Has anyone tried Tokina 24-70mm f/2.8?

I'm just curious, has anyone owned or tried this lens (Tokina 24-70mm f/2.8 AT-X PRO FX) on a FF camera like the 6D?

Heya,

Are you specifically after the Tokina for a reason? Or would you rather have the native Canon 24-70 F2.8L (MKI) for the same price? Or even the Tamron 24-70 F2.8 VC that has stabilization for virtually the same price?

Very best,

MalVeauX wrote in post #18013435
Heya,

Are you specifically after the Tokina for a reason? Or would you rather have the native Canon 24-70 F2.8L (MKI) for the same price? Or even the Tamron 24-70 F2.8 VC that has stabilization for virtually the same price?

Very best,

Just curious about the IQ on this lens. I have seen pictures from the other lens you mentioned but not this particular lens.

Compare for yourself... test shots done with the Tokina 24-70 and the Canon 24-70 Mk II are available on the-digital-picture.com

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=3

I just looked quickly, but it appears the Tokina is comparable in the center, but a whole lot softer in the corners. But the Canon is considered best-in-class by a lot of reviewers.

You also can compare others at that website, such as the Tamron with VC, the original Canon 24-70 and the Canon 24-70/4 IS.

I own the previous version of this lens. It is built like a tank, has very smooth and silky controls, and is extremely heavy.

It was never as sharp as the Canon 24-70 mk I, had rather slow AF, and after a couple of years the image quality seemed to degrade. I finally sat down with a test chart and determined that the AF was no longer working properly. It will confirm focus but it's not sharp anywhere. Considering how little I paid for it, I just set it aside rather than try to find a place to have it repaired. I would hope that the newer version of the lens would be better - it seems that it's as heavy or heavier than its predecessor so its build quality is probably comparable.

I am also one of those people who has trouble accommodating the reverse zoom ring direction on non-Canon lenses, as I found out when using this lens. I got the Canon 24-70 mk I at a great price and have never looked back.

GregDunn wrote in post #18014823
I own the previous version of this lens. It is built like a tank, has very smooth and silky controls, and is extremely heavy.

It was never as sharp as the Canon 24-70 mk I, had rather slow AF, and after a couple of years the image quality seemed to degrade. I finally sat down with a test chart and determined that the AF was no longer working properly. It will confirm focus but it's not sharp anywhere. Considering how little I paid for it, I just set it aside rather than try to find a place to have it repaired. I would hope that the newer version of the lens would be better - it seems that it's as heavy or heavier than its predecessor so its build quality is probably comparable.

I am also one of those people who has trouble accommodating the reverse zoom ring direction on non-Canon lenses, as I found out when using this lens. I got the Canon 24-70 mk I at a great price and have never looked back.

Thanks Greg for the info.

amfoto1 wrote in post #18014763
Compare for yourself... test shots done with the Tokina 24-70 and the Canon 24-70 Mk II are available on the-digital-picture.com

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=3

I just looked quickly, but it appears the Tokina is comparable in the center, but a whole lot softer in the corners. But the Canon is considered best-in-class by a lot of reviewers.

You also can compare others at that website, such as the Tamron with VC, the original Canon 24-70 and the Canon 24-70/4 IS.

Thanks Alan for the link.

In past I had the Canon 24-70 2.8 MKI (not sharp wide open) and the old 28-70 2.8 (sharp but not less wide)
Then I bought the Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC, tack sharp + image stabilisation, almost as sharp as the expensive Canon 24-70 II but with IS!
Tokina is usually great quality glass, I had the 16-28 2.8 in past, tack sharp, but bulb form (flare) and too heavy.
I would go for the Tamron anyday