Opinions on this lens: Tokina 80-200/2.8

MelP · May 10, 2006

If anyone has any opinions on the following lens, good or bad, I would love to hear it.

Tokina 80-200mm f2.8 AT-X 828 Auto Focus PRO

I am thinking of purchasing this but am not sure of the quality. I know it will not be as good as the Nikon brand. But I do like the price.
I will be using it on my Nikon D50 mainly for low-light sports (at night or in gyms), just for hobby not really for professional use, but I do want good quality prints.

Any experiences/examples using this lense?

Thanks in advance,
Mel

Khaos · May 10, 2006

Some personal reviews at FM: http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=237&sort=7&cat=40&page=1

MelP · May 10, 2006

Khaos wrote:

Some personal reviews at FM: http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=237&sort=7&cat=40&page=1

Thanks for the link, Khaos!! It was helpful.

Harryb · May 10, 2006

I would go with teh Sigma 70-200 2.8. Its jsut a bit more expensive and is IMHO a much better lens.

MelP · May 10, 2006

Harryb wrote:

I would go with teh Sigma 70-200 2.8. Its jsut a bit more expensive and is IMHO a much better lens.

Harry,
This is actually the one I was originally interested in, because I have several Sigma's which I like. So I have not ruled it out, yet.

Thanks,
Mel

ziggy53 · May 10, 2006

Mel,

I have 3 lenses in this range and aperture.

I have the Tokina 828, and old version of the Sigma and the Canon "L". While all are f2.8, constant aperture lenses, they each have qualities that make them unique from each other. (I also had 2 copies of the recent DG Sigma version, but not the very latest "macro" version.)

The 828 version is the best of the Tokina versions, of which there are several. It is a beast and looks like something out the 70s. It uses a screw on metal hood, of the old design (as opposed to a "petal" design.) The lens cap won't fit onto the lens while the hood is attached and forward. (The latest vesion may now be a plastic petal hood.)

The focus speed won't set any records, but it's not too bad, easily equal to the 10 year old Sigma. Accuracy is good. My copy is sharper with close focus than at infinity. Focused close it is similar to the Canon "L", which is to say excellent. At long distance, the Canon "L" is the sharpest, by far, and beats any other lens I've tested. Again, this could be just my copy.

Color seems a little warm, more similar to the Sigma than the Canon, which seems neutral.

Everything considered, the Tokina is a good lens at a great price. I'll use mine on occasions where I don't need the absolute perfection of the Canon "L", or where the risk justifies using the less costly lens.

Most reviewers rank the Sigma as a better lens than the Tokina, but my tests of recent copies of the Sigma version (Canon mount) were less than perfect, and I would rank them as more similar. By f8 they are all exceptional. (At f2.8, and especially at distance, I think the Tokina images need a regular dose of USM sharpening.)

Best,

ziggy53

ziggy53 · May 11, 2006

BTW, this whole gallery was shot with the Tokina (before I got the Canon lens.) You can see that the whole series is a bit soft. This was available light, at f2.8, from the back of the room at 200mm or so. (I should have used a tripod, so some of the softness is camera shake. Bad ziggy):

http://ziggy53.smugmug.com/gallery/1263072

MelP · May 11, 2006

ziggy53 wrote:

BTW, this whole gallery was shot with the Tokina (before I got the Canon lens.) You can see that the whole series is a bit soft. This was available light, at f2.8, from the back of the room at 200mm or so. (I should have used a tripod, so some of the softness is camera shake. Bad ziggy):

http://ziggy53.smugmug.com/gallery/1263072

Thanks for the link, Ziggy!! The photos were a little soft but good quality. I'm still undecisive as to go with a "decent" cheap lens or spend a few hundred more to get the Sigma which may (or may not) be better.

Thanks,
Mel

ziggy53 · May 11, 2006

MelP wrote:

Thanks for the link, Ziggy!! The photos were a little soft but good quality. I'm still undecisive as to go with a "decent" cheap lens or spend a few hundred more to get the Sigma which may (or may not) be better.

Thanks,
Mel

... or more yet (much more) for the really superb, Nikkor AF 80-200mm, 2.8D ED. (... so I hear. I'v never even seen one, unless I didn't know it at the time.)

ziggy53

P.S. If you get the Nikkor version that has 16 elements in 11 groups, it appears to be just a bit more than the Sigma's new price.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/80200.htm

Opinions on this lens: Tokina 80-200/2.8

Comments