dinner and two blue macaws flew right over my head and landed 30 feet away...... im not sure exactly how and why they were there.... since florida doesnt have macaws nativley, sure havnt seen them here before or since. They were certainly macaws though, once youve seen... or in this case heard them you never can forget (costa rica).

[Permagrin]

Well, of course I think you need it ;)

[Billginthekeys]

i know what your getting at lol. if i werent dead broke i would be conisidering it. but i just bought that 1D and now i need a bigger camera bag to boot.

[Neilyb]

Mine just arrived, Cheers Dave :)

[condyk]

So.. for someone whos used to a 400 5.6 prime, would this be a bad lens to consider as a nature walkaround.

Well the 400mm 5.6 L is about as nice as it gets so you are definately gonna lose some IQ at least.

Of course, you will get shots you just wouldn't have got without having the zoom, so it depends on your own perception. If you look at shots and constantly feel it would have been better with the 400mm L then you will suffer; if you look and are just glad you have the Toki because you got the shot then you will be happy.

If you can handhold the 400mm L then you will be able to handhold this one. It's also a 5.6 at 400mm so you know the light it will need to keep your shutter speeds up.

It will be a very good walkaround long zoom and at the daft B&H price for the II model, if still available, it has to be a bargain compared to the not much cheaper cheapo zooms. Definately not L class but also better than the cheapo's by quite a way.

[MillCreek]

My Tokina 80-400 AT-X D just arrived from B&H. As soon as it stops raining, I will go out and take some pictures. My first impression is that the thing is built like a tank! It has sort of a retro charm to the build compared to the sleeker Canons and Sigmas. Nice buttery feel to the zoom and focus rings, and my Kenko Pro 1.4 TC seems to work, although the AF is hunting a lot. This may be a function of using it in the low-light indoors environment. More to come later.

PS: Edited to add that the new version does not come with a lens case. Only a hood and the front/back caps.

[PhilipJohnBasile]

Any shots yet?

[lakiluno]

.../\ what he said :o

[Dorman]

Waiting...

[MillCreek]

Here is a duck shot taken from a distance of 50 feet:

Canon 20D
Tokina 80-400 ATX-D
400 mm
1/500 seconds
F 8.0
ISO 200
Using tripod
This is straight from the camera with no post-processing

[MillCreek]

This is a shot of a stern view of an Arleigh Burke class destroyer and a Perry class frigate taken from about one mile:

Canon 20D
Tokina 80-400 ATX-D
400 mm
1/640 seconds
F 9.0
ISO 200
Using tripod
This is straight from the camera with no post-processing

[MillCreek]

The duck shot at 200 mm with all other parameters remaining the same:

[MillCreek]

The duck shot at 80 mm with all parameters remaining the same except a shutter speed of 1/320 seconds:

[MillCreek]

I should mention that all of the shots above were taken in the late morning, at approximately 11 AM, in hazy sunny weather with the white balance set to cloudy. The morning fog had just about burned off. Also the original JPEG files of about 3 .5 megabytes each were resized to under 100 kb for posting here.

[Dorman]

Looks pretty good Millcreek.

[condyk]

Certainly a step up from the regular cheaper zooms but not quite Bigma class IMO, which makes it great value indeed. Had the white balance been corrected on those shots I think they'd look better still.

[MillCreek]

If desired, I can post the shots after my usual post-processing. The WB is actually a pretty good representation of the current lighting conditions at the time of the shoot. For lens reviews, I like to see the shots without PP, since many sins can be corrected in PP.

[Torquemada]

I'd like to see them after post-processing. I'm a bit confused as to which is the new model though. Is this the new one?

http://www.labellecameras.com/products.cfm/PhotoAccessories/Lenses-for-Cameras/Autofocus-SLR-Zoom-Lenses/Tokina--80-40045-56-ATX-II-SD-APO-Zoom-Lens-f-Canon-AF-USA-16421.html

Or is that the old model? At that price I have to believe it's the old one. I'm interested in the new model.

[condyk]

Or is that the old model? At that price I have to believe it's the old one. I'm interested in the new model.

The newest model is the D. Check Tokina web site. It has a crinkle finish. The Mk II has the tripod ring while the not so good Mk I doesn't. The Mk II is great value at the price if you don't mind not having the latest version. You will pay rather more for the D ;-)

[Torquemada]

The newest model is the D. Check Tokina web site. It has a crinkle finish. The Mk II has the tripod ring while the not so good Mk I doesn't. The Mk II is great value at the price if you don't mind not having the latest version. You will pay rather more for the D ;-)

So this is the new one: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=429082&is=REG&addedTroughType=search

Sadly a Bigma or 100-400L is just out of my price range, but this seems like a good lens that will give me better reach than my 70-300 does now.

[condyk]

Yup ... that is the D with crinkle finish. They have the Mk II for about $170 cheaper.

[Torquemada]

Thanks. I think the D is the way to go since Bigma's and 100-400 L's are not an option right now. Thanks for your time.

[Dorman]

Dying for a 100-400, but this seems like QUITE the value indeed.

[MillCreek]

I have just returned from a four day cruise up the Inside Passage of the Pacific shore of British Columbia, departing from Seattle. I am attaching several pictures taken with the Tokina 80-400 ATX-D.

This first picture was taken at approximately 200 yards, handheld from a moving cruise ship:

400 mm
1/640
F 9.0
ISO 200
Auto white balance

[MillCreek]

The second picture was also taken handheld from a moving cruise ship. The container cranes are approximately 1.5 miles away and the mountain, Mt. Rainier, is approximately 80 miles away.

120 mm
1/500
F 10.0
ISO 200
Auto white balance

[MillCreek]

The third picture was taken at approximately 200 yards, handheld from the deck of a moving cruise ship. It was shortly after sunrise.

400 mm
1/400
F 7.1
ISO 200
Auto white balance

[MillCreek]

This is another shot of Mt. Rainier, taken as we were leaving the harbor in Seattle, handheld from the deck of a moving cruise ship.

400 mm
1/640
F 9.0
ISO 200
Auto white balance

[MillCreek]

This shot was taken handheld from the deck of the anchored cruise ship. The tug is approximately 150 yards away.

400 mm
1/640
F 8.0
ISO 200
Auto white balance

[MillCreek]

This shot is taken from land, and the cruise ship is approximately 0.5 mile away.

170 mm
1/640
F 9.0
ISO 200
Auto white balance

[MillCreek]

I used the Sigma 17-70 for about 85% of my shots and got some very good photos from that lens as well. In regards to the Tokina, I am very pleased at how well it performs. There were some low light and fog shots that did not turn out all that well, due to the motion blur of the moving cruise ship. Even with cranking up the ISO and trying to force the shutter speed up, I could not hold it steady enough handheld at maximum focal lengths. This was not unexpected. Based on my experience so far, this lens is definitely a keeper. With the build quality, the Sigma, itself no slouch in the build department, looked like a toy next to the Tokina.

[Torquemada]

Nice! Thanks for posting those! I went for the Tamron 200-500mm after all but I'm glad to see this lens is pretty sweet.

[AmericanFirst]

Nice! Thanks for posting those! I went for the Tamron 200-500mm after all but I'm glad to see this lens is pretty sweet.

Excellent choice in lightweight, long-distance lensing. One thing though... when you are underway... on a tripod and trying to snap an image of Mr. Eagle, up in yonder tree. Always shut the boat engine off before snapping the shutter... or you will have a vibration-ridden image the likes of which you have never seen. Even your best shot will look like... well, just shut off the motor, okay?

Ah, long glass... you gotta love it. :D

[JaGWiRE]

I'm very interested in a comparison of this lens and the Tamron 200-500, although this one is a different focal length all together (probably better suited for me.)

I am curious if anybody has some serious real life duck, bird and other wildlife shots though. I'm curious of the real capabilities of this lens, and am inteersted in shots that you'de take at the zoo.

Oh, and is the tripod ring removable on the new version? If not, can you still handhold the lens and zoom convertably? Somebody on FM said this was an issue with the old lens.

[gary-s]

The 400mm shots look fantastic and would certainly blow my Sigma 70-300 APO away, and with another 100mm to boot. Certainly looks like an excellent travel lens

[condyk]

These were taken at quite a distance and are so heavily cropped but gives an idea ... as you know I have a religious aversion to Duckie shooting, so i hoppe you appreciate the effort ;-)

http://www.buzzdns.com/duckwing.jpg
http://www.buzzdns.com/dog600.jpg

[JaGWiRE]

These were taken at quite a distance and are so heavily cropped but gives an idea ... as you know I have a religious aversion to Duckie shooting, so i hoppe you appreciate the effort ;-)

http://www.buzzdns.com/duckwing.jpg
http://www.buzzdns.com/dog600.jpg


I see. What's wrong with Duckie shooting?

I'm looking for some shots that weren't cropped too much though, something that shows off what this lens can really do.

[AmericanFirst]

Here is one of the eagle shots from the Summer... with the TAmROn SP AF200-500mm Di LD.

Shooting into the bright sky makes for some serious contrast, with no fill. This was at about 100 yards, on a bobbing float boat, no IS obviously, on a tripod.

Original
117329
Canon EOS 20D w/ TAmROn SP AF200-500mm Di LD @ 476mm - f/6.3 - 1/1600sec - ISO-400 - 72dpi

Cropped for closeness
117330

[Dorman]

AmericanFirst, that looks like alot of C.A., the image looks tinted purple, could just be my monitor. Yikes.

Condy, those two sample images look pretty decent, even if you were shooting duckies. :)

[JaGWiRE]

AmericanFirst, that looks like alot of C.A., the image looks tinted purple, could just be my monitor. Yikes.

Condy, those two sample images look pretty decent, even if you were shooting duckies. :)


Yeah, that was what I was thinking. Maybe white balance problem or something?

BTW, Dorman, I have a friend who I think may be interested in my Sigma, so I might give him a really good deal and keep the filters which I have use for :D.

[Dorman]

Hey what goes around comes around, if you find you're not using a peice of gear there's no sense in keeping it around.

[JaGWiRE]

Hey what goes around comes around, if you find you're not using a peice of gear there's no sense in keeping it around.


Yeah, sure. It served me well for the last few weeks when I went duck shooting two days in a row, something to play with. Also learned a bit of macro from it.

Sorry for the off topicness. More on topic, I'm curious if anyone has any more sample shots. This lens seems like it could have a lot of potentiol and be a really great lens, but it's hard to go making those assumptions when few people seem to own it, or it's predecessor. It's really a shame. I'de take a risk and pick one up, but Henry's doesn't even sell this and I don't want to go buying from the States cause it's a pain.

[Dorman]

There are very few members on this forum that have owned this lens, also on pbase's camera database there's very few contributions as well. I'm reluctant to purchase anything that I haven't had a long look over myself.

Jagwire, trust me, ordering from B&H is just as easy as ordering from Henrys, plus it's MUCH cheaper. I've been a customer of both.

[JaGWiRE]

There are very few members on this forum that have owned this lens, also on pbase's camera database there's very few contributions as well. I'm reluctant to purchase anything that I haven't had a long look over myself.

Jagwire, trust me, ordering from B&H is just as easy as ordering from Henrys, plus it's MUCH cheaper. I've been a customer of both.

Hm, I see.

Yeah, I'de like to hear more about this lens. I don't understand, it seems like the cheapest super telephoto. What's the deal with the sigma 80-400 as well? Haven't heard much about that, just the bigma.

[MillCreek]

Since it has only been on the market for about three months or so, not many people have bought it. I bought it on the strength of the comments in this thread, and so far, I am happy with it. All I know is that it has better IQ than my Sigma 70-300, has better reach than my Sigma 70-200 2.8 EX with 1.4 TC, and is very compact for travel. Since photography is a hobby, not how I earn my money, all of my choices are made by weighing cost vs. benefit. Once I heard that the new Tokina 80-400 was almost as nice as the Bigma, for considerably less, from people far more knowledgeable than myself, I thought it was worth a try. I have really enjoyed having the extra 100 mm reach, and the Tokina is built so very well.

[JaGWiRE]

Since it has only been on the market for about three months or so, not many people have bought it. I bought it on the strength of the comments in this thread, and so far, I am happy with it. All I know is that it has better IQ than my Sigma 70-300, has better reach than my Sigma 70-200 2.8 EX with 1.4 TC, and is very compact for travel. Since photography is a hobby, not how I earn my money, all of my choices are made by weighing cost vs. benefit. Once I heard that the new Tokina 80-400 was almost as nice as the Bigma, for considerably less, from people far more knowledgeable than myself, I thought it was worth a try. I have really enjoyed having the extra 100 mm reach, and the Tokina is built so very well.


Dude, you forgot sample photos.

[MillCreek]

Please notice the duck shot and maritime sample photos up thread that I posted. I attached them to the original postings, not as external links, so they should still be available. I can see them.

[JaGWiRE]

Please notice the duck shot and maritime sample photos up thread that I posted. I attached them to the original postings, not as external links, so they should still be available. I can see them.

Sorry, where in this thread? Post # perhaps?

[MillCreek]

Posts 87, 88, 89, 90, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105 and 106. I can see the pictures attached to the posts. Again, since they are not hosted on an external link, they should still be visible to all.

[Dorman]

I can see your samples MillCreek, thanks for your input in this thread. How would you say the Tokina compares to your 70-200 in terms of image quality? I know it's a bit apples/oranges with the focal lengths but just in the overall sense. If you have any more sample images I'd love to see them as well.

I'm considering quite a few long telephotos now, and I am indeed on a budget. I generate some of my income from photography but its indeed still a hobby. I am after IQ that would be sellable sometime. I've been looking at the Bigma and while it's at the top of what I want to spend I'm really scared off by the size/weight. This is where the Tokina would really shine as it'd always be with me.

Hhhmmm...

[JaGWiRE]

I can see your samples MillCreek, thanks for your input in this thread. How would you say the Tokina compares to your 70-200 in terms of image quality? I know it's a bit apples/oranges with the focal lengths but just in the overall sense. If you have any more sample images I'd love to see them as well.

I'm considering quite a few long telephotos now, and I am indeed on a budget. I generate some of my income from photography but its indeed still a hobby. I am after IQ that would be sellable sometime. I've been looking at the Bigma and while it's at the top of what I want to spend I'm really scared off by the size/weight. This is where the Tokina would really shine as it'd always be with me.

Hhhmmm...
Yeah, I'm with you. I'm scared of weight too.

The Tamron 200-500 seems to be inbetween both the Tokina and Sigma.

Then there are some other sigmas that are super telephoto.

Most importanly, I am curious of preformance with a 1.4x teleconverter.

[MillCreek]

I have a Kenko Pro 300 1.4 TC, and I can report that it works with the Tokina 80-400 ATX-D. It gives the appropriate level of magnification and still autofocuses, but it does not report itself to the camera. The focal length still reports out at a maximum of 400 mm.

[MillCreek]

I should probably mention that one of the factors causing me to choose the Tokina was the focal length of 80-400. My new favorite walk-around lens is the Sigma 17-70. So with just two lenses, I can cover 17-400 mm with very cost-effective optical quality, except for the 10 mm between 70 and 80, which is negligible. I have found this makes quite a handy walk-around or travel kit.

[Dorman]

Millcreek, what body are you shooting with? I'm quite surprised that the lens retains autofocus with the 1.4 TC. Now that's some SERIOUS reach. How handholdable is this lens?

[JaGWiRE]

I have a Kenko Pro 300 1.4 TC, and I can report that it works with the Tokina 80-400 ATX-D. It gives the appropriate level of magnification and still autofocuses, but it does not report itself to the camera. The focal length still reports out at a maximum of 400 mm.


What is the quality like with the teleconverter? Do you have a sample or comparison with and without? I'm quite curious and interested.

[MillCreek]

Millcreek, what body are you shooting with? I'm quite surprised that the lens retains autofocus with the 1.4 TC. Now that's some SERIOUS reach. How handholdable is this lens?

I am shooting with a 20D. The autofocus works well in good lighting; in poorer lighting, it either hunts a lot or does not autofocus. I think the lens are far more hand holdable than my Sigma 70-200 2.8 EX. I was pleasantly surprised by how compact the Tokina is.

[JaGWiRE]

I am shooting with a 20D. The autofocus works well in good lighting; in poorer lighting, it either hunts a lot or does not autofocus. I think the lens are far more hand holdable than my Sigma 70-200 2.8 EX. I was pleasantly surprised by how compact the Tokina is.


Hehe, that's good. I held the Canon 70-200 2.8 (similiar to the Sigma weigth wise) and I refused to get a 2.8 70-200 just on the weight factor. There is no point in having a main tele lens if I am going to whine and have problems carrying it arund handheld. I ended up buying a F4 which is going to come in a few days, but it's the idea that weight itself is a big factor to me.

[MillCreek]

The November 2006 Popular Photography, not yet available on the web, reviews the Tokina 80-400 ATX-D. They gave it a good review.

[JaGWiRE]

The November 2006 Popular Photography, not yet available on the web, reviews the Tokina 80-400 ATX-D. They gave it a good review.

Did they have sample photos? Any comparisons to the more expensive telezooms that are 2-3x the size and weight?

[Dorman]

Excellent, I must have a good read.

[JaGWiRE]

Excellent, I must have a good read.
Seriously. As I'm waiting for the review my list of expensive glass just keeps getting longer and longer and longer (cries.)

[Dorman]

Seriously. As I'm waiting for the review my list of expensive glass just keeps getting longer and longer and longer (cries.)

Get a job ya freeloader. ;) Actually, getting a job and living on your own just decreases your chances of getting glass, the likihood goes down even further depending on how your better half views lens expenses... :)

[JaGWiRE]

Get a job ya freeloader. ;) Actually, getting a job and living on your own just decreases your chances of getting glass, the likihood goes down even further depending on how your better half views lens expenses... :)
I'm unforteuntly not exactly able to do both, both for the same reason, hehe.

I'm trying to convince myself to go on a trip alone December Break or March Break. I want to go to Vancouver maybe, but I do need a friend to go with.

[MillCreek]

Did they have sample photos? Any comparisons to the more expensive telezooms that are 2-3x the size and weight?

No. These type of brief reviews done by PP do not have sample photos nor much in the way of comparisons to other lenses. As an example, in this review, no comparison to the Sigma 80-400 was made.

[JaGWiRE]

No. These type of brief reviews done by PP do not have sample photos nor much in the way of comparisons to other lenses. As an example, in this review, no comparison to the Sigma 80-400 was made.

Boo. How can I buy a lens without seeing what it can do first? Haha.

[Permagrin]

Also in Outdoor Photographer's Best Gear of 2006 issue they chose the
Tokina 80-400 ATX AF D (the newest version of the lens) as one of the best lenses to come out. It's just a tiny review of the current model...Here's what they said:

"We love the Tokina AT-X 840 AF D because it makes a super telephoto focal length an affordable possibility for any passionate outdoor photographer. Weighing just 35.9 ounces, the 80-400 lens delivers high contrast and color accuracy with minimal ghosting and flare as a result of the inclusion of multicoated optics specifically designed for D-SLRS. The lens, which includes a hood, features a PL Assist mechanism that allows you to rotate a polarizer while the hood is connected. The mechanism has a spring loaded thumbwheel for easy rotation of an attached polarizing filter, a big plus."

[JaGWiRE]

Also in Outdoor Photographer's Best Gear of 2006 issue they chose the
Tokina 80-400 ATX AF D (the newest version of the lens) as one of the best lenses to come out. It's just a tiny review of the current model...Here's what they said:

"We love the Tokina AT-X 840 AF D because it makes a super telephoto focal length an affordable possibility for any passionate outdoor photographer. Weighing just 35.9 ounces, the 80-400 lens delivers high contrast and color accuracy with minimal ghosting and flare as a result of the inclusion of multicoated optics specifically designed for D-SLRS. The lens, which includes a hood, features a PL Assist mechanism that allows you to rotate a polarizer while the hood is connected. The mechanism has a spring loaded thumbwheel for easy rotation of an attached polarizing filter, a big plus."

Interesting. Perhaps THIS is the super telephoto i've been waiting for, tehe.

[condyk]

Also in Outdoor Photographer's Best Gear of 2006 issue they chose the Tokina 80-400 ATX AF D (the newest version of the lens) as one of the best lenses to come out. SLRS.

Cool ... shows that you don't have to follow the crowd to get very decent glass at a friendlier price than the 'usual suspects' everyone buys ;-)

[MillCreek]

Interesting. Perhaps THIS is the super telephoto i've been waiting for, tehe.

As I am sure you know, there is such a thing as 'analysis paralysis', where a purchase is indefinitely deferred while you wait for just one more review, or one more forum posting or the like. Ultimately, you have to put that aside or you will never buy something.

[JaGWiRE]

As I am sure you know, there is such a thing as 'analysis paralysis', where a purchase is indefinitely deferred while you wait for just one more review, or one more forum posting or the like. Ultimately, you have to put that aside or you will never buy something.

I'm not looking to buy a super-telephoto this minute, as I have some other lenses that are higher up on the list, but in the future I am definitley going to be looking to buy a supertelephoto.

[Dorman]

I'm looking at either picking up a 70-200 of some variety or possibly the Tokina. I really need to decide what shooting interest I want to tackle first. I skimmed the review in pop photo tonight at the news-stand and it generally seemed very positive about the lens.

[JaGWiRE]

I'm looking at either picking up a 70-200 of some variety or possibly the Tokina. I really need to decide what shooting interest I want to tackle first. I skimmed the review in pop photo tonight at the news-stand and it generally seemed very positive about the lens.
I've got the F4 on the way, but I am thinking of getting some primes to make up for the speed (200 2.8, 135 f2.0L, 100 macro) and I have a 85 1.8 on the way too.

[MillCreek]

I'm looking at either picking up a 70-200 of some variety or possibly the Tokina. I really need to decide what shooting interest I want to tackle first. I skimmed the review in pop photo tonight at the news-stand and it generally seemed very positive about the lens.

I have the Sigma 70-200 2.8 EX (the new version). While it is a very fine lens, I just needed more reach for outdoor photography than the Sigma provided, even with a 1.4x TC. If I was taking pictures within the range of the Sigma, I would certainly prefer to use that over the Tokina.

[Dorman]

I have the Sigma 70-200 2.8 EX (the new version). While it is a very fine lens, I just needed more reach for outdoor photography than the Sigma provided, even with a 1.4x TC. If I was taking pictures within the range of the Sigma, I would certainly prefer to use that over the Tokina.

Good to know, definitely something to consider.