Tokin 80-400 vs Canon 70-300 IS + TC

[Neilyb]

OKAY. Now I have the newest model 80-400 in hand I had a descision to make - 70-300 IS or Toki 80-400....Here are my findings fro a very quick comparison.

Both lenses at 300mm, f8 - converted from RAW, whitebalanced changed only no sharpening or noise reduction.. 5D used at 400ISO

Toki
http://www.neilyb.de/toki300.jpg

Canon
http://www.neilyb.de/canon300.jpg

Nothing in it at 300mm - canon a little more contrasty perhaps.

So the Tokina at f6.3 (I will require more light at longer lengths) 400mm, same ISO etc...
http://www.neilyb.de/Toki400.jpg

For me here we start to see a lack of resolution, a slight painterlyness to the edges.

Canon 300mm + 1.4 kenko TC, same as above.
http://www.neilyb.de/canon300tc.jpg

This is what has changed my mind about taking two zooms. The Toki is heavy (but built well) over 1kg and means I cannot take my 24-105 if I take it. At over 400mm the Canon + TC is sharper, I keep AF and IS.

So any comments. I fly at 6am GMT, will check back later tonight. But I don't think the toki should go.

[gasrocks]

If you are good at bracing yourself and/or holding the longer lenses still, I'd take the 17-40 and the Tok 80-400 along.

[Neilyb]

If the Toki had proved better on IQ I would have taken it and left the 24-105 at home, as is I take 17-40, 24-105 and 70-300. The 24-105 may be left in storage for the second week, 12KG weight limit, with much of my clothes.

[JaGWiRE]

A little dissapointing :(. I guess the 100-400L or super telephoto prime is the way to go.

[Karlos]

A little dissapointing :(. I guess the 100-400L or super telephoto prime is the way to go.

Look at the difference in price though. From what I can gather, the 70-300 seems to be great VFM.

[JaGWiRE]

Look at the difference in price though. From what I can gather, the 70-300 seems to be great VFM.

The 70-300 is a telephoto. The 80-400 is a super telephoto (in my opinion.) Comparing the two lenses for real life use is inpractical imo, as you must realise they have different intended uses. At 300mm your just sort of entering the wild life lens focal length range. The 300mm F/4 looks good, but I would pick up a 1.4x if I was to get it just so I could have that 400 or so mm covered.

[Karlos]

I read your comment to mean that one should go for an L lens or a dedicated super telephoto prime, which are both more expensive than either the Tok or the aforementioned Canon.

[JaGWiRE]

I read your comment to mean that one should go for an L lens or a dedicated super telephoto prime, which are both more expensive than either the Tok or the aforementioned Canon.
Huh? All I was trying to point out is that 70-300 is not really in the same category as the Tokina 80-400 because of their focal length differences. I was also trying to point out that there are some exceptions like the 300mm F/4L with a 1.4x converter becasue it is of such exceptionally well quality. The Sigma 120-300 f2.8 is another one of those lenses I believe.

To me though the Bigma and Tamron 200-500 all are in the same category as the Tokina 80-400 though.

[Katzer1]

Hi,
These are very interesting results!
I am split between the Toking 80-400 and the canon 70-300IS, one has more reach, the other has IS.

I have a few questions:
1) Do you think the 70-300IS+TC combination work well with a crop camera ? (like my 400D xti)?
2) was autofocus a problem at the longest end with the TC ? i think i saw somewhere that canon AF requires at least 5.6 and the TC adds a stop. Did you have to tape the contacts on the kenko 1.4 for AF to work?
3) does TC has an adverse effect on the performence of the IS system?


--EK

[Marquis Photos]

the 70-300IS would be eq. to a 112-480 zoom on your XTi (not bad at all)


Is the 100-400LIS much sharper? I have read that the 70-300IS is fairly sharp, but by how much noticably? I want to get a very snappy telephoto but the $850 difference is definately a factor for me.

[JaGWiRE]

the 70-300IS would be eq. to a 112-480 zoom on your XTi (not bad at all)


Is the 100-400LIS much sharper? I have read that the 70-300IS is fairly sharp, but by how much noticably? I want to get a very snappy telephoto but the $850 difference is definately a factor for me.

I am sure when you compare the 70-300 with 1.4x and the 100-400L with no teleconverter, you'll see an absolute huge difference. The 70-300 is a very controversial lens here.

[Tee Why]

I agree, at 300mm it's about same but at 400mm/300mm + TC, Canon seems better.

[condyk]

IS would impact on those shots unless both tripod mounted.

As to JagHotwired's comment re Bigma and Toki being the same well I am afraid he is wrong in my experience. Bigma is a much better lens having owned both. The beauty of the Toki is that it is better than the cheapo zooms IQ and build wise but without the expense of the next level up (Bigma, etc). So, fills in nice as a mid way investment and easy to carry around as small and fairly light. Re. the 300mm and TCon set up (I owned that too, terrible speaking from experience eh?) well the AF is slow and IQ is no better than Bigma or 100-400mm and the cost here in the UK is more than either, so why go that route? I owned the 100-400mm IS L too BTW :rolleyes:

[JaGWiRE]

IS would impact on those shots unless both tripod mounted.

As to JagHotwired's comment re Bigma and Toki being the same well I am afraid he is wrong in my experience. Bigma is a much better lens having owned both. The beauty of the Toki is that it is better than the cheapo zooms IQ and build wise but without the expense of the next level up (Bigma, etc). So, fills in nice as a mid way investment and easy to carry around as small and fairly light. Re. the 300mm and TCon set up (I owned that too, terrible speaking from experience eh?) well the AF is slow and IQ is no better than Bigma or 100-400mm and the cost here in the UK is more than either, so why go that route? I owned the 100-400mm IS L too BTW :rolleyes:

Apparently nobody understood my comment.

All I was saying is that the bigma, tamron 200-500, Tokina 80-400, etc, all have focal lengths in the same category which I call super telephoto, and all of them are used for more or less similiar subjects, although some of these lenses are obviously better and faster then the others.

[Marquis Photos]

The 70-300 is a very controversial lens here.
OK, lets make sure we are comparing the same lens here... I was under the impression this thread was about the Canon 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS lens.
Since "DO" was not indicated, I assumed it was NOT the controversial Canon 70-300 f/4.5-5.6 DO IS lens. Would someone please confirm this for me. Thanks

[JaGWiRE]

OK, lets make sure we are comparing the same lens here... I was under the impression this thread was about the Canon 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS lens.
Since "DO" was not indicated, I assumed it was NOT the controversial Canon 70-300 f/4.5-5.6 DO IS lens. Would someone please confirm this for me. Thanks

Ah, I think your right, in all honesty, I do not know that much about the 70-300, I thought there was only one IS lens and it was controversial, but I think you are right.

[Marquis Photos]

I thought you may have had the two mixed up or something. Thats cool.

[JaGWiRE]

I thought you may have had the two mixed up or something. Thats cool.
Yeah, there are too many 70-300 EF-mount lenses I think, LOL.

[Katzer1]

the 70-300IS would be eq. to a 112-480 zoom on your XTi (not bad at all)


Is the 100-400LIS much sharper? I have read that the 70-300IS is fairly sharp, but by how much noticably? I want to get a very snappy telephoto but the $850 difference is definately a factor for me.

It is not just the price difference, the 100-400LIS is very heavy (and attracts a lot of attentions). The 70-300IS (not DO) can be carried all day long with a neckstrap. Even the combo of 70-300IS+Tc is still lighter than the tokina 80-400.

So as long as AF works well, the 70-300IS+tc features 100-420mm with IS sounds pretty good. Which from the post that started this thread, seems to work fine.

The point I am a bit concerned about (which motivated my question) is how well would it work on cameras lesser than the impressive 5D. And being a tad selfish I am thinking of my particular camera, rebel 400d xti.

Has anyone tried the 70-300IS+TC on a crop camera?

Thanks,

Erez

[Lightstream]

I am sure when you compare the 70-300 with 1.4x and the 100-400L with no teleconverter, you'll see an absolute huge difference. The 70-300 is a very controversial lens here.

Have you actually *USED* this lens?

Hi,
These are very interesting results!
I am split between the Toking 80-400 and the canon 70-300IS, one has more reach, the other has IS.

I have a few questions:
1) Do you think the 70-300IS+TC combination work well with a crop camera ? (like my 400D xti)?
2) was autofocus a problem at the longest end with the TC ? i think i saw somewhere that canon AF requires at least 5.6 and the TC adds a stop. Did you have to tape the contacts on the kenko 1.4 for AF to work?
3) does TC has an adverse effect on the performence of the IS system?


--EK

Hi EK,

My evaluation: http://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=232123&highlight=70-300

Pleasantly surprised to find the Kenko 1.5X (note 1.5) works so well. I certainly did lose autofocus on a 350D (sounded like it's gonna break the motor, so turn it off before it does). AF on a 5D hunts and misses with 100% consistency. My shots were all manually focused, you still get the focus confirmation beep and red square though.

No taping of pins required, because the Kenko 1.5 doesn't physically HAVE the pins to begin with. :)

AF did not work for me, I dunno about others. Some have better luck...

Yeah, there are too many 70-300 EF-mount lenses I think, LOL.

No, just too many people who are not specific enough. Most people don't seem to realize that one or two letters or numbers can denote a completely different product. Look at all those calling the 70-300 non-DO (or DO) IS quality crap because they confuse it with the 75-300 IS.

Sure, sure. Order a BMW 7-series and have the dealer hand you the keys to a 3, same difference. It's just a number, right?


It is not just the price difference, the 100-400LIS is very heavy (and attracts a lot of attentions). The 70-300IS (not DO) can be carried all day long with a neckstrap. Even the combo of 70-300IS+Tc is still lighter than the tokina 80-400.

So as long as AF works well, the 70-300IS+tc features 100-420mm with IS sounds pretty good. Which from the post that started this thread, seems to work fine.


You're right. I have the 100-400 and the two lenses are worlds apart. If you want to keep a lower profile and not look like you have a white drainpipe hanging around your neck, the 70-300 is the way to go.
Both 70-300's (DO/non-DO) are small and light and are carryable all day. 100-400.. well, depends on how built you are and how much endurance you have for carrying :D

[JaGWiRE]

Fair enough, I have not used the 70-300, and you are right, I am not paying close enough attention. I have although seen shots from the 100-400L and 70-300, and the 100-400L is clearly imo a much sharper lens.

[Neilyb]

I am back! I used the 70-300 IS and 1.4 TC on a 5D combo most of the time, figuring I can crop the the images to a 1.6 sensor size if I require it.

I found the 70-300 with TC worked well and AF worked in all but the darkest fo situations. Let me clarify here that the Tokina didn't go to Africa due to its weight, IQ at 400mm only (at 300 it is comparable to the 70-300 IS) and I was SOOOOOOOOOOOOOO happy to have USM focusing (GF has a Tamron and the constant hunting with Servo mode really gets to your nerves in a confined vehicle!!)

I did not regret leaving the Toki behind as both IS and AF work well with the 1.4 TC. I rarely used the 2x TC and looking at some of the RAW files I am glad I didn't.

Still wished I had a 100-400 tho..... ;)

[Lightstream]

I am back! I used the 70-300 IS and 1.4 TC on a 5D combo most of the time, figuring I can crop the the images to a 1.6 sensor size if I require it.

I found the 70-300 with TC worked well and AF worked in all but the darkest fo situations. Let me clarify here that the Tokina didn't go to Africa due to its weight, IQ at 400mm only (at 300 it is comparable to the 70-300 IS) and I was SOOOOOOOOOOOOOO happy to have USM focusing (GF has a Tamron and the constant hunting with Servo mode really gets to your nerves in a confined vehicle!!)

I did not regret leaving the Toki behind as both IS and AF work well with the 1.4 TC. I rarely used the 2x TC and looking at some of the RAW files I am glad I didn't.

Still wished I had a 100-400 tho..... ;)


Congratulations, welcome back. I went on a 3D/2N expedition as well, carrying the 1-4, which in hindsight was not the most fantastic landscape lens, but I decided to pack the full kit (17-40/24-105/1-4) just in case I needed it. Well, it did really weigh me down.

Your TC appears better than mine, which makes the lens miss all the time. May be that the 1.4X robs less light than the 1.5X which CLAIMS 1 stop.. well, claim on, we all know that you can't get something for nothing and this is probably proof.

And don't scare me, is that the $100 Tamron 70-300? That lens and AI Servo is a joke....you absolutely gotta be kidding... its DC motor is so slow that even as a near complete newbie I switched to manual focus!

[Neilyb]

Nah, 70-300 IS USM, fab lens. Looking through quickly the images where I have used 1.4 TC are obvious, at 300 it is sharp with the TC is loses alot. The images with a 2x.....woah....forget it....soft and a huge amount of light falloff at the edges.

Definately want to go back with an 1-4L, or a bigma....but IS is a god send, not sure I could live without it!

[AdamJL]

God damn it Neil, I was really set on buying the 70-200 f/4 over the 70-300IS, but now your comments have balanced the equation.
I think I'm going to make my mind up once more, then steer clear of threads like this because I can't be doing with the chopping and changing :lol:

[Lightstream]

IS matters..... :D

The only downside to the 70-300 is the poor build quality. I would still make the same call as I did so long ago, opting to take the 7-3 IS over the 7-2 non-IS.

Only now that there is the 7-2 IS...... :mrgreen:

(wallet has run away screaming into the night :D)

[Marquis Photos]

God damn it Neil, I was really set on buying the 70-200 f/4 over the 70-300IS, but now your comments have balanced the equation.
I think I'm going to make my mind up once more, then steer clear of threads like this because I can't be doing with the chopping and changing :lol:

I have been debating the same thing. 70-200L f4 or 70-300 f4-5.6 IS.
My buddy has the 70-200L f4 and loves it. He does not beleive IS makes that much of a difference and says IS is way over rated. But, he does not own a IS lens either. I played with his 20-200L and is is very shaky hand held at 200mm, requireing a much higher shutter speed if you plan to hand hold or do the brace on tree or wall method. Otherwise you NEED a tripod or monopod for sure with this lens unless its a bright sunny day. I am used to IS lenses and the lack of it on this lens I really noticed big time.

So I am leaning toward the 70-300 IS right now. The price on the 70-200 f4 IS I think is absolutely rediculous, considering the cost of the 70-200 f4 non IS and the 70-300 IS. I would consider the 70-200 f4 IS if it was not more than double the non IS version.

Also influencing me to get the 70-300 IS is the IQ being so close to the 70-200L f4. The 70-300 IS appears only marginally softer and is darn near to the same as the 70-200L f4 stopped down. Yes, I wish it were a constant f stop and had the cool off white coat, but hey, I like to go in Stealth mode sometimes too. Seems this lens is just too good of a deal. I plan on getting it after Christmas and hope I will not be disappointed with it. Threads have really made it look like a gem.

[Lightstream]

So I am leaning toward the 70-300 IS right now. The price on the 70-200 f4 IS I think is absolutely rediculous, considering the cost of the 70-200 f4 non IS and the 70-300 IS. I would consider the 70-200 f4 IS if it was not more than double the non IS version.


Go for it :)

While I'm going all out to get the 7-2/4 IS, I do agree with you that the price tag is outrageous and I'm only going to do it because I think I can get a good deal (hopefully it doesn't fall flat!). Sometimes having a word with the local camera shop (especially if they like you ;) ) is helpful... a few more words and we'll see where this goes.

If you want value for money and can live with very entry level build (which I sadly must admit is pretty poor), the 7-3 IS is the ticket. I still have this lens in my collection as my lightweight travel tele until the 7-2/4 ISL gets here. Optical quality is pretty impressive and it totally crushes all the old 75-300 zooms.

[Neilyb]

Canon have gone mad with the 70-200 IS, I am happy with the performance of the 70-300 IS, even with 1.4 TC and will only replace it when I have need once again of an animal and bird lens (by which time the 100-400 IS should be replaced...).

[AdamJL]

I've been trying to find a store in London so I can test out the 70-300. I've heard both good and bad things about it's build quality, and from the few chances I've had to play around with the f/4, it's a dream in terms of handling.
No one has it in stock unfortunately.

[Marquis Photos]

I didn't think the build quality is that bad at all from the one I looked at. Sure it is not the build quality of the "L" lenses. But if you compare everything the L lenses then you might just be dissapointed. I found it to be very similar in build to my 17-85 IS lens. Its fairly solid and has a medium build feel to it I think. You are not paying for an "L" lens build. And thats why this lens is cheaper.

[gasrocks]

Marquis - If you do get the 70-300 IS you will then know how useful IS can be. Maybe you can think about the 70-200 IS (either 4 or 2.8) after using the 70-300 IS for a while if 300 isn't needed.

[AdamJL]

I found it to be very similar in build to my 17-85 IS lens..

That's comforting, as I'm quite fond of the build of my 17-85.
The only thing I'm NOT keen on is that the 17-85 attracts a lot of dust inside the lens, and I hope the 70-300 isn't the same.

[Lightstream]

I didn't think the build quality is that bad at all from the one I looked at. Sure it is not the build quality of the "L" lenses. But if you compare everything the L lenses then you might just be dissapointed. I found it to be very similar in build to my 17-85 IS lens. Its fairly solid and has a medium build feel to it I think. You are not paying for an "L" lens build. And thats why this lens is cheaper.

True.. I think I have been spoiled by many a L. But for a long time the 17-85 was a favorite of mine :)

The 70-300 is just a little bit more wobbly and rattly than the 17-85, whose build quality I really liked. But you're right - see once you start down the path of the White Side, you may never be able to turn back. The full metal barrels of the 300/4L IS and the 100-400 that wouldn't be out of place in industrial piping forever change the way you look at things ;)

As I have always said though, happy is the one who is content - and I still wholeheartedly recommend the 70-300 IS as the best value telezoom in Canon's lineup. Price/performance is untouchable and image quality is decent enough to wring nice 16x20" prints out of it.. beentheredonethat!

[Lightstream]

That's comforting, as I'm quite fond of the build of my 17-85.
The only thing I'm NOT keen on is that the 17-85 attracts a lot of dust inside the lens, and I hope the 70-300 isn't the same.

So far so good. No dust inside my 7-3. 17-85.. well.. I live with it :D

100-400: now fear the dust pump!