Kenko-Tokina exhibits mockup of image-stabilised 70-200mm F4 at CP+

Not only no release date, but this isn't really a prototype. It's a Mockup which means a non-working model, I'd think. I also don't see a tripod collar which makes me wonder at any advantages over the respected 70-300 f/4.5-5.6 VR except a half a stop to a stop in the 70-200 range and a probable higher price tag. It would have to have killer IQ to fit in there between Nikon's 70-300 and their 80-200 f/2.8 because those two have a killer IQ.

Feb 5, 2012permalink

The Canon 70-200mm f4 IS is an optic launched in 2006 and its extremely sharp right from wide open @f4 till around f16.

Considering that a) This is a brand new optic and b) Tokina is known for quality optics unlike Sigma, I would wager this lens will be interesting to a lot of people looking for a high quality short zoom that is sharp throughout its focal range.

Feb 5, 2012permalink

eyedo

When I was a Canon DSLR user I had that 70-200,, f4(non IS).Ultra sharp,quiet,light weight..Don't care for white lenses though I surely miss that lens now that I switched to Nikon.I use the Tokina 70-300.Very good lens,which it were faster and lighter..Look forward to seeing what the new one will be.

Feb 5, 2012permalink

marike6

@brendon1000 I was with you until the part about Sigma not being known for quality optics. I have their excellent 50 1.4 in EF mount, and it's every bit as good if not better than the Canon 50. Their 85 1.4 is an awesome lens. Their macros, 17-50 2.8 and ultra-wide zooms, and super telephotos, and telephoto zooms like the 120-300 2.8 and 100-300 f4 are all excellent lenses.

Tokina has had a few fairly recent hits like the 12-24 f4, and the 11-16 2.8. But to say they are known for their optics, and Sigma is not is a stretch, at best.

Feb 6, 2012permalink

Hmm. I must have been drinking when I added the Sigma part ! :P I dunno why I wrote that. Yes I wholeheartedly agree with your post.

Feb 6, 2012permalink

Bare

70-300 VR is just a plastic consumer lens which extends while zooming and which is only F5.3 az 200mm. On the other hand Tokina will have a pro build quality.

Feb 6, 2012*permalink

caramelised

I'm a Nikon user and am looking hard for a 70-200mm option.
If disregarding price I can either have the original VR version or the VRII version (I have doubts about the Sigma 70-200mm OS's optical quality).

If this turns out be as good as the Canon 70-200mm f/4... then I have another option on my short list.

Feb 5, 2012permalink

Heartilly

I‘m agree with you. Unfortunately, Unlike Canon, Nikon had NOT 70-200 F/4. It's a pity.

Feb 5, 2012permalink

However, Nikon does have the superb 80-200 f/2.8 in their toolkit. It's heavier than the Canon f/4 but a solid metal build and f/2.8 aperture for around $1000

Feb 5, 2012permalink

The 80-200mm is not a replacement for a 70-200mm f4 IMO. I have a Tamron 70-200mm f2.8 which is approximately the same weight and size as the Nikon and I leave it at home for a few shoots since its so damm big and heavy. A 70-200mm f4 class zoom is around 700 gms and much smaller dimensions while something like the 80-200mm weighs almost 100% more at 1.3 kg.

Personally ill take the extra f stop over the weight issue but a lot of other people would want something lighter like a sharp image stabilized 70-200mm f4 zoom.

Feb 5, 2012permalink

Caleido

@ Heartilly.
Everyone seems to forget the Nikon 70-210 AF f4. Every time. Great quality, slow AF. Only second hand of course.

I had one and I liked it.

Feb 5, 2012permalink

nemark

But it is long discontinued and hard to find...

Feb 19, 2012permalink

F. Kamphues

Nikon photographers have been waiting a long time for a relatively light weight 70-200. Tokina is known for its excellent optics and build quality. For 600 Euro they can take my order now.

Feb 5, 2012permalink

IMO 600 EUR/$800 is the correct price for this lens to sell well.

Feb 5, 2012permalink

http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/992/cat/13

Not something ill want or need but the high demand for the Canon 70-200mm f4 tells me that this lens could sell very well if priced correctly and if Nikon/Sony/Pentax don't wake up and realize they need a lens like this ASAP ! :P

Feb 5, 2012permalink

Francis Carver

Yawn.... YAWN!

People, just how many 70-200mm/F4 zooms does Planet Earth's inhabitants need, exactly?

Feb 5, 2012permalink

swpars

None available new for the Nikon F mount, the Sony/Minolta A mount, and the Pentax K mount. I'd say there's an untapped market.

Feb 5, 2012permalink

Gnaeus48

Well how many are there? The only one I'm aware of is the Canon 70-200 4.0L

Feb 5, 2012permalink

caramelised

Gnaeus48: 4.0L? Sounds like some engine :)

Feb 5, 2012permalink

jpr2

the EF 70-200/4L might be well regarded, and justly so, but... the ZEBRA white-black-white color scheme makes it impractical for many, myself included, so yes... I'd be highly interested if IQ would turn out decent, and CA well controlled :) !!

Feb 4, 2012permalink

ChapelThrill23

That is excellent news. I like the form factor of this a lot more than a 70-200 2.8 which is impractical for me. I have an old 7-210/4 and find the size manageable
.

Feb 4, 2012permalink

wlad

Good news everyone !

Seriously, this is the one lens that I have been waiting for ever since I got my first Nikon DSLR. A f2.8 70/80-200 Nikon is too huge and heavy to carry around, not to mention far too expensive to justify the cost for all but pros.

my expectations are high, and I'll be happy to spend around $1000 for this lens if it lives up to them

Feb 4, 2012permalink

JakeB

I currently use the Nikon 70-300 f4.5-5.6.

If this lens were substantially sharper and more contrasty I'd snap it up in a second (assuming weight was also kept down).

I have the Tokina 12-24 mm f4. It's soft in the extreme corners at f4, but otherwise very good, with superb build quality.

Keep the price around $700 - 800, you've got a deal!

Feb 4, 2012permalink

ashwins

Nikon 70-300 f4.5-5.6 VR is the sharpest of the Canon, Tamron & Sigma 70-300 f4-5.6 crop, so being "substantially sharper" will a long shot.

Feb 4, 2012permalink

caramelised

If you're looking for sharper, you probably won't get it from a zoom. You should be considering 85mm, 105mm, 135mm, 180mm, and 200mm primes.

Feb 5, 2012permalink

madecov

about time

Feb 4, 2012permalink

gl2k

AF speed is what counts on such lenses (among iq). Tamron and Sigma have nice 70-200 lenses as well but both are slower then the Nikon version.
That said I'm very curios about the AF speed of the Tokina.

Additionally what is the actual focal length on shorter distances @200mm ?
The Nikon 70-200 on 3m is more like a 160mm lens.

Feb 4, 2012permalink

Noogy

I use Canon and this is interesting to me as well. The comparable Canon L lens is just too pricey for my pocket.

Feb 4, 2012permalink

SpinThma

Exactly that lens I am waiting for years on nikon to release it;

Feb 4, 2012permalink

Nikonhead

If you look at third party lenses Tokina has some of the best valued lenses such as the 11-16mm f/2.8 and 16-28mm f/2.8. The 70-200mm is a brilliant move by Tokina to eat up some of Nikons profits since they don't offer this lens. I would expect the price to be around $700-$800. The lens will probably be tack sharp and very well built inside and out. I have the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 non OS and may pick this up just for the lighter weight and anti shake technology.

Feb 4, 2012*permalink

The Scurvy Dog of PR

weight... It's a lot easier to lug around an F4 all day than an F2.8. Especially if it's part of your kit.

Feb 4, 2012permalink

Unless the price is really good and the optics superb, I see no reason to get one other than for VR/IS. Nikon currently sells the excellent 80-200 f/2.8 AFD that focuses fast, has a professional build, is f/2.8 maximum and continuous aperture, and sells new for around $1100. I'm not so sure I'd move to f/4 just to get a 3rd party lens with VR/IS unless it was somewhat less money with at least the same IQ.

Nikon's 80-200 f/2.8 is another reason Nikon hasn't needed to be so fast releasing a 70-200 f/4 like Canon.

Feb 3, 2012permalink

We've had F4 L zooms over in the Canon camp for a long time. Canon also has a cheaper non-stabilized 70-200mm f2.8. The reason people pick the 70-200 F4 is for the weight. It's MUCH lighter, while still giving the same professional quality, build, and AF of the larger f2.8 zooms. The Canon F4 IS is one of the sharpest zooms on the planet. Basically flawless at any focal length and aperture.

Feb 4, 2012permalink

Alan Brown

if you can carry an f2.8 lens all day AND be very good at handholding (steady)after three hours.. i'd agree.. But for me I don't carry weight well and my handholdimg is worse for it.. A lightweight 70-200 with OS is a brilliant idea even @f4. can't wait. Needs to be reasonable IQ for the money though.

Feb 4, 2012permalink

john Clinch

Its just the weight really.

Although f2.8 but shorter focal length is the other option.....

Feb 4, 2012permalink

commiebiker

+1...who needs it, I have an ancient 80 - 200 which works great. f4 on a wide angle is OK, but not on an 80-200

Feb 4, 2012permalink

Weight is no doubt a factor. Any f/2.8 lens will be heavier. Another issue though is portraits. Will f/4 be wide enough for you and OOF backgrounds. It wouldn't be for me, but I own other portrait lenses and who knows what this Tokina will weigh?

canon 70-200 f/4 usm is 26.8 oz
canon 70-200 f/4 usm 25 oz
canon 70-200 f/2.8 usm isII 52.6 oz
canon 70-200 f/2.8 usm 46 oz
nikon 70-200 f/2.8 VRII 54.3 oz
nikon 80-200 f/2.8 45.9 oz

Feb 5, 2012permalink

Jogger

Its impossible to get Tokina lenses in Canada without getting ripped off. They need to improve their distribution netwrok.

Feb 3, 2012permalink

photo nuts

Knowing Tokina, I wonder if this lens will weigh quite a bit

Feb 3, 2012permalink

thx1138

Tokina grew out of a group that left Nikon, so it's understandable they have good lenses. What they have lacked is USM and now they appear to be not only addressing that, but delivering IS as well. This will be a great lens no doubt, but I'd mainly expect Nikon users to buy it, unless it is almost as good and a lot cheaper than the canon 70-200 f/4L IS,which is a sensational zoom.

Feb 3, 2012permalink

Jeff Morris

Tokina is the only 3rd party manufacturer that I have real respect for. The only negative about Tokina lenses are their propensity to demonstrate higher than normal levels of CA. However, build and performance are usually on par with the big boys.

Feb 3, 2012permalink

exdeejjjaaaa

so such 3rd parties as Zeiss or Cosina for example are no good ?

Feb 3, 2012permalink

photo nuts

@exdeejjjaaaa

Are all Zeiss and Cosina lenses capable of AF, not to mention ultrafast AF?

Feb 3, 2012permalink

The majority of Sigma EX lenses meet or beat the "big boys", and that includes AF speed and build. Tamron only tries to compete at the consumer level.

Feb 3, 2012permalink

Joe Marques

@tkbslc - Nonsense. Sigma is a cheaper ALTERNATIVE to the "big boys", their lenses don't beat any top Nikon or Canon glass. Unfortunately, I've owned far too much Sigma (and later sold it all) to know first hand. Inconsistent AF (not a calibration need but a variable misfocus) is the biggest problem followed by marginal wide open sharpness on the 1.4 or 2.8 lenses (although the 50 and 85 seem to be better - at a much higher price than their value lenses).

Now don't misunderstand, Sigma fits a very important niche - good value, good performance. This is their strength and they are a valid choice for many. But to say Sigma beats the "big boys" is utter nonsense. You get what you pay for - cliche as it is - never more true than with Sigma.

Feb 4, 2012*permalink

garyknrd

I second that. Sigma has been in my kit for two years now and I am selling all. A 300mm f2.8 EX DG and 500mm EX DG. I own the canon equivalent now and it is just no contest. I will never buy another Sigma product period. Af problems. Front and back focus problems. Just a pain in the ass.

Feb 4, 2012permalink

ffnikclif

What about Zeiss 3rd party lens? No respect for them?

FRED

Feb 6, 2012permalink

NovemberSun

Excellent! cant wait to try it. It will certainly be on my shortlist. If its anything like the 16-28 or the infamous 11-16 (Ive rented both) Tokina will hav another winner on its hands and some more cash from me.

If all I ever had were Tokina and Canon lenses Id be a happy camper

Feb 3, 2012permalink

Old Ed

I've been looking for the filter size, but no luck so far. Possibly a 77? Also, it will be interesting to learn if it focuses in the "Nikon" direction or not. BTW, I still have a Tokina f4-5.6 70-200 zoom that I bought back in the 70's. It still looks and works like new. I cannot say the same for my (then top-of-the-line) Nikkor f4.5 80-200; it is now unusable because of zoom creep. And the Nikkor cost about 3,000 USD, in today's dollars. So I'm a BIG Tokina fan. I just wish they had a more extensive line, and I'm sad to see them phasing out of primes.

Feb 3, 2012permalink

Ben Tomohiku

i bed its gonna be a 67mm size, same as the canon's 70-200 f4. I like tokina too, they usually make some good quality lens, well made!

Feb 3, 2012permalink

WacB

1° Look at the picture: the lens turns in the"Nikon's mode", both: the zoom and focusing rings ;-)
2° As I remember, Tokina's lens reserves original rotation direction i.e. they make the other, in mean of roration, lens for C, other for N.

Feb 3, 2012permalink

intruder61

will they keep up with orders from the nikon users? :)

Feb 3, 2012permalink

Der Steppenwolf

Since morons at Nikon don't wanna give out a nice F4 zoom for us that don't wanna drag around that 2.8 monster it looks like Tokina is getting my money. Assuming that it has at least same quality as their 11-16 zoom of course ;)

Feb 3, 2012permalink

ijustdontknow

Nice. Been happy with Tokina for 25+ years now, I'll look very closely at this.

Feb 3, 2012permalink

rhlpetrus

Great! Only lens in the Canon side of fence that could cause some envy on our (N) side, for most users (some C TS lenses are also cause for envy). Let's hope it's nice optically.

Feb 3, 2012permalink

AbrasiveReducer

Tokina stuff tends to be beefy but if this lens is reasonably light it could be sweet. As someone who has the Canon 70-200/4 IS, the real appeal (and what makes it different from anything Nikon has right now) is the combination of stellar sharpness with surprisingly light weight.

Feb 3, 2012permalink

jmaxx30

I'm somewhat confused. What is the primary difference between the F4 and the F2.8 (besides the obvious aperture)? Is the big reason for making and F4 to reduce the size and price?

Feb 3, 2012permalink

micahmedia

Yes! However, it was never really enough of a reduction in either to not just go with older used lenses. It's an under-served market, but justifiably so. I expect this lens to sell for around a grand. If it was going for $600, they'd have something.

Feb 3, 2012permalink

jp1958

At the time of introduction, the primary reason was for a lighter lens at $550 less than the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM. Also, the other advantage was the 4 stop Image Stablizer. The drawback was the reduction in bokeh at f/4.

Feb 3, 2012permalink

rhlpetrus

Check prices ...

Feb 3, 2012permalink

Anastigmat

Besides prices and size, the most important consideration is image quality. An f/4 lens is going to be easier to design and sharper.

Feb 3, 2012permalink

audijam

finanlly someone mentioned sharpness of f/4...

Feb 3, 2012permalink

Chaitanya S

Awesome, wish Nikon had a 70-200 f/4 in their lens lineup.

Feb 3, 2012permalink

jhinkey

Hopefully this will spur Nikon to create their own 70-200/4.

It would be nice to know the approximate availability of this lens: This year, 2013?

Feb 3, 2012permalink

I guess they will now. :)

Feb 4, 2012permalink

io_bg

I'm almost sure they've a prototype but don't want to announce it cause it would hurt the sales of its f/2.8 sibling.

Sep 5, 2012permalink

Willy Chu

Good to see they have IS technology now. I have their (now discontinued) 50-135mm f/2.8 DX lens. It (obviously) is the DX equivalent of the 70-200mm full frame, but much smaller and lighter. AF, but no IS.

Hopefully they will re-introduce this lens with IS!

Feb 3, 2012permalink

Richard Butler

I believe Sigma has an IS version of its similar 50-150 F2.8 (a lens I really like, just because it's so much easier to handle than a 70-200 F2.8)

Feb 3, 2012permalink

@R Butler: When you gonna review it, specially on a sensor shift IS body :)

Feb 3, 2012permalink

maxpayne

@R Butler: Has Sigma actually started producing the 50-150mm IS? I thought it was canned? Would be great to know that wasn't the case and the lens will be available, someday!

Feb 3, 2012permalink

watmough

Excellent, I'd really love an equivalent to my Nikkor 80-200/4, which is a lovely lens, but with AF.

They'll need to keep it at or below $700 though, else they'll be encroaching on the going price for a nice used 80-200/2.8.

Gosh, just looked on ebay, make that 500-600 for a used 80-200/2.8.

Feb 3, 2012permalink

micahmedia

I don't think Nikon could do it for that cheap and keep the quality up. Which is why I don't expect to see one anytime soon. Or it'll come out, but it'll be about $1,800, and people will complain.

Feb 3, 2012permalink

Lucas_

A non-stabilized version for the Sony mount would be great ( f4 is reasonably fast and keeps the lens size small/light, w/o stabilizer cost goes down )!
Unfortunatelly Tokina seems to have stated they won't support any Sony mount anymore ( A or E )...!

Feb 3, 2012permalink

chlamchowder

Well, Sony users can go after used copies of the Minolta 70-210/4. It's considerably cheaper than the Canon 70-200/4.

Feb 3, 2012permalink

futile32

Didn't realise they aren't doing Sony's anymore.. any idea why. Thats annoying.

Feb 3, 2012permalink

donthasslethehoff

Sony does make a 70-200mm 2.8..... for nearly 2k. They are dreaming.

Feb 3, 2012permalink

The top Canon and Nikon 70-200mm f2.8's are over $2k, too. So that's apparently the going rate.

Feb 3, 2012permalink

CaNikon's 70-200 is much matured comparatively. See their respective reviews.

Feb 3, 2012permalink

N0BOX

Actually, I'm hoping for some manufacturers to come out with some stabilized Sony lenses. I know Sony Alpha users don't need the stabilization, but the NEX users who have the LA-AE2 adapter only have the stabilized Sigma lenses to choose from, and Sigma has stopped putting the stabilization mechanism in those lenses.

They didn't, however, change the size or weight of the lens design to account for the lack of stabization. I doubt Tokina would change the design, either.

Feb 3, 2012permalink

Pawel Zieminski

What do you mean? Quite recently they introduced 11-16 2.8 in Sony mount. Sony's DSLR market share continues to increase and they see it.

Feb 4, 2012permalink

EXX

Yes, it would be a great alternative to the Minolta 70-210 F4 "Beercan". Although the Minolta is a good lens, a modern alternative (one that does not exibit lot's of CA at F4) would be great!

Feb 6, 2012permalink

Stargator

FX should be the label for full format. So the DX designation in the text does not match the picture.

If it only would be shorter...

or a redesign of their F4/100-300 lens they had some time ago FX, with ultrasonic and optical image stabilization this would be a runner. Faster than the Canon 100-400/70-300 and lighter than the Sigma 2.8/120-300.

Feb 3, 2012permalink

M Jesper

What are you talking about, it is FX and there is no DX designation in the text.

Feb 3, 2012permalink

:)) what's wrong mate?

Feb 3, 2012permalink

Auke B van der Weide

seems like fullframe to me

Feb 3, 2012permalink

It is .. FX!

Feb 3, 2012permalink

marcus240682

so why does it say FX on the label ????

Feb 3, 2012permalink

pictureAngst

Perhaps they are using Nikon's acronym to indicate that it full frame (versus DX cropped frame)?

Feb 3, 2012permalink

fbuis

May be you are right!

As seen on Tokina Website (in japanese):
http://www.tokina.co.jp/camera-lenses/news/cp-tokina-70-200.html#

Feb 3, 2012permalink

grafli

They don't have to make it in Canon Mount. ;-)

Feb 3, 2012permalink

pictureAngst

If they did, I guess they'd (a) have to drop the FX acronym, and (b) offer an optional tripod collar for $$$ :-)

Feb 3, 2012permalink