 |
|
|
Geoff CB
Offline
Image Upload: On
Registered: Jan 5, 2013
Location: United States
Posts: 720
|
|
Review Date: Sep 17, 2015
|
Recommend? |
Price paid: $280.00
|
|
Pros:
|
Zoom Range/Price
|
|
Cons:
|
Weight, Image Quality, Handling, Horrific CA
|
|
|
Tried this lens because I love my 28-70 2.6-2.8. This lens does not belong anywhere near it. Heavy, horrific CA. If your thinking about buying, don't. Not worth it at any price.
|
|
 Sep 17, 2015
|
|
Geoff CB
Offline
Image Upload: On
Registered: Jan 5, 2013
Location: United States
Posts: 720
|
|
Review Date: Mar 11, 2015
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $350.00
| Rating: 5
|
|
Pros:
|
Range, Price
|
|
Cons:
|
Horrific CA and detail at f4 and under. Weight. Not the best bokeh.
|
|
|
Good range for the price, however it suffers from horrific CA in high contrast. To the point that it is unusable outdoors. Also very low detail at until you get to f4 and above. The weight is just way to much for what is essentially an f4.5 zoom.
|
|
|
Mar 11, 2015
|
|
the solitaire
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 22, 2013
Location: Germany
Posts: 2752
|
|
Review Date: Jun 22, 2013
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $500.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp if you find a good sample, excellent ergonomics
|
|
Cons:
|
I owned 2 different copies and both had haze
|
|
|
The information below only applies to the 2 copies I tried on a Nikon D70, D200 and D300 compared to the copies of both Nikon equivalent lenses
Compared with:
Nikon AF 70-210 f4-5,6D
CA´s on a comparable level, sharpness as well. AF is slower but more accurate on the Tokina. Build quality of the Tokina is far superior to that of the Nikon.
Nikon AF 80-200 f2,8D (two ring version)
CA´s are worse then on the Nikon, sharpness is on a comparable level. AF is slower for the Tokina. Build quality of the Tokina is better then the Nikon.
I owned 2 copies of this lens. The first copy was soft on all apertures and focal lengths. When inspecting the lens I noticed a very hazy element right in front of the zoom group.
The lens was exchanged for a new copy (new in box) which was quite sharp from f4 onwards and more then acceptable from f3,3 onwards. In a pinch I would have used f2,8 on that lens as well.
On closer inspection it also suffered from haze on the same lens element.
If you´re on a budget and can get hold of a good copy I see no problem in using the lens. It´s aperture is faster then the Nikon AF 70-210 f4-5,6D and while the Nikon can be slightly sharper it will be hard to find an optical difference between the two in most situations.
When comparing the Tokina ATX-Pro 828 (80-200 f2,8) to the Nikon AF 80-200D Push/Pull version I would prefer the Tokina. When comparing it to the Nikon AF 80-200D (N) two ring version I would prefer the Nikon.
The difference in optical quality between those lenses is very small. Sharpness and contrast across the focal range are almost identical (considering you get a good copy of both lenses). The copies of both (Push/Pull and two ring) Nikon lenses I tried suffered less from purple fringes then the copies I tried of the Tokina lens. I guess the single SD element in the Tokina doesn´t correct purple fringes as well as the 3 ED elements in the Nikon lenses do.
The Tokina is well built. In my opinion it´s better then any Autofokus Nikon lens. Comparable to the quality of the manual focus Nikon lenses. It is better balanced then any of the Nikon 80-200 f2,8 lenses I owned on any camera and operating the zoom ring can be done with a single finger which is really convenient. This was true for both Tokina lenses I tried.
The AF clutch is a bit fiddly but I really prefer it over the vulnerable plastic A-M ring on the Nikon.
Now if someone would be so kind to combine the exterior and mechanical qualities of this Tokina with the optical qualities and AF speed of the Nikon AF 80-200 f2,8 I would be happy to pay $2000 for that lens.
|
|
|
Jun 22, 2013
|
|
vijay venkat
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 9, 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 90
|
|
Review Date: Sep 7, 2011
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 7
|
|
Pros:
|
Cheap, excellent bokeh, usable between f/2.8-f/4, balanced weight on a 7d/5dc body.
|
|
Cons:
|
Extremely slow and noisy AF (slowest I have used), prominent CAs.
|
|
I bought this as I rarely use telephoto to justify the cost of the Sigma/Tamron/Canon, but wanted a f/2.8 for the blur/background.
The lens is soft wide open, but usable for portraits, particularly with its wonderful bokeh (9 somewhat rounded blades). There is a significant improvement from f/2.8 to f/3.2. CAs are very prominent until f/4, but this should be somewhat correctable in PP. Obviously, the only reason to get this lens is to primarily use it between f/2.8-f/4 and in this department the lens is above average, but less than very good.
By far the biggest issue with this lens is the AF. Its very slow (takes about 3 secs for focus from min to infinity), makes a grinding noise and feels like it might stop working anytime. For panning, this is not an issue, but if you have objects coming towards you or leaving from you, then it becomes unusable.
The lens feels very balanced on my 7d/5dc, and is more weight balanced (and comfortable to use) than the 70-200 f/4 IS that I had before.
Mine has a hood with a bayonet mount, but it appears that this was also made with a screw mount for the hood.
Like most lenses, you get what you paid for. If you have the money, plan on using such a lens on a regular basis, or if you do sports, you must aim at least for the Sigma HSM or the Canon 70-200 models if you can afford it. Unless you can bag this lens around 350$ (2011 $), I don't think it is worth it.
Sample pictures:
http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/2547970734/invite/515717D8366447139B796D4820B20EC3
http://www.flickr.com//photos/vvume/sets/72157627534908394/show/
|
|
|
Sep 7, 2011
|
|
seagrove01
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 16, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 119
|
|
Review Date: Aug 16, 2011
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Build quality, sharpness, focus accuracy
|
|
Cons:
|
weight but it is a f2.8 pro zoom
|
|
|
Don't remember what I paid for this lens but I purchased a Tokina 80-200mm f.28 twice, once with an Olympus mount and the second time when I shifted to Nikon. I have owned the latest acquisition for over a decade and it has never failed me. It is not the top of the line AF-S Nikkor but the performance has done me well in shooting high school sports. I have used Tokina top of the line equipment for almost three decades and have never had a problem.
|
|
|
Aug 16, 2011
|
|
JamesRM
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 23, 2011
Location: United States
Posts: 97
|
|
Review Date: Jul 19, 2011
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $439.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
F2.8, Build Quality,Value
|
|
Cons:
|
Slight Purple fringing in high contrast, Focus is a little slow on older cameras.
|
|
|
I've been a big fan of Tokina lenses so I thought I would check this one out, and like all the others that I have had it is a great value.
I also have the Nikon 80-200 2.8 afs and the focusing speed on the Tokina is obviously slower, but not much (on a D300) I would not hesitate to use this lens for a sports gig. I've also tested on my older D70s and focus was noticeably slower.
At 2.8 my copy is a bit softer that the nikon and image quality is just about equal at f4 (although I'm not a pixel peeper)
There appears to be at least 2 versions of this lens one with a screw on lens hood and one with a bayonet mount pedal hood, there may be other differences but I'm not sure. I'm guessing like the tokina 28-70 2.8 the screw on is the older. Also on the 28-70 the older version is the more sought after model, I'm not sure if this is the case with the 80-200, but many of the complaints that people have about this lens I don't see in my copy (screw on hood)
|
|
|
Jul 19, 2011
|
|
dpcassil
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 18, 2009
Location: United States
Posts: 727
|
|
Review Date: Sep 18, 2010
|
Recommend? |
Price paid: Not Indicated
|
|
Pros:
|
This is to adjust from my initial review.
|
|
Cons:
|
Well turns out it back focused. spent 2 weeks in a repair shop, then 2 weeks at Tokina, then two more weeks at a repair shop. Finally Tokina said it was working perfectly and the reason it appears to be back focusing is that it was not made to be used on a DSLR.
|
|
|
KEH.com rocks they gave me full store credit 6 months after I bought it becasue their site had it listed as a digital compatible lens. I now have a 70-200 and sorry but with Tokinas Customer service like that i wont be getting another tokina lens, maybe not even another 3rd party lens.
|
|
|
Sep 18, 2010
|
|
dpcassil
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 18, 2009
Location: United States
Posts: 727
|
|
Review Date: Nov 18, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp
Fast AF (at least for what i have to compare with)
So So Cheap
The best color and picture of all my lenses (of course when you see what I have that may not say much.)
|
|
Cons:
|
CA - In high contrast CA stress test lots of CA at f/2.8 gone at f/9
My coppy (on sony a200) seems like it may be back focusing by about 1/2" will have to do more conclusive test but I got very sharp pics at 2.8 just not centered at what i was shooting. after 2.8 it is crazy sharp.
|
|
Keep in mind I can only rate based on what i have owned, I will get with a friend of mine who has the canon 2.8 usm and try do do a better comparison and adjust my review if needed.
I love this lens, I got a sony 50mm f/1.8 2 weeks ago which was nice but nothing like this in sharpeness or color.
I reviewed this on Dyxum in lenght but i am just gona point out the areas that probably concern most potential buyers.
AF. on my whimpy little a200 this thing auto focuses like a champ. Fast (considering the focus range i would say it moves as fast as my 50mm 1.8, obviously it has to move much farther so in that respect it is slower to actualy obtain the focus from one end to the other. It is also fairly quite when compared to my sony kit 18-70, or my old nikon beer can.
Sharpness. will have to do some more Controled test but in just basic shooting, free hand with my Steady shot on. it does fantastic. anything up from f2.8 is great and f2.8 is great its just off by 1/2" so MF (this is not conclusive but i will do more test and update if it proves to be user error or something else.) at f/9 - 80mm with flash indoors at 160 shutter it is unreal, I was just playing around free hand and I have never shot a more vivid pic ever.
CA is an issue if you shoot high contrast like Buildings with backlight ect. bad at 2.8 (in worst case setup) gone at f/9
CA was not apparant in most of my pics, only in cases where i tried to make it show.
It wheighs 3lbs.  that makes me happy as I like heavy things. that will chage quickly the first tiem I take this out but for right now. New heavy toy = happy.
I read a review that said this could be used as a weapon. No joke and i bet it would not hurt the lens.
Tripod mount, some people were complaining about it, seems great to me, the fact that its permenat means it is very solid and the rotate action on my coppy is very good. it seems like there is pleanty of clearance for any tripod mount but maybe not.
Built like a tank seems a little off built like a HK PSG-1 is better. (solid, heavy, yet still refined and percise)
Needs to be said tha KEH.com for used gear is great. like i said i paid $350 for the lens which (as others have reviewed) came in condition much better that KEH stated. If you find something there that is a rare find order via phone not online as phone takes priority over web. Somewhere there is some poor chap i am sure, whos lens I got becasue i ordered via phone. Sorry.
It drove me crazy not being able to find enough data before i bought this lens so feel free to ask me questions at [email protected]
The is a Christmas present to other than my initial testing i wont get to see it again untill 12-25-09
|
|
|
Nov 18, 2009
|
|
danielv
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 17, 2009
Location: France
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Sep 17, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $500.00
| Rating: 7
|
|
Pros:
|
Build quality
Sharp
Good focus
Great value
|
|
Cons:
|
Not USM
Not IS
Heavy
Screw in lens cap
|
|
|
Got the lens 2nd hand from Japan. Came in mint condition, with original case, unused strap and lens cap.
I read several reviews (not many can be found), and came to the conclusion - confirmed when I received the lens - that this would be a great value for money.
The build quality is great (all metal). The focus is better than I feared when reading reviews. It is not usm, but not very noisy and fairly effective. I haven't tried yet in low light conditions though.
The image quality is quite good. However I haven't compared in with the sigma or the canon (haven't got them!). But at least, when I switch from my canon 24-70L to this, I don't feel like I'm on another planet. Maybe a tad soft at 200 2.8. But not a big problem for me as I use 200 2.8 to do portraits and blur the background, ie most of the image save for the subject.
All that for a price 40% less than the Sigma, and 60% less than the canon (non IS)...
|
|
|
Sep 17, 2009
|
|
sigmaomega
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 2, 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: May 3, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
|
|
|
Hi,
Really interested in getting this lens. I've looked everywhere but cant find one. Where can I purchase this?
|
|
|
May 3, 2009
|
|
sigmaomega
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 2, 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: May 3, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
|
|
|
HI, I would LOVE to know where you can buy this lens. Ive looked everywhere and found a used one on ebay only. Would rather have more options though. Any suggestions?
|
|
|
May 3, 2009
|
|
kjpweb
Offline
[ X ]
Registered: Mar 1, 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Feb 14, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $300.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Tack Sharp
Built very well
|
|
Cons:
|
Slow AF
relatively noisy
|
|
|
Purchased used - this lens was a pleasant surprise.
As to expected the lens is quite heavy, but no heavier then the competition. Build quality is excellent - operating it needs some getting used to, notably the push pull switch from AF to manual.
Also as expected - it can't compete in AF speed with the top players out there - too slow and a bit noisy, too.
But those are things you have to learn to expect from Tokina (or Tamron for that matter).
The bright side is the image quality - which easily rivals the like of Nikon and is visibly superior to the competition of Sigma and Tamron.
All in all - if you can get your hand on it for a reasonable price, while looking for a fast f 2.8 lens in that zoom range - you won't regret it.
<a href:"http://virtua-gallery.com/wp/2008/10/tokina-at-x-pro-f28-80-200mm">Samples:<a>
|
|
|
Feb 14, 2009
|
|
bigthreed
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 11, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 1782
|
|
Review Date: Nov 11, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $300.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Very sharpe. Compares to my Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 that was stolen at less than 1/3 the price.
|
|
Cons:
|
Heavy, but its a 80-200mm f/2.8zoom and no heavier than the equivalent Canon "L" Lens.
|
|
|
I purchased this lens several weeks ago to replace a Canon "L" which was stolen. My first endeavor was to take some shots that I had equivalents of from my Canon lens. I compared about 10 shots using f/2.8 and f/8 apertures and I was amazed that the Tokina was the same on f/8 shots and slightly better on the f/2.8 shots. I then compared it to my Tamron 35-105mm at 105. I think the Tamron is the sharpest zoom lens I own. The Tokina was equal @ 105mm f/8 and just slightly less sharpe at 105mm f/2.8. This lens is fast becoming my favorite lens.
Befor I bought this lens on Ebay I looked at all the reviews. It was interesting in that all the professional photographers gave the lens their highest ratings. While all the amatures gave lower ratings. I don't know what that proves, but in this case I am glad I sided with the pros and bought this lens.
|
|
|
Nov 11, 2005
|
|
FatBoyAl
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 4, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 689
|
|
Review Date: Oct 19, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $650.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Cost vs other 2.8's, sharp, includes tripod ring, nice manual-clutch focus
|
|
Cons:
|
Heavy as heck, sometimes slow to focus in low-light
|
|
|
I like my copy. I've used it primarily on night HS football. Some of the smaller, darker stadiums have caused some slow focus issues, but could be technique.
Not a thing I could complain about. Built like a tank - and weighs like one, too. Solid build and feel. Nothing feels plastic or cheap.
Overall a great lens especially when you factor in the cost vs a Canon or even a Sigma.
|
|
|
Oct 19, 2005
|
|
khundtofte
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 3, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 21
|
|
Review Date: Oct 17, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $500.00
| Rating: 7
|
|
Pros:
|
Pro build quality, Price, Great images past f4
|
|
Cons:
|
soft f2.8, tripod ring can't be removed, screw on hood
|
|
|
I bought this for financial reasons. At the time, I couldn't afford the pentax 80-200 f2.8 ($1200).
This lens has produced some nice photos on my Pentax ist DS.
I have to make sure I am at f4 or greater.
I would recommend this lens for a starter "pro look" zoom lens.
|
|
|
Oct 17, 2005
|
|
K Lav
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 4, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 262
|
|
Review Date: Aug 28, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
cheap, f2.8, surprisingly sharp, built like a tank (sounds like one, too!)
|
|
Cons:
|
screw on lens hood, loud auto focus, slow auto focus, a bit heavy for its size
|
|
|
I was a bit skeptical the first time I shot with this lens. I expected it to have a slow/loud auto focus but what I didnt expect was the image quality. When I pulled up the files I was astounded! I was also very impressed with the build quality of this lens.
|
|
|
Aug 28, 2005
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
20
|
230225
|
Sep 17, 2015
|
|
|
Recommended By
|
Average Price
|
|
90% of reviewers
|
$431.17
|
|
|
Build Quality Rating
|
Price Rating
|
Overall Rating
|
|
9.25
|
9.06
|
7.9
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
;)
