My first thoughts were, 'I hope it's a as good as the Canon 70-200mm f/4L IS', that lens had the best IQ of any zoom I've used. It'd be nice to have have something comparable as an option.
I don't disagree about that. I've got half a dozen short teles sitting on my shelf right now, and each has enough of a distinctive look that I can't get rid of any of them, even though they technically overlap a lot. I don't generally expect that sort of distinctiveness in a mid-speed zoom, but it can surely happen.
Frankly I think they have their work cut out for them unless it's around $699.
Canon owners would have think to long and hard for this lens over choosing the supposedly excellent 70-200 f/4 IS (can you even find a bad review of that lens?). I haven't used that one, but I have the 70-200 mkII and it's awesome and supposedly slightly better IQ-wise.
Nikon already has the excellent price-performer in the 70-300 VR, though admittedly I never really found that lens "very sharp". Maybe "workably sharp" and was worth the money. Granted, I found myself almost always at 300mm with that lens, so maybe it sharpens up at 200mm.
The Nikon's AF isn't blazing fast, though, so if somehow Tokina can pull off a fast AFer, you'll see people snapping it up.
Unfortunately I just don't see that happening IMO - is there any other lens Tokina makes that is actually known for fast AF?
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.
Well, is not so simple. The constant aperture zooms are more complex than the other, the build quality of Tokina lenses is in pro grade while the 70-300 from Nikon or Tamron are in consumer area. Nikon 70-300 VR is a capable lens but if you use it intensively without to abuse it in one year you need to get a replacement. Also it is sharp on center but the sharpness in corners is less good. Distortions are higher than normally for a telephoto in this area. CA is as well at a very high level.
So if Tokina is sharp wide open across the frame, f4 constant, built as a tank, with moderate CA and distortion, good AF and stabilization, it deserves $1000 from my pocket. We shall see if it meets our expectation. But this lens will put pressure on Nikon to bring their own version to have complete the f4 trio. And this is a good thing.
Juan, it depends on the condition, I had a very nice condition 70-200 VR1 that sold for over $1400 net to me so it just depends. I agree though, it would be hard to pay over $1000 for an f/4 aftermarket lens. Tokina may think it is worth more and if it is priced too high and doesn't sell well then we'll see the price drop on it.
cputeq wrote:
Frankly I think they have their work cut out for them unless it's around $699.
Canon owners would have think to long and hard for this lens over choosing the supposedly excellent 70-200 f/4 IS (can you even find a bad review of that lens?). I haven't used that one, but I have the 70-200 mkII and it's awesome and supposedly slightly better IQ-wise.
Nikon already has the excellent price-performer in the 70-300 VR, though admittedly I never really found that lens "very sharp". Maybe "workably sharp" and was worth the money. Granted, I found myself almost always at 300mm with that lens, so maybe it sharpens up at 200mm.
The Nikon's AF isn't blazing fast, though, so if somehow Tokina can pull off a fast AFer, you'll see people snapping it up.
Unfortunately I just don't see that happening IMO - is there any other lens Tokina makes that is actually known for fast AF? ...Show more →
The Canon 70-200 F4 is one of their best, and you're right, you'll never find a bad review.
The weight , build and general feel make it highly praised. Tokina is looking at this lens and following it's very sucessful principles. And tokina make some brlliant lenses.
Personally, I can't wait for it to hit the market and get a chance to play with it.
This lens concept is a winner (see Canon). Whether Tokina's implementation of this concept will be a winner remains to be seen.
Tokina has issues with CA in many of its lenses and some (many?) are willing to put up with that shortcoming because of the other benefits. As long as any optical aberrations are no worse than what's come before, it won't be much of an issue for me.
What concerns me most is the implementation of two new (for Tokina) technologies in a single lens. Those who buy this will be the early adopters (guinea pigs) for the photographer population. Assuming the lens proves optically capable and reliable over the course of a year or so (at an acceptable price point), I will give it a serious look.
All those drooling at the prospect, f4 bokeh at these FL's probably won't be very pretty.
That'll be the true cost of saving a little weight, put me down for shootin' the f2.8 VR's into my 80's thanks.
trenchmonkey wrote:
All those drooling at the prospect, f4 bokeh at these FL's probably won't be very pretty.
That'll be the true cost of saving a little weight, put me down for shootin' the f2.8 VR's into my 80's thanks.
Too much beer over week-end Will... I see nice bokeh from slower lenses at Monkey in other thread... i.e. with 70-300 VR...
Let us have a nice dream, please! In certain situations in tele area f4 could produce creamy bokeh. At least enough good for my back to be happy!
Ok, ok...hope it comes in under $900 for y'all.
Didn't want to appear as a wet blanket...just sayin' as that was my only knock with the f4L IS
Re: too much beer, had the better part of a growler (killer Porter) while uploading pics last eve...
woke up bright eyed & bushy tailed this am. Thank God for great microbrews. GL
M635_Guy wrote:
A good, sharp, pro f/4 with built-in motor and stabilization might tempt me away from my 80-200 ED.
It should not be too hard to best an essentially 1988 optical design. I've been waiting 10 years for an f/4 Nikkor with VR, so the Tokina is of some interest. However, I've not been so happy with their lenses in general, though there have been less problems than with Sigma. How well do Tokina's recent AF motors compare with Nikon/Canon ring USM designs?
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.
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. ...Show more →
The light advantage may "look" like only half a stop at F4 vs F5, but in reality in terms of the actual amount of light entering the lens, the advantage will be a full stop. Specification of the 70-300 at 200MM does not make it a F5 lens, it still is a F5.6 lens and it will show if you actually test it.
For example, if you shoot the tokina 70-200 at 200mm F4, vs the 70-300 at 200mm, under a controlled testing environment, the Tokina will clearly register an image brighter even if both lenses are shot at same aperture and shutter.
Try a 50mm 1.4D and 24-70 at 50mm f2.8 Even though both lenses are set to the same parameters, the prime will capture a scene brighter than the zoom simply because it is a "brighter" lens.
VTXT wrote:
For example, if you shoot the tokina 70-200 at 200mm F4, vs the 70-300 at 200mm, under a controlled testing environment, the Tokina will clearly register an image brighter even if both lenses are shot at same aperture and shutter.
Try a 50mm 1.4D and 24-70 at 50mm f2.8 Even though both lenses are set to the same parameters, the prime will capture a scene brighter than the zoom simply because it is a "brighter" lens.
While what you're talking about can happen, there's a much clearer way to explain it that doesn't use abstract concepts such as 'brighter'.
Cine lenses are marked in T-Stops versus F-Stops. T-Stop = Transmission Stop, a setting that takes into account the actual light transmitted through the lens based on light loss occurring because of how many elements a lens has, how efficiently it's coatings work, and even the amount of vignetting a lens has.
Theoretically an f/1.4 lens and an f/2.8 lens both set to f/2.8 should allow through the exact same amount of light. If you were to compare an f/1.4 Summilux and an f/2.8 Elmarit you might find the Elmarit actually lets through more light because of it's simpler lens construction. If the the f/2.8 lens in question is a complex zoom design compared to a simpler prime the situation might be reversed.
While it sounds like a big deal, in practice for still photography, in most situations, it's simply not. It can be for things like catalog shoots where you need absolute consistency from shot to shot, but in most situations a 1/3 bump in your Raw software will compensate for any inconsistency.
Really though we should be careful in our language when talking about aperture and brightness, it can lead to a lot of unnecessary confusion and internet myth
Hopefully that helps clear up some of what you're seeing.
I see nice bokeh from slower lenses at Monkey in other thread... i.e. with 70-300 VR... 
