 |
|
|
David Baldwin
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 28, 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 3146
|
|
Review Date: Jul 4, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp image quality, strong build, size, versatile
|
|
Cons:
|
When pixel peeping some CA
|
|
|
I needed a longer lens for my 40D but couldn't afford Canon prices. I imported this lens from a well known ebay dealer in Hong Kong and so got an incredible price compared to the very high UK price.
When configured to be physically shortest this lens is surprisingly compact in the camera bag. Optical quality is quite impressive IMHO, at f8 or f11 sharpness is very good even at 400mm. There is some CA when you pixel peep, but no problem on actual prints.
If you are an action or BIF photographer then I suspect this lens doesn't autofocus fast enough and you may have to shell out on more expensive Canon glass. But for tripod based work this lens is very capable and extremely good value.
The foot for the tripod mount is rather small, and the plastic catch that locks focal lenght doesn't inspire confidence, but overall the build is very solid indeed.
I am very pleased with my purchase, which I need for landscape, architectural detail and occasional moon photography.
|
|
 Jul 4, 2008
|
|
fishtek
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 18, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 537
|
|
Review Date: Apr 27, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $599.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
BRIGHT colors, sharp, contrasty, build quality, functional hood, great value
|
|
Cons:
|
None I've found yet...
|
|
|
Received a few days ago from Kalamazoo at a great price. I've already got a Tokina 12-24, so I knew what to expect in terms of build quality. Superb! The glass surpasses my expectations. I've also got a Canon 70-200L/f4, and it is NOT better than the Tokina. Wide open at 400/5.6, I'm getting great color and detail in the images. The tripod ring, when in the "normal" operating position, without the tripod, makes me want to contact the focus ring with my left forefinger, surprising me when the lens focuses. Turning the ring 180 degrees takes care of THAT.
I'm taking it on vacation in a few days, and will give it a more serious test. So far, I'm highly pleased.
Regards!
Don
|
|
|
Apr 27, 2008
|
|
jetinder
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 26, 2008
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Feb 26, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
First class lens, great optics, great value for money, does what it says on the tin.
|
|
Cons:
|
Wish it had Image Stabilisation.
|
|
|
I've had this lens since summer 2001, bought it with a new Canon EOS 3 and x 2, x 1.5 teleconverters for one thing and that was to capture Concorde on 35mm film at take off and landing.
Before I got the lens I had a choice of a Sigma 150-500mm, a Canon 100-400mm .I.S. or this lens
I chose the Tokina as it was half the price of the Canon and it over lapped my standard 28-105mm zoom (which the Sigma didn't).
Build quality and image quality is just as good as the others, i dont regret getting the lens. Images are clear and pin sharp.
99% of the time the lens has been hand held and used with a x 2 teleconverter and full auto focus. Its also been used with a x 1.5 teleconverter and full auto focus, both times it never let me down.
The EOS 3 + Tokina focused, locked on and stayed there.
People on here have said its " soft " no its not like any lens its not perfect but it comes very close.
This is a brilliant lens which I would buy again if i had to, Canon only beats it as that has Image Stabilisation and this doesnt but Canon is 2 times the price of this and both lenses cover 100-400 mm zoom length.
|
|
|
Feb 26, 2008
|
|
David Baldwin
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 28, 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 3146
|
|
Review Date: Oct 23, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
|
|
Pros:
|
This is not a review, just a link to a sample image
|
|
Cons:
|
|
|
I've not had this lens long enough for a full review. However, reading some of the reviews that have been posted on this site I was very interested to find out how this lens performed at 400mm stopped down a bit.
My copy of this lens has recently arrived and I am posting a link to a sample image that I have prepared. I hope it is helpful:
http://www.nightfolio.co.uk/tokina/lens_test.html
This sample is a 100% crop from a Canon 40D RAW frame at f11 (100 ISO). I have not sharpened or corrected this image in anyway.
|
|
|
Oct 23, 2007
|
|
dnadal
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 11, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 3536
|
|
Review Date: Jan 26, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $500.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Size, range, build, sharpness within reason, price!
|
|
Cons:
|
Variable ap, AF tends to hunt in less than bright conditions.
|
|
|
Far from perfect, but Tokina gives you everything you pay for, and probably more: they seem to always give you good bang for the buck.
In my experience, I shot birds on an overcast afternoon, and was mildly disappointed; I shot an NFL game on a bright October afternoon, and was astonished by the clarity and color, even at a high ISO and after some pretty aggressive cropping...maybe even better than the 70-200 2.8L IS I was also using.
It's a battleship: I've shot waterfall details in a downpour, and only had to wipe off the casing afterwards. I've dropped it, sat on it (in its padded case), and jogged up and down sidelines with it on a monopod over my shoulder. (I also tried it with a Kenko 1.5x teleconverter, and would not recommend it...things get pretty murky unless there's a LOT of light)
For the price, this thing ain't big-aperture L-glass, but it's a solid tool that, within its limits, helps you get the job done.
|
|
|
Jan 26, 2007
|
|
condyk
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 14, 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 300
|
|
Review Date: Aug 29, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $600.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Amazingly portable lens given the range. great build, decent tripod mount included, nice case, reasonably bright for a longer lens, good sharpness and contrast for most of the range, great price, ideal upgrade from the cheap zooms.
|
|
Cons:
|
Looks old fashioned if anyone cares aboiut that stuff, tripod mount foot is small, tho' it does the job fine, AF hunts in low light, but this is a slowish lens, not USM/HSM but price reflects that.
|
|
|
There is a big gap between the cheap, usable options and the more serious mid range stuff like Canon 100-400mm IS L and 300mm IS L, or Sigma 50-500 and 100-300mm f4. I've owned them all and for now I just needed a lightweight longer lens to keep my hand in before my next safari in 2007.
I had no real expectations given the great value, so was very surprised to learn that the Tokina does a decent job. It's not L or EX class obviously, but it comes out sharper at 80mm than my 24-105mm IS L and holds up at f8.00 nearly all the way through to 400mm.
Seems to stay sharpest a tad backed up at around 380mm. Very nice results tripod mounted. Similar size to the 24-105mm IS L too, which was a real bonus. Will be very acceptable in Africa where the light is going to help, tho' 5.6 is pretty nice for a longer zoom. Definately a good upgrade if you can't stretch to the much more expensive stuff.
|
|
|
Aug 29, 2006
|
|
eganjover
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 22, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: May 28, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $328.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
- Long zoom range
- Crisp images up to about 350mm
- Solid metal construction
- Compact and easier to carry than other 400mm zooms.
|
|
Cons:
|
- A bit soft at 400mm, but for the price, it's unbeatable.
- Lens hood is somewhat loose... but perhaps that's just my lens.
- Loud focusing mechanism, but that's not a big issue
|
|
|
Having this lens in my backpack basically eliminates my need for the 135mm and 200mm primes. This lens covers an awesome range, and it's very sharp up to about 350mm. Shots are 400mm are very usable, and at F8 they become nice and crisp.
It's a decent lens for birding, and it's superb for candid photography. For 400mm, it's reasonably fast, and the price is not bad compared to other big brand zooms.
|
|
|
May 28, 2006
|
|
mckenzy
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 19, 2006
Location: Singapore
Posts: 5
|
|
Review Date: May 21, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $400.00
| Rating: 7
|
|
Pros:
|
the range for the price
|
|
Cons:
|
there are many... but for what you are paying, thats not saying much...
|
|
|
First off, if you're even considering this model, you must be desperate for the reach that the 400mm can give you. and just for that, i would say that this lens will deliver.
your expectations however must be realistic. how many of us have actually used any lens at that focal length? the longest i've ever used before i bought this was at 200mm. so, to say that its bad at 400mm blah blah blah... is pure nonsense...
what i would recommend this:
At 400mm, you get f5.6. i know thats wide open and image quality will come out soft. but what lens can deliver pin-sharpness at that focal length at 5.6? maybe one or two pro-grade lenses which you will have to sell your house to buy.
f5.6 is bright. at this length, at the camera shop in a shopping mall, i shot a steady pic, iso1600 at 1/100...
you CAN handhold this indoors and still get the shot. and if that is important to you then this lens delivers. if you're concerned about blowing it up for commercial use, then all i have to say is that you sell your house and get that pro lens that you need so much...
its getting a little hard to find nowadays in the shops (i bought mine new)... its also a little hard to find used, unlike the (i find) overrated 70-200mm f4L... almost everyone is selling theirs away, i wonder why...?
|
|
|
May 21, 2006
|
|
DocNice
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 27, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 526
|
|
Review Date: Dec 29, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $325.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Great optics, compact, gets close to the action
|
|
Cons:
|
Slow auto-focus, high magnification ratio, long minimum focusing distance
|
|
|
Got for use with my 10D in wildlife photography, but have ended up using it for wildflowers more than anything.
Using it on flowers has made me want a lens with a closer minimum focusing distance (~6 or 7 ft) and lower magnification ratio, but optically it has done fantastic. I get great sharpness and nice bokeh, and I would compare the images I've gotten with those of L lenses. Has worked well on the occasional portait too.
The build is very good, though I bought it used and the focus ring is not especially tight. But it can take a fall and come out no worse for the wear.
Tough to shoot handheld unless it's daylight and the AF is fairly lousy. This makes it tough shooting wildlife near dusk. I think every photographer wants an L lens with all the bells and whistles, but this is a great option for excellent pictures at a fraction of the price.
If you want to shoot birds in flight, get an L. If you want to shoot wildlife in low light, get an IS lens. If you want to shoot macro, get a macro lens. But if you can take the time to set up a tripod or shoot in bright light, this is the lense for you.
If you can handle the limitations of what this lens can't do, and instead appreciate it for what it can do, you'll love it.
|
|
|
Dec 29, 2005
|
|
AviB
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 21, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 34
|
|
Review Date: Dec 10, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 7
|
|
Pros:
|
Solid construction, good image quality, zoom range
|
|
Cons:
|
Only consider this lens if you intend to use a tripod- no IS- impossible to get sharp pictures hand held
|
|
|
Good value for the money but as I mentioned- don't even think about using without a tripod!
|
|
|
Dec 10, 2005
|
|
arcfotobuff
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 5, 2005
Location: Canada
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Dec 5, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
|
|
|
Not a review. Need to know where you got this lens for under $400???
arcfotobuff
|
|
|
Dec 5, 2005
|
|
elpcgringo
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 24, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 8
|
|
Review Date: Nov 30, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
|
|
Pros:
|
Not a review...See below
|
|
Cons:
|
|
|
|
Not a review. I wanted to know if anyone has used this lens for sports photography. I want to shoot my son and daughters soccer and baseball games, and I don't want to mortgage my house.
|
|
|
Nov 30, 2005
|
|
rock1110
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 28, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Nov 25, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $430.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Compact, build, image quality better than expected, versitile zoom range.
|
|
Cons:
|
The exterior of lens hood gets scratched very easily, lens vibrates like crazy when auto-focusing
|
|
|
Smallest/shortest 100-400mm zoom lens. Affordable price. Ultra-portable & hence always in the ready bag. Great zoom range for field wildlife photography, including birds & mid-size mammals. Just love it.
I also attach a 1.4x Kenko 300 Pro converter, and it works just fine. At 560mm (400mm*1.4x), hand holding at 1/250 sec is safe for not getting a blurry image. With a monopod, it's still sharp even with 1/125 or 1/80 most of time.
On my Canon EOS 350D camera, the cropping factor makes this lens a 900mm telephoto lens! (560mm*1.6x)
Let's face it. This is the kind of size you're able to carry around in a full-day field trip. Very convenient for amateurs. Highly recommended!
|
|
|
Nov 25, 2005
|
|
packpe89
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 5, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 484
|
|
Review Date: Nov 9, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $350.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Size, Range, Build
|
|
Cons:
|
Not much considering the range and price
|
|
|
Great build, and somewhat small size. Optics are fairly good as is the AF. Sure I'd like a 100-400 L, but this was 1/4 the price with more range. Not a lens I use every day, but a fun one to take to the zoo or when you are not sure what you might be shooting.
|
|
|
Nov 9, 2005
|
|
lordfreddy
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 25, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 98
|
|
Review Date: Oct 16, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $350.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Good Optics, Great Built, very compact, and nicely priced
|
|
Cons:
|
Manual Focus ring can be smoother, non-removable tripod ring, and slow AF.
|
|
|
This lens is really a bang for your buck:
Good optics: Sharp @ wide open, very sharp when step down to f8.
Great Built: This lens can last forever, all metal construction, beats every Canon consumer level lens in built quilty.
Very Compact: this lens is so small in size for a 400mm, I was thinking it was a EF-S type of lens when I first saw it.
Very nicely priced: for $350, you can't go wrong with this lens
|
|
|
Oct 16, 2005
|
|
DynaSport
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 11, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 1661
|
|
Review Date: Aug 22, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Compact for the focal length, good price, better quality than I expected
|
|
Cons:
|
I have had the AF hunt some when trying to close focus, the close focus distance is longer than I would like
|
|
|
I have used this to take pictures in a variety of circumstances. I first used this lens to take pictures of extremely distant objects with a 2x converter and mounted on a tripod. The results were OK considering the difficult conditions. I next used the lens at a high school football game at night where I got much better results than expected considering the light conditions and the speed of the lens. Finally, I tried to use the lens to take pictures of butterflies in my butterfly garden. The lens was practically useless for this purpose. The AF speed was too slow and most times never did focus. I think it was a problem with the minimum focus distance of the lens. I found my much maligned 75-300 to be much better for this role.
So, it does some things really well, others not well at all. But what choices do you have at this focal length in the price range?
Dan
|
|
|
Aug 22, 2005
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
20
|
175789
|
Jul 4, 2008
|
|
|
Recommended By
|
Average Price
|
|
100% of reviewers
|
$426.00
|
|
|
Build Quality Rating
|
Price Rating
|
Overall Rating
|
|
9.53
|
9.29
|
8.2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
