Tokina AT-X PRO 12-24/4 and 28-80/2.8

[csuzor]

These are great lens! If anyone is still hesitating over these focal

length ranges, thinking the Nikon is over-priced, look to Tokina. The

12-24/4 is well known, at least equal to the Nikon. The 28-80/2.8 is

also excellent, sharpness increases from OK at f2.8 to excellent at

f5.6 (like all lens?). Bokeh is also excellent. IF AF is fast on D2H

(as fast as an AF-S lens), but probably slower on Dnn. One Touch

Focus Clutch is nice, it's a different approach but works well

(beware older Focus clutch mechanism, not as easy to use). And both

are half the price of the Nikon.

[todd1664878707]

I purchased the 12-24 and I love it. It is very sharp and well built. Does anyone else have experience with the Tokina 28-70? It is much more attractively priced than the Nikon.

[tom_burke3]

Another vote for the 12-24.

[roto]

Guys, maybe our standards differ, but I have the 28-80/2.8 ATX PRO and it is, IMHO, unusable. It's the worst lens I've ever had. Worse than the ultra-cheap plastic Nikon 28-80/3.5-5.6 (not sure about the aperture range, but you know which one I mean). Soft and with lots of CA. Awful. And it's not that I got a lemon: I wanted to change it (no way to get refunded) and all the lenses I tested were exactly the same.

 

It's a very expensive door stopper. Well built, but useless as a lens.

[jheimsch]

I must have a different version of the ATX 28-80 than the previous poster because I believe I get nice results out of mine. Overall a better value when compared to the Nikon version if you have middle class budgets to live within, IMHO.

 

Just my $0.020,

 

Justin

[csuzor]

Hmm, Roberto, interesting. My 28-80 is a little soft wide open, much less than my 50/1.8 wide open, and by f4 it is as good as the 50/1.8 in sharpness, but less contrasty and better bokeh. I've had it just a few days, and done mostly portraits, so I haven't seen the problems you mention. I bought it with the recommendations I saw here http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=236 but I am a little worried now, I'll be doing some more critical shooting and comparisons this weekend. What is your preferred lens in this range? (is the Nikon 28-70/2.8 up to your standards, or primes only?)

[neil_grant]

I used to own a Tokina AT-X PRO 28-70 f/2.8, not quite the subject of discussion, but...

 

it was a resonable performer, but not a patch on the Nikon 28-70 f/2.8 ED

[lex_jenkins]

There have been some fairly methodical tests with illustrations comparing center and edge sharpness, posted during the past few months, for the 12-24/4 Nikkor, 28-70/2.8 and a few others with equivalent third party zooms. I don't recall the URLs for those threads but they may be worth researching.

 

In some cases the third party zooms fared pretty well and seemed to be very good values. Unfortunately my experience with third party lenses is that few of the recent models communicated well with my D2H, so I never got a chance to evaluate their performance.

[bernard_frank]

Here is the link to the Tokina 12-24/4 test:

 

" http://www.photo.net/equipment/tokina/12-24-f4/ "

[roto]

Christophe,

 

The Nikon 28-70/2.8 is a wonderful lens and definitely "up to my standards".

 

What I find objectionable in the Tokina 28-80 is not only the lack of sharpness (especially at the corners), but the huge amount of chromatic aberration it exhibits.

 

I tried the Sigma 28-70/2.8 and found it to be much better than the Tokina. However in the end I decided for the Nikon for a number of reasons.

[csuzor]

Update on the 28-80/2.8. I took a couple hundred shots today around town with it, and a few critical shots to compare it with the AF50/1.8D.

 

You really have to want CA to make it happen, by shooting a dark object against a bright sky, at wide aperture, otherwise there is none.

 

For sharpness, the 28-80 out-resolves my D2H at f5.6 or f8 every time, and is at least as sharp as the 50/1.8 from f4. At f2.8 the 50/1.8 is a little sharper, but not at f2 or f1.8. It is always easy to spot the 28-80 f2.8 shot at 100% magnification on LCD screen, but you need 400% magnification to spot the f4 shot relative to the f5.6 or f8, or to find any differences between the 2 lens. If you upsize the f4 shot by 400% in PS with Bicubic Smoother, the f4 shot at 100% becomes far superior to the f8 shot at 400% (what I am saying is that the lens is not limiting the resolution, the D2H 4mp sensor is the limiting factor).

 

I have some shots with the sun, and flare is remarkably well controlled. Better than I am used to with 18-70 or 24-120VR.

 

I am a little confused about low light areas, the 28-80 seems to bring more detail from the low light areas, as if they weren't as dark as with the 50/1.8... it is less contrasty. Is that good or bad?

 

Now, D2H and 50/1.8 are not the best tools for a real evaluation of the 28-80/2.8, but the 28-80/2.8 is clearly a reasonable choice until I can save for the D2X. I was ready to return it if the tests today were bad, but I'll be keeping mine a while longer. Until Nikon releases a AFS VR f2.8 in this zoom range!

 

If anyone still has doubts, email me for pictures.

 

Roberto, the Sigma 28-70 is worse from what I have read http://www.tawbaware.com/sigma_tokina_test1.htm . I guess what we are seeing is a manufacturing QA issue, maybe you came across a bad series, or another manufacturing site.

[dennismk]

I have the Tokina 28-80mm pro AT-X f2.8 and have used it for years now and just love it. I found it to be as sharp as my Nikon 80 to 200mm ED 2.8 I would like to see how it stacks up against Nikon new 24 to 120 VR lens, a friend has one and one of these days I will run a test shoot with both of them. I do a lot of my shooting from a boat and the VR can be a big help the 80 to 400mm VR sure is.

[steve_muntz]

Tokina has made several versions of 28-70 or 28-80 lenses. I have the 28-80 f2.8 ATX-PRO which I bought used from a friend. Although I've never used the Nikon 28-70 f2.8, it's much, much sharper than Nikon's (very good for the money) 28-105 and on par with my Nikon 80-200 f2.8 AFD. It's really a great lens - but I've heard so many complaints from Tokina lenses that sound like QC issues. I'm sure there are versions of the lens I've got that are junk, but I knew this was a good one when I bought it.

 

Because of this, I'm not sure I'd buy their 12-24 without being able to try it first. When it's a good one, most reviews say it's as good as Nikon's 12-24 which it seems to be almost a copy of.