Tokina 28-80 ATX Pro 2.8 and Tokina 80-200 ATX Pro 2.8 on a D700

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by arthurrichardson, May 4, 2009.

  1. Dear all,
    I am planning on buying a D700 as a replacement for my trusted F100. I simply cannot justify the cost of film and decent development anymore.
    I bought my F100 at the time for its professional specs, fast and precise autofocus and great metering capabilities. I have been waiting for a F100ish FX dslr, and with the D700 I believe the time has come.
    At the time I could not afford the pro spec Nikon lenses, but will be saving for a 24-70 in the future.
    Currently I have the above mentioned Tokina lenses on my F100 as my main lenses, which produce very nice results. Yes the 28-80 is a bit prone to flare, and af speed is lacking - especially compared to my dad's D300 with 17-55 afs, but my images sure look pretty to me. Alongside I also have a Nikon 50mm 1.8, a Nikon 135mm 2.8 AI, a Tokina 19-35 and a Tamron 500mm 8 mirror.
    I have not found too many postings on these Tokina lenses combined with an FX dslr.
    Any of you good people have experiences with this glass?
    I know the arguments on investing in top glass first and then the body, but at the time of buying the F100 I just got out of university and stopped down to 5,6 the Tokina's give excellent results IMHO. Now I want to step up to digital photography and want an full frame, rather than a DX body.
    Any comments on the body and lens combination is warmly welcomed.
    Regards,
    Arthur
     
  2. The is nothing wrong with the tokina lenses.
    As far as I'm conscerned they are just as serious an alternative as the higher spec Sigma's.
    With the 19-35 28-80 and 80-200 you have all but the extremest wide covered
     
  3. Erwin,
    Thanks for your post. Hartelijk dank voor je commentaar!
    Arthur
     
  4. I know it's not exactly the same lens, but I've used a Tokina AT-X 28-70 f/2.8 on my D700 with good results. In fact at around 50 to 60mm results from the Tokina are almost indistinguishable from a 55mm f/2.8 micro Nikkor, used at "normal" distances of course. The 28mm end lets it down a bit, but it still easily competes with modern lenses from Tamron and (shudder!) Sigma.
     
  5. kch

    kch

    Dear Arthur,
    I´m lugging around the Tokina 2.6-2.8/28-70 ATX-Pro II and the mentioned 2.8/80-200 ATX-Pro for more than ten years now and I like both lenses very much. The build quality is just excellent and the optical performance is also compelling imho.
    Both lenses are a bit soft wide open (especially the 80-200 at the long end), but I think it´s not too bad. Stopped down to f/4 the tokinas show very good results. If you want the best quality out of these lenses, you should not use f/2.8 unless it´s really necessary. I for instance use the 80-200 mainly when shooting concerts with very good results. Whenever the light situation does allow it, i stop the lens down to at least f/3.2. You can have a look at www.archiv-heine.com if you like to. Most of the concert-photos were taken with the Tokina 80-200.
    Another weakness of both Tokina-lenses: They are prone to CA. But at reasonable "real life" print sizes this isn´t a real problem. About 10 years ago in the "stone age" of (film-)photography I didn´t even noticed the mentioned weaknesses. Ever since "pixel peeping" my Nikon D200- and Fuji S5 Pro-shots at 100% on the computer-screen I realized it.
    For me the Tokina lenses real keepers for a reasonable price. I´m working as a photo journalist, so sometimes I´m a little bit harsh with my equipment. The Tokinas never failed in all that years.
    I´ve attached some "real life"-testphotos (Nikkor AiS 2.8/180 ED vs. Tokina ATX-Pro 2.8/80-200) to this post. They are not scientific in any way (handheld at 1/125) but show quite well what you can expect from the Tokinas in every-day-use.
    Bottom line: Two recommendable lenses.
    Hope this helps and all the best
    KC. Heine
    Attached Images:
    First the test-image (Nikon D200, 400 asa), shot with both the Nikkor AiS 2.8/180 ED and the Tokina ATX-Pro 2.8/80-200 at 180mm, f/2.8 within a few minutes. The weather was rainy, so the light is smooth and without harsh contrast:
    [​IMG]
    And now some 100%-crops out of it to compare the lenses. All photos are taken at f/2.8. First the Nikkor AiS 2.8/180 ED...
    [​IMG]
    ... and the corresponding crop, taken with the Tokina 2.8/80-200 ATX-Pro:
    [​IMG]
    A further Nikkor-crop:
    [​IMG]
    And the corresponding Tokina-crop:
    [​IMG]
    Nikkor:
    [​IMG]
    Tokina:
    [​IMG]
    Nikkor:
    [​IMG]
    Tokina:
    [​IMG]
     
  6. Rodeo Joe, Thanks for the reply, I rarely use my lenses at full open so stopping down will probably avoid any trouble.
    Kay-Christian, Vielen dank, for the effort of showing the differences between the Nikon prime and the Tokina 80-200. I must say, the Tokina performed better than I expected.
    I really worried about whether the D700 would magnify any flaws in my Tokina's but by the looks of it, I believe that both lenses will suit me well. I am not a professional and do not need super enlargements.
    Any CA etc I will try to polish away during post processing.
    Nice portfolio Kay-Christian!
    Thanks again!
    Arthur
     
  7. Arthur,
    I have owned both the 28-80 and 80-200 Tokinas. I shoot weddings as a photojournalist (secondary) photographer. I had the latest model 80-200 with petal hood. It was an absolute disaster wide open. The pictures i would take from the back of a church were unuseable. Using a D200 I thought I just needed a tripod. My boss put the lens on his D3 and said it's not you its the lens. Very soft with tons of CA. The 28-80 faired rather well I might add. It flared easily and did the focus hunt thing at receptions but was sharp enough in the center. I currently own two D700s with a Nikon 24-70 f2.8 and the 70-200 f2.8 VR. I can honestly say, NOTHING that I have used rivals the 70-200. It is an absolute tack sharp lens wide open at any focal length. Moving to full fram was the best idea you made. Don't disapoint yourself with third party lenses. I'm not a "measure-bater", nor do I need to spend a ton of money just to say I did. You won't find a better combo on full frame than the 24-70 and 70-200 Nikkors. JM2C.
     
  8. Well Dan,
    If you just send me your two cents, I might just be able to justify the investment. :).
    I made up my mind and decided to buy the Nikon 24-70. Yes it is a major dent in my wallet, but based on current 2nd hand prices for the 28-70 it will hold on to its value. Combined to the high praise it gets and the fact that it covers my favourite range it's a must buy.
    Adding the 70-200 is more a future thing, since I can use a 70-300 AFS VR that may not have the same quality, but will probably outperform the Tokina.
    Thanks all for the support!!
     
  9. I have D700 and Tokina 2.6-2.8/28-70 latest model and 2.8/80-200, also Tokina, but 15 years old. 28-70 produces really outstanding results while 80-200 can deliver good results only in certain conditions. The lens has big troubles with front/back focus. I calibrated it only for short distances, up to approx 5-6 meters, further away lens shows backfocus. At longer distances it is really bad. At about 20m there is near 2m of backfocus at open aperture at 200mm! If I calibrate it for longer distances, it shows strong front focus when I do portraits. I don't use lens much, only for portraits and concerts where I can get close so I can somehow live with that.
    My lens also shows a lot of CA, which is visible on older digital cameras, D700 already eliminates it with firmware.
    In the past I worked as a photojournalist and used this lens a lot with film. I had no problems mentined above. Looks like newer AF is made different way than at older cameras.
    Maybe latest versions of this lens behave better, so give it a try :)
    Best regards,
     
  10. Janez,
    Thanks for your reply. What type op 80-200 do you have? The ATX-Pro version?
    Regards,
    Arthur
     

Share This Page

1111