It's funny that Tokina is the only third party source I never had the chance to buy because I had covered my needs with other brands. But this is sure on my top list unless will have a too high price tag! I'm curious to see how works the "shake correction mechanism"...
I'm looking forward to seeing how this lens performs. Tokina lenses have excellent build quality and generally perform well optically.
The big question for this new lens is how well the "VR" and the ultrasonic motor perform. At the moment the lens is the exact same diameter as the 70-300 VR and a bit shorter than the 80-200 AFD. I would guess the weight would also be a hair less than the 80-200 AFD but not by much.
It can't be much more than $899, as I am sure they will want to compete with the Canon 70-200 F4 IS as well... and the only way you will do that is with price. That lens is awesome.
I'm having a hard time seeing the utility. It's the same size as the ~$400 Tamron or Nikon 70-300 stabilized lenses (actually longer), and gains a half stop over them at 200mm. For that you'd expect to pay $900-1200?
I've been waiting/hoping Nikon would build their own 70-200 f/4 but this is very promising indeed! Tokina makes excellent glass but their lens technology has lagged behind (no silent motor, no VR, etc.) but this has both, silent and VR. If they got the optical characteristics right, then I will be all over this lens! Very exciting indeed. If it's priced anywhere near Canon's 70-200 f/4L IS then it will not sell well in EF mount. After discount the Canon is just over $1100, I would hope Tokina would be at $999 or less, but that's their call.
wjmeyer wrote:
Look at her, she's tall, sexy, sleek and dressed in black Seriously, if it is anything close to the Canon version in IQ then it is worth it. It needs to be exremely fast to AF, the VR really needs to work well (I have not had good experiences with Sigma in this area) and the bokeh needs to be nice and creamy, if it's got all that going for it and it sells less than $1000, then I think it will be a winner, at least for me.
....
I still don't see how you spend $1k plus to gain a half stop over a lens that already exists. The Nikon 70-300VR is at least decently fast to AF, has very good stabilization, and great image quality wide open at 200mm. The Tamron is even better on all three counts. I've owned both, and both are great -- but the Tamron has the best stabilization I've ever used short of a supertele, and it's sharper and faster to AF, to boot.
I'm a big fan of fast glass, and am willing to pay for that extra half stop of speed -- I think an 85/1.4 is easily worth it over any 85/1.8, etc. But to get f/4 over f/5, paying $1000 for a lens that is just a little less slow? For me to be interested, it would have to offer something else significant -- probably a considerably reduced size, which obviously isn't in the cards. I still don't get it.
At a street price of $600 or so, I could see it, but only if it's really good at f/4 throughout its range, and has no major faults -- and even then, I'd hope for something smaller.
Chris Ventura wrote:
If it's this price, I will wager they won't sell a single copy in EF mount.
you might be right but unless Nikon has a 70-200 f4 priced reasonably (has that occurred recently?) I still think the VR and no competition will at the very least, give it a boost up the price scale.
The 70-200 f4 IS is probably the best F4 lens I have ever owned.
This lens would interest me if it is much smaller,lighter, and is a true 200 at MFD. of course it would need to be sharp at F4 otherwise you be better off getting the Nikon 70-300. If compact and sharp at f4 it would be perfect for studio and travel landscapes when I don't want to lug the F2.8 around. But for general use I still would prefer the f2.8 as I really cant give up that aperture.
Smiert Spionam wrote:
I still don't see how you spend $1k plus to gain a half stop over a lens that already exists. The Nikon 70-300VR is at least decently fast to AF, has very good stabilization, and great image quality wide open at 200mm. The Tamron is even better on all three counts. I've owned both, and both are great -- but the Tamron has the best stabilization I've ever used short of a supertele, and it's sharper and faster to AF, to boot.
In all seriousness, I understand what you are saying. If you are correct in the above assessment then I would agree with you, it is not worth it; however, if the IQ is better at the given focal lengths and the "look" is better, than it is worth it. You can have four lenses all with the same technical specs but the images from them all "look" differently. So if this new Tokina has that "look" that I like and the IQ is there, then yes, I do think it is worth it, but remember, that is me, and it is okay if you decide that you don't see enough in this lens to make it worth a few hundred more than another; I've done that myself, I used to have the Canon 50mm f/1.2L and then I got a Sigma 50mm f/1.4 and to me, they were so close in IQ and look that I couldn't justify the extra $800 for a 1/2 stop, I'm sure that is exactly what you're thinking right now. But the final result comes when you have the lens and actually use it in your shooting and compare it to another.
Seriously, if it is anything close to the Canon version in IQ then it is worth it. It needs to be exremely fast to AF, the VR really needs to work well (I have not had good experiences with Sigma in this area) and the bokeh needs to be nice and creamy, if it's got all that going for it and it sells less than $1000, then I think it will be a winner, at least for me.