Are Tokina products any good or not?

I am trying to find some good lenses for the camera, without breaking the bank. As I read review after review, I cannot seem to determine whether or not Tokina makes good products.

I have been trying to find a lens that is faster than the $300-$500 Nikon lenses. When I came across the hummingbird photo taken by SteveT with a Tokina 80-200 f2.8 lens, I was like WHOA!

So, I started researching for a Tokina normal lens, and came across the Tokina ATX 280 28-80 f2.8 and the 270 28-80 f/2.6-2.8. When I started searching online, I found some extremely positive reviews, especially on the 280. I am not saying that people feel it is of the same quality of the 28-80 f/2.8 AF-S Nikon, but that lens is about $1000 more expensive. However, it certain seemed like this lens provided quality in the direction of the AF-S Nikon.

After doing more research in the forum, I actually see Tokina getting RIPPED by some people. Bad build quality. Poor engineering standards. I even saw one today that said "junk."

Essentially, now I don't know what to think, and thought that I would get some opinions from you all. With such EXTREMES in the information I am finding, I would like to find out if buying a Tokina 280 or 270 is a better move than buying a slower Nikon lens. I don't care about the brand name wars. Just want good pictures, without having to stop buying groceries b/c I am so broke from buying $1500 Nikon lenses. Thanks.

I'm very happy with the 280. -Although it is soft at f 2.8 it is very sharp by f 8.0. Build quality is superb.
Al Machado

http://eborelli.homestead.com/

Ejoy said:

I am trying to find some good lenses for the camera, without
breaking the bank. As I read review after review, I cannot seem to
determine whether or not Tokina makes good products.

Click to expand...

Like most companies, Tokina makes some good products and some not so good ones. Some of their lenses have supurb build quality. The 28-80 2.8 is a tank. Mechanically solid inside and out (I peeked). Optically quite good.

I've spent a little time with their 300 2.8 and their 70-210 2.8, and both were satisfting lenses.

On the other hand, some of the lower end Tokina lenses feel very shakey.

If I had to rank the lens companies on who has the most high quality hits, and who has the most "misses", I'd put Tokina ahead of Tamron and SIgma, but behind Nikon.

Just my opinion

Joe

First of all, Tokina and Tamron are the very different companies than Sigma and Nikon and Canon. If you notice they have less lenses than Sigma, Nikon

and Canon. Their top lenses are very good but lack of HSM makes them below Sigma, Nikon Canon not above. But.. I don't know about Tamron

but if Tokina insatall HSM on their top lenses I would switch from Sigma (which I have and love the most) to Tokina in the heart beat.

Why? Because Tokina has the most neutral color between Sigma and Nikon. Sigma is warm and Nikon is cold in my opinion. I would rather have warm than cold.

Eugene

Joseph S. Wisniewski said:

Ejoy said:

I am trying to find some good lenses for the camera, without
breaking the bank. As I read review after review, I cannot seem to
determine whether or not Tokina makes good products.

Click to expand...

Like most companies, Tokina makes some good products and some not
so good ones. Some of their lenses have supurb build quality. The
28-80 2.8 is a tank. Mechanically solid inside and out (I peeked).
Optically quite good.

I've spent a little time with their 300 2.8 and their 70-210 2.8,
and both were satisfting lenses.

On the other hand, some of the lower end Tokina lenses feel very
shakey.

If I had to rank the lens companies on who has the most high
quality hits, and who has the most "misses", I'd put Tokina ahead
of Tamron and SIgma, but behind Nikon.

Just my opinion

Joe

Click to expand...

When I bought the D100, the Tokina 24-200 was my first lens. At the beginning I was dissapointed with the results, but then I discovered that some of the extra flare it seemed to have was a result of a lousy filter I installed on it. The second thing that dissapointed me was the low resolution at the max tele mode. Later on I discovered that it's a result of my hand shake and not the lens quality. At the 200mm end it becomes 300 mm for the D100, which is difficult to be hand held, especially that the lens is quite heavy. When installed on a tripod it's razor sharp. I recommend it to my friends now.

Ejoy said:

I am trying to find some good lenses for the camera, without
breaking the bank. As I read review after review, I cannot seem to
determine whether or not Tokina makes good products.

I have been trying to find a lens that is faster than the $300-$500
Nikon lenses. When I came across the hummingbird photo taken by
SteveT with a Tokina 80-200 f2.8 lens, I was like WHOA!

So, I started researching for a Tokina normal lens, and came across
the Tokina ATX 280 28-80 f2.8 and the 270 28-80 f/2.6-2.8. When I
started searching online, I found some extremely positive reviews,
especially on the 280. I am not saying that people feel it is of
the same quality of the 28-80 f/2.8 AF-S Nikon, but that lens is
about $1000 more expensive. However, it certain seemed like this
lens provided quality in the direction of the AF-S Nikon.

After doing more research in the forum, I actually see Tokina
getting RIPPED by some people. Bad build quality. Poor
engineering standards. I even saw one today that said "junk."

Essentially, now I don't know what to think, and thought that I
would get some opinions from you all. With such EXTREMES in the
information I am finding, I would like to find out if buying a
Tokina 280 or 270 is a better move than buying a slower Nikon lens.
I don't care about the brand name wars. Just want good pictures,
without having to stop buying groceries b/c I am so broke from
buying $1500 Nikon lenses. Thanks.

Click to expand...

The TOKINA ATX line is generally a good one. The original 28-70 f2.8 and 28-70 2.6-8 PRO and the 80-200 f2.8 got rave reviews. I compared them to other zooms and they generally were sharper and showed better contrast.

How they compare to newer ones, I can't say. I wouldn't buy any 28-300 or 24-200 lens as it is clear from posts that they cannot produce the quality over their zoom range that the shorter zooms produce. When the first 80-200 ATX f2.8 AF came out, it was compared against the Nikon and was at least as sharp. I never shot the 20-35 fast (2.8?) series but I do shoot the 20-35 f3.5-4and am very happy with it. There have been some comments about light falloff and sharpness when stopped down and when completely open but as I shoot mostly between f4 and f11, I can't comment upon that.

Optically, the Tokina ATX line has some very good lenses, especially the 28-70. However there are some compatibility problems, where some of these lenses will not communicate with the D100. Try it out at your dealer's to make sure that the camera recognizes the cpu in the lens before you buy.

rick decker said:

The TOKINA ATX line is generally a good one. The original 28-70
f2.8 and 28-70 2.6-8 PRO and the 80-200 f2.8 got rave reviews. I
compared them to other zooms and they generally were sharper and
showed better contrast.
How they compare to newer ones, I can't say. I wouldn't buy any
28-300 or 24-200 lens as it is clear from posts that they cannot
produce the quality over their zoom range that the shorter zooms
produce. When the first 80-200 ATX f2.8 AF came out, it was
compared against the Nikon and was at least as sharp. I never shot
the 20-35 fast (2.8?) series but I do shoot the 20-35 f3.5-4and am
very happy with it. There have been some comments about light
falloff and sharpness when stopped down and when completely open
but as I shoot mostly between f4 and f11, I can't comment upon that.

Click to expand...

Eugene Powers said:

First of all, Tokina and Tamron are the very different companies
than Sigma and Nikon and Canon. If you notice they have less lenses
than Sigma, Nikon
and Canon. Their top lenses are very good but lack of HSM makes
them below Sigma, Nikon Canon not above.

Click to expand...

I find the Sigma HSM advantage is arguable, at best. The first two sigma HSM lenses that I ever used were the first two lenses that Sigma made in HSM, the 70-210mm f2.8 and the 14mm f2.8.

On the F100 body, even without a booster battery, the Sigma 70-210 HSM actually focuses slower than my non motorized Nikon 80-200 2.8. Personally, I believe that Sigma did not do a very good job implementing HSM in this lens.

The 14mm almost doesn't need to focus, the depth of field is so wide. And the elements that need to move to focus are so small, and move such a short distance when focusing that I cannot understand why Sigma thought HSM was necessary on this lens.

I'd say the same thing about their use of it on the 17-35.

Personally, I prefer to get the best picture possible, even if it's a little slower. The 400 5.6 has a horrible reputation, and the 300 2.8 ranks below both Tamron and Tokina in optical quality, with or without its HSM.

The 50-500 is a special case, and goes to support my argument that, like most companies, they make some good products, and some not so good.

And I still firmly believe that Sigma has the lowest total number of really outstanding "go out of your way to get it" products of any of the companies that we've discussed.

And I'm one who makes constant use of some of the more unique Sigma products. When I bought my first Sigma 14mm ultrawide, no one else had one, not Tokina or Tamron, not even Nikon.

Member said:

But.. I don't know about
Tamron
but if Tokina insatall HSM on their top lenses I would switch from
Sigma (which I have and love the most) to Tokina in the heart beat.
Why? Because Tokina has the most neutral color between Sigma and
Nikon. Sigma is warm and Nikon is cold in my opinion. I would
rather have warm than cold.

Click to expand...

So would I. That's one reason why I'm much more likely to shoot through a skylight filter most of the time, instead of through a regular UV filter. Of course, this is totally meaningless in the digital world, when every lens is as warm or cold as we want it to be.

If you want to look at different areas where one company is the best, then we can extract the following from the above conversation. Reasons why each lens company is "the best":

Tokina, best color

Tamron, best lens caps

Sigma, HSM

Tokina, most lenses that focus "the Nikon way". (Pretty much all the newest Tamron and Sigma only focus the Canon/Minolta way).

Sigma, pushing the envelope hardest (8mm fisheye, first 14mm ultrawide, 50-500).

Tamron, the legendaty 300 2.8

Ciao!

Joe

I can only comment on the 270 (28-70 2.6-2.8), and I'm very happy with it. It's extremely sharp, delivers good colors, and is solid as a rock.
I use it on my F100, and had no problems at all.

A small story that preceded my purchase:

I used to be a Nikon fan. All lenses I bought were Nikon (24 2.8, 60 2.8micro, 35-70 3.3-4.5 and 80-200 2.8 new). I wanted an upgrade for my 35-70 lens. I had to choose between the Nikon 28-70 2.8 AFS, and the two Tokina's 270 and 280. I choose the cheapest one, not because of the price but because all positive comments I read on the net.

Since I have the Tokina 270, I'm sure I will never buy a Nikon again. They are much more expensive, and do not justify the extra cost. Not even having AFS.

Another small note: when I bought the Nikon 80-200 2.8 new, I had tested it against the Nikon 80-200 2.8 AFS. The non-AFS version autofocused as fast as the AFS version on my F100. That's probably a good indication on how powerfull the built-in AF motor in the F100 is.
Another good reason for me not to go for the expensive AFS lenses.

Filip

Ejoy said:

I am trying to find some good lenses for the camera, without
breaking the bank. As I read review after review, I cannot seem to
determine whether or not Tokina makes good products.

I have been trying to find a lens that is faster than the $300-$500
Nikon lenses. When I came across the hummingbird photo taken by
SteveT with a Tokina 80-200 f2.8 lens, I was like WHOA!

So, I started researching for a Tokina normal lens, and came across
the Tokina ATX 280 28-80 f2.8 and the 270 28-80 f/2.6-2.8. When I
started searching online, I found some extremely positive reviews,
especially on the 280. I am not saying that people feel it is of
the same quality of the 28-80 f/2.8 AF-S Nikon, but that lens is
about $1000 more expensive. However, it certain seemed like this
lens provided quality in the direction of the AF-S Nikon.

After doing more research in the forum, I actually see Tokina
getting RIPPED by some people. Bad build quality. Poor
engineering standards. I even saw one today that said "junk."

Essentially, now I don't know what to think, and thought that I
would get some opinions from you all. With such EXTREMES in the
information I am finding, I would like to find out if buying a
Tokina 280 or 270 is a better move than buying a slower Nikon lens.
I don't care about the brand name wars. Just want good pictures,
without having to stop buying groceries b/c I am so broke from
buying $1500 Nikon lenses. Thanks.

Click to expand...

Since when does HSM affect the photo quality.

jb

Eugene Powers said:

Eugene

Joseph S. Wisniewski said:

Ejoy said:

I am trying to find some good lenses for the camera, without
breaking the bank. As I read review after review, I cannot seem to
determine whether or not Tokina makes good products.

Click to expand...

Like most companies, Tokina makes some good products and some not
so good ones. Some of their lenses have supurb build quality. The
28-80 2.8 is a tank. Mechanically solid inside and out (I peeked).
Optically quite good.

I've spent a little time with their 300 2.8 and their 70-210 2.8,
and both were satisfting lenses.

On the other hand, some of the lower end Tokina lenses feel very
shakey.

If I had to rank the lens companies on who has the most high
quality hits, and who has the most "misses", I'd put Tokina ahead
of Tamron and SIgma, but behind Nikon.

Just my opinion

Joe

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
Johnny
Austin, Republic of Texas
http://pbase.com/johnnycb
http://geocities.com/johnnycb

Acording to one on line lense survey the tokina line was rated overall higher than all but the camera manufacturers lines. I have found that Tokina makes a fine line of lenses. The main problem with the Tokona line is that they do not say Nikon on them

Eugene Powers said:

Eugene

Joseph S. Wisniewski said:

Ejoy said:

I am trying to find some good lenses for the camera, without
breaking the bank. As I read review after review, I cannot seem to
determine whether or not Tokina makes good products.

Click to expand...

Like most companies, Tokina makes some good products and some not
so good ones. Some of their lenses have supurb build quality. The
28-80 2.8 is a tank. Mechanically solid inside and out (I peeked).
Optically quite good.

I've spent a little time with their 300 2.8 and their 70-210 2.8,
and both were satisfting lenses.

On the other hand, some of the lower end Tokina lenses feel very
shakey.

If I had to rank the lens companies on who has the most high
quality hits, and who has the most "misses", I'd put Tokina ahead
of Tamron and SIgma, but behind Nikon.

Just my opinion

Joe

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Joseph S. Wisniewski said:

Eugene Powers said:

First of all, Tokina and Tamron are the very different companies
than Sigma and Nikon and Canon. If you notice they have less lenses
than Sigma, Nikon
and Canon. Their top lenses are very good but lack of HSM makes
them below Sigma, Nikon Canon not above.

Click to expand...

I find the Sigma HSM advantage is arguable, at best. The first two
sigma HSM lenses that I ever used were the first two lenses that
Sigma made in HSM, the 70-210mm f2.8 and the 14mm f2.8.

Click to expand...

Like you said the first one. I think they improved it by now.

Joseph S Wisniewski said:

On the F100 body, even without a booster battery, the Sigma 70-210
HSM actually focuses slower than my non motorized Nikon 80-200 2.8.
Personally, I believe that Sigma did not do a very good job
implementing HSM in this lens.

The 14mm almost doesn't need to focus, the depth of field is so
wide. And the elements that need to move to focus are so small,
and move such a short distance when focusing that I cannot
understand why Sigma thought HSM was necessary on this lens.

Click to expand...

Maybe they are OEM for Canon.

Joseph S Wisniewski said:

I'd say the same thing about their use of it on the 17-35.

Personally, I prefer to get the best picture possible, even if it's
a little slower. The 400 5.6 has a horrible reputation, and the 300
2.8 ranks below both Tamron and Tokina in optical quality, with or
without its HSM.

Click to expand...

I see some reports but when dug deeper you find out something different.
For example just recently there was article in one of the mags posted here.
I contacted them and found out that Sigma 2.8 they used was old beaten
abused junk. Somehow it came from Sigma according to them.

Joseph S Wisniewski said:

The 50-500 is a special case, and goes to support my argument that,
like most companies, they make some good products, and some not so
good.

And I still firmly believe that Sigma has the lowest total number
of really outstanding "go out of your way to get it" products of
any of the companies that we've discussed.

Click to expand...

I have tried all of their HSM lenses and find no faults with any.
Maybe I am lucky. I kept them all except 14mm. Flare was bad.

Joseph S Wisniewski said:

And I'm one who makes constant use of some of the more unique Sigma
products. When I bought my first Sigma 14mm ultrawide, no one else
had one, not Tokina or Tamron, not even Nikon.

Joseph S Wisniewski said:

But.. I don't know about
Tamron
but if Tokina insatall HSM on their top lenses I would switch from
Sigma (which I have and love the most) to Tokina in the heart beat.
Why? Because Tokina has the most neutral color between Sigma and
Nikon. Sigma is warm and Nikon is cold in my opinion. I would
rather have warm than cold.

Click to expand...

So would I. That's one reason why I'm much more likely to shoot
through a skylight filter most of the time, instead of through a
regular UV filter. Of course, this is totally meaningless in the
digital world, when every lens is as warm or cold as we want it to
be.

Click to expand...

But it takes extra work.

Joseph S Wisniewski said:

If you want to look at different areas where one company is the
best, then we can extract the following from the above
conversation. Reasons why each lens company is "the best":

Tokina, best color

Tamron, best lens caps

Sigma, HSM

Tokina, most lenses that focus "the Nikon way". (Pretty much all
the newest Tamron and Sigma only focus the Canon/Minolta way).

Sigma, pushing the envelope hardest (8mm fisheye, first 14mm
ultrawide, 50-500).

Tamron, the legendaty 300 2.8

Click to expand...

Don't forget 90 F2.8 Macro I used it but end up with Nikon 60mm macro
Stupid me.

Eugene

Joseph S Wisniewski said:

Ciao!

Joe

Click to expand...

I don't understand your question.

Eugene

Johnnycb said:

jb

Eugene Powers said:

Eugene

Joseph S. Wisniewski said:

Ejoy said:

I am trying to find some good lenses for the camera, without
breaking the bank. As I read review after review, I cannot seem to
determine whether or not Tokina makes good products.

Click to expand...

Like most companies, Tokina makes some good products and some not
so good ones. Some of their lenses have supurb build quality. The
28-80 2.8 is a tank. Mechanically solid inside and out (I peeked).
Optically quite good.

I've spent a little time with their 300 2.8 and their 70-210 2.8,
and both were satisfting lenses.

On the other hand, some of the lower end Tokina lenses feel very
shakey.

If I had to rank the lens companies on who has the most high
quality hits, and who has the most "misses", I'd put Tokina ahead
of Tamron and SIgma, but behind Nikon.

Just my opinion

Joe

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
Johnny
Austin, Republic of Texas
http://pbase.com/johnnycb
http://geocities.com/johnnycb

Click to expand...

I have this lens and like it very much for travel photgraphy.
No, it is still 200mm no matter which camera you attach it to.
It just crops it to 300 FOV.

Eugene

Yossi said:

Ejoy said:

I am trying to find some good lenses for the camera, without
breaking the bank. As I read review after review, I cannot seem to
determine whether or not Tokina makes good products.

I have been trying to find a lens that is faster than the $300-$500
Nikon lenses. When I came across the hummingbird photo taken by
SteveT with a Tokina 80-200 f2.8 lens, I was like WHOA!

So, I started researching for a Tokina normal lens, and came across
the Tokina ATX 280 28-80 f2.8 and the 270 28-80 f/2.6-2.8. When I
started searching online, I found some extremely positive reviews,
especially on the 280. I am not saying that people feel it is of
the same quality of the 28-80 f/2.8 AF-S Nikon, but that lens is
about $1000 more expensive. However, it certain seemed like this
lens provided quality in the direction of the AF-S Nikon.

After doing more research in the forum, I actually see Tokina
getting RIPPED by some people. Bad build quality. Poor
engineering standards. I even saw one today that said "junk."

Essentially, now I don't know what to think, and thought that I
would get some opinions from you all. With such EXTREMES in the
information I am finding, I would like to find out if buying a
Tokina 280 or 270 is a better move than buying a slower Nikon lens.
I don't care about the brand name wars. Just want good pictures,
without having to stop buying groceries b/c I am so broke from
buying $1500 Nikon lenses. Thanks.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I have been using a Tokina ATX 400 f/5.6 for several years now and have been very happy with it. It focuses pretty fast and reliably and is also a sharp lens, especially for a $400 lens. Its light and easy to hold even at slower shutter speeds.

Here are a couple shots with it. It has been very reliable and find it to be very good quality, would definately make me consider another Tokina lens.









--
Jim Sykes
http://www.motorsportvortex.com