Reading mode: Light Dark

Tokina Pro Lense

Go to last post
MichaelM1965 said:
Some advice on Tokina 28-80/2.8 PRO.
Click to expand...
I ask that because there have been several comments about Tokina lenses in the last several days. I have the lens you mentioned and, in short, it's a viable competitor to the higher priced 28-70L.

Having said this, I direct your attention to the following I posted yesterday:

There's nothing wrong with asking for advice and sharing information -- that's what this forum is all about.

But it gets a bit frustrating when vague, open-ended questions are asked, i.e., "I just bought a D60. What do you think of the blah-blah-blah lens?"

In reality, without further information, the correct answer would most likely be, "It depends."

HELP US HELP YOU...

What are your intended present and future uses?
What type of shooter are you?
Where will you shoot?
Under what conditions will you shoot?
What other equipment do you have?
What special needs to you have?
What logisitcal concerns apply, if any?
...and the list could go on...and on...and on...

"One size does not necessarily fit all." A piece of equipment that may be ideal in one situation may be virtually useless or counterproductive in another. Something that may be cheap on the front end could be extremely expensive in the long run. Conversely, there are times when a cheaper alternative may be available.

So, Michael, you really need to give us a little more to work with, eh?
 
MichaelM1965 said:
Some advice on Tokina 28-80/2.8 PRO.
Click to expand...
What do you need & what kind of info are you looking for?

I've owned the AT-X 280 Pro, AT-X 828 Pro & AF-193. In general, at least my samples:

AT-X Pro series are built like tanks. Heavy, solid, all metal. AF was good, a bit noisy & slower than Canon's USM. I HATED the MF/AF on the 280/828, you had to push/pull the focusing ring in the same spot every time. (IE: If you went from AF to MF at 50mm, you HAVE to be at 50mm to toggle out of MF to AF.) The quickest solution I found was to jam it to infinity & yank, which took extra time if you were pre-focusing an action shot or fine tuning a macro shot.

My 280 was soft until f/8.0. Actually, it gave semi decent results at f/5.6 but got noticably better at f/8.0. Color/contrast was OK, nothing special.

I sold them all & went L glass, even after swearing up & down I wouldn't become an L glass "whore." :)

I took 4 shots of a squirrel, 2 Tokina 828 AT-X Pro & 2 with the 70-200mm f/2.8 L. Did the same with another subject, (can't remember what) comparing the AT-X 280 & the 28-70mm f/2.8 L, sent them to 3 people without telling the difference. IMMEDIATELY they either called or emailed asking what in the hell I changed between the shots. They LOVED the colors/contrast/sharpness of the L, all said the difference was night & day.

Bottom line, to each their own. The AT-X Pro line is well built, but if I did it over I would choose used L glass, even the older pre-USM L models. They hold their resale MUCH better, the difference in color/contrast/sharpness is VERY noticable, even to "Joe Lunchbox." If you get lucky & look, you can find some outstanding bargains on older L glass.

The other BIG complaint I had on my AT-X lenses was lack of sharpness unless stopped down to f/8.0. IMHO, that REALLY defeats the whole purpose of having f/2.8 glass. My samples might not have been the best, but I did try at least 3-4 of each model & none of them seemed any better...
 
**** Ginkowski said:
So, Michael, you really need to give us a little more to work with,
eh?
Click to expand...
Yes, ****. Some of us read your condescending post, so must you repeat it? I think it's fairly obvious what this person wants... he wants opinions on a particular lens. If you don't have any, maybe you should move on to another post.

Sorry, but I think people who are asking legitimate questions here are beaten up a little too much by the know-it-alls.

--
Bryan
http://www.siverly.net
 
Bryan Siverly said:
**** Ginkowski said:
So, Michael, you really need to give us a little more to work with,
eh?
Click to expand...
Yes, ****. Some of us read your condescending post, so must you
repeat it? I think it's fairly obvious what this person wants...
he wants opinions on a particular lens. If you don't have any,
maybe you should move on to another post.

Sorry, but I think people who are asking legitimate questions here
are beaten up a little too much by the know-it-alls.
Click to expand...
Obviously Michael didn't read it! :)

Condescending? Let me ask you this: What help did YOU offer? None.
Just criticism, no help.
 
Hi Michael,

You might want to take a look at the new "Tokina 28-70 F2.8 AT-X AF PRO SV" it looks as if Adorama is listing it now $299. Don't know if they have actually gotten them yet. It is basically the PRO II but lighter, and it now has an easy MF/AF that people did not like on the PROII. more info -> http://www.thkphoto.com/info/pr040102-b.html

I am very curious about this new lens. Even though optically supposed to be the same as the PROII. I have seen shots from the ProII that look very very good!. link -> http://www.greeraa.com/albums/maloian/

I really want the 28-70 L but damn, the SV at 3rd the price.... really makes me think.

--

Mike Malloy - Canon D60, Sigma 20mm 1.8, Canon 50mm 1.4, Canon 70-200 f/4 L, Canon 1.4x II, Canon 420EX flash.
My D60 Gallery -> http://www.mindandmachine.com
 
MichaelM1965 said:
Some advice on Tokina 28-80/2.8 PRO.
Click to expand...
Michael, it's a very good lens. A bit heavy, but so is the Canon 28-70L.

I had the 28-70 2.8, which may be the lens you're mentioning. Many rave about its quality, but I found mine to be just a little too inconsistent for my taste. For some reason, my outdoors images were unacceptably soft, but indoors, it was dead-on sharp as a tack. Go figure. I eventually returned mine.

I'm figuring I might have had a bad one. If you do a search here, some have done head-to-head tests with this lens and the 28-70L and the Sigma equivalent.

Here's my first post with the lens where I raved about my initial shots. My enthusiasm faded when I took some more, particularly outdoor shots that had inconsistent exposure and softness. Again, mine might have been a bad one:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&message=2247682

Good luck

--
Bryan
http://www.siverly.net
 
Chinese proverb: It is better to light one candle than curse the darkness.

You're probably thinking of Elton John's Candles In The Wind.
 
I have this lens. There is a wealth of opinion at http://www.photographyreview.com .

My take briefly is... These are a mixed bag in my experience. Where they work they are excellent - very sharp and contrasty. Alas the two I have tried have had similar problems but in different places. The first was unusable at 28mm f2.8 - 5.6. It's centre was to the right and it was blurry on the left unless stopped down beyond f8. My replacement is overall better but is unusable at 60-80mm f2.8 - 5.6. At f8 it is very good. I am about to try a third. If I can get one that performs acceptably overall, then it will be a very good lens indeed and for the money a true bargain. I fear, however, that I am getting the dregs (the returns) and that this lens will soon be replaced by another model. The experience in the USA might be different.

It is worth trying since as I say if you get a good one, you are on a winner.

Good luck

LCD
 
Bryan Siverly said:
MichaelM1965 said:
Some advice on Tokina 28-80/2.8 PRO.
Click to expand...
Michael, it's a very good lens. A bit heavy, but so is the Canon
28-70L.
Click to expand...
This is exactly what was wrong with the original post -- too vague.

As I suggested:

HELP US HELP YOU...

What are your intended present and future uses?
What type of shooter are you?
Where will you shoot?
Under what conditions will you shoot?
What other equipment do you have?
What special needs to you have?
What logisitcal concerns apply, if any?
...and the list could go on...and on...and on...

"One size does not necessarily fit all." A piece of equipment that may be ideal in one situation may be virtually useless or counterproductive in another. Something that may be cheap on the front end could be extremely expensive in the long run. Conversely, there are times when a cheaper alternative may be available.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Soooooo.... this lens is sharp and built like a tank. I rarely use mine off a tripod, but then this is a lens I use a lot for scenic photography and usually shoot at f/16 or f/22.

Now, if Michael wants to use it for landscape and scenic work, and it'll be on a tripod, weight won't be an issue and this is a great lens for the price. See http://www.grizzlyjhphoto for more input on this lens.

On the other hand, as you point out, it's heavy and may not be the best lens for someone who wants to use it handheld.

Of course, we don't know about Michael's situation because he never told us.
 
Mike Malloy said:
Hi Michael,

You might want to take a look at the new "Tokina 28-70 F2.8 AT-X AF
PRO SV" it looks as if Adorama is listing it now $299. Don't know
if they have actually gotten them yet. It is basically the PRO II
but lighter, and it now has an easy MF/AF that people did not like
on the PROII. more info ->
http://www.thkphoto.com/info/pr040102-b.html

I am very curious about this new lens. Even though optically
supposed to be the same as the PROII. I have seen shots from the
ProII that look very very good!. link ->
http://www.greeraa.com/albums/maloian/

I really want the 28-70 L but damn, the SV at 3rd the price....
really makes me think.

--
Mike Malloy - Canon D60, Sigma 20mm 1.8, Canon 50mm 1.4, Canon
70-200 f/4 L, Canon 1.4x II, Canon 420EX flash.
My D60 Gallery -> http://www.mindandmachine.com
Click to expand...
Hi Mke-

With your magic eye & creativity, no doubt ANY lens will perform! :)

I know you value a $$$ like i do, so... IMHO, based on the samples I've owned or used, the 28-70 f/2.8 L is 10x the lens at 2.5 -3x the price.

Yeah, it's a lot of $$$, but it's USEABLE wide open, the one I have absolutely smokes the Tokinas I've owned or tried. No contest, not even close.

The clincher for me was when my father, who is a long time Nikon Nikkormat/F2/F2A owner/user said the same thing after comparing images. (I inherited my bargain hunting genes from him!)

His exact words, (He uses Nikon & Tokina AT-X Pro glass) "Your L lenses may be expensive, but they beat ANYTHING I've EVER seen out of Nikon & certainly any third party lens I've owned! 10x the performance at 3x the cost is a BARGAIN!""

BUT

I don't have your gift of creativity/composition, so I'll take any mechanical advantage I can get! :)
 
Hyperfish wrote:
"..... They hold their resale MUCH better...."

This was buried deep inside your comments, but worthy of more prominence. I've bought and sold hundreds of Canon and "for Canon" lenses on eBay (mostly FD lenses [for my collection]). Those "for Canon" that I bought were, in nearly every case, part of a package. As saleable lenses they just aren't worth much. The better quality Canon lenses, on the other hand, hold their value pretty well. The better lenses purchased new in the 50s, 60s, 70s, and even 80s are still worth most of their new purchase price, if not more than -- even on eBay. And if you buy used at a fair price, you're unlikely to lose anything on them if they're pampered a little.

This is not to say that in every case Canon's lenses are better, but you almost can't go wrong buying L glass, either for quality of lenses or for long-term investment.

Nope, I'm not an L-series freak. I think in some cases you just can't get what you want from Canon. I use a Tamron 28-105mm f2.8. For weddings (shooting 35mm) 28-70mm just isn't long enough for me, and f3.5-4.5 isn't fast enough. The Tamron quickly became my favorite (most used) lens. A Vivitar lens was my most used lens on my older Canons, believe it or not -- a 28-90mm f2.8 macro Series One. It approaches the quality of the popular Canon 35-135mm f3.5 macro (which I lost) at a fraction of the cost. And that illustrates my point. As good as that lens is, you can still get a near mint one for under $100, while the Canon still sells used for its original new cost of around $250.
 
I agree with that observation.

I bought the ATX-Pro lenses I use to use, not in contemplation of resale, however. So I did not give much thought to resale.

Yet resale value is one of many valid considerations.

Having said that---let's flip this around. From a buyer's perspective, a used Tokina ATX-Pro may be an exceptional value!

(Plus, I often recommend buying used glass if you can't afford new, though that point was not raised in the originalm quite vague post.)
 
Newk said:
Hyperfish wrote:

"..... They hold their resale MUCH better...."

This was buried deep inside your comments, but worthy of more
prominence. I've bought and sold hundreds of Canon and "for Canon"
lenses on eBay (mostly FD lenses [for my collection]). Those "for
Canon" that I bought were, in nearly every case, part of a package.
As saleable lenses they just aren't worth much. The better quality
Canon lenses, on the other hand, hold their value pretty well. The
better lenses purchased new in the 50s, 60s, 70s, and even 80s are
still worth most of their new purchase price, if not more than --
even on eBay. And if you buy used at a fair price, you're unlikely
to lose anything on them if they're pampered a little.

This is not to say that in every case Canon's lenses are better,
but you almost can't go wrong buying L glass, either for quality of
lenses or for long-term investment.

Nope, I'm not an L-series freak. I think in some cases you just
can't get what you want from Canon. I use a Tamron 28-105mm f2.8.
For weddings (shooting 35mm) 28-70mm just isn't long enough for me,
and f3.5-4.5 isn't fast enough. The Tamron quickly became my
favorite (most used) lens. A Vivitar lens was my most used lens on
my older Canons, believe it or not -- a 28-90mm f2.8 macro Series
One. It approaches the quality of the popular Canon 35-135mm f3.5
macro (which I lost) at a fraction of the cost. And that
illustrates my point. As good as that lens is, you can still get a
near mint one for under $100, while the Canon still sells used for
its original new cost of around $250.
Click to expand...
Newk-

Yup, I couldn't agree more. I guess I didn't list it as a higher priority because so few people sell their 28-70 f/2.8 L glass! :)

Like you, I was used to 28-105mm focal lengths & was put off at first by the 28-70mm. That quickly disappeared after seeing the images.

Even though the 70-200mm f/2.8 L is considered a large, heavy lens I think the flexibility more than makes up for it & it makes a great combo when paired with the 28-70mm...

Again, looking back, if I would have started with used pre-USM L glass odds are EXTREMELY high I would still be using 'em today. The upside is when the upgrade bug bites they're easy to resell & like you've experienced, will command top $$$....
 
Thank You all.

I am sorry. maybe my question has been asked before, and I know I have to do more research on forum, but some time there is no time at all. Your comment were vary helpful and I've got all the information I need.
Thank you very much and sorry if for somebody it has been annoying.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top