csimpson

Oops, let me re-post my summary list, which didn't format very well...

<ul>

<li>28-70 AT-X Pro: an excellent lens. Get one if you can, but be prepared for the lack of an adequate lens hood.

<li>28-70 AT-X Pro II: even better, with a proper lens shade.

<li>28-80 AT-X Pro: not convinced. More expensive, but doesn't offer any real advantage over the above lenses. Optical quality is apparently not even as good...

<li>28-70 AT-X Pro SV: AVOID! Spend your money elsewhere, unless you're looking for a lower-grade lens. At least until there are more reviews...

<li>28-70 AT-X: a lower grade lens. Consider the Pro SV as an alternative.

<li>Canon 28-70 f/2.8 L: Beautiful glass, sharper than the AT-X Pro II below f/5.6, and slightly faster, quieter AF. Otherwise, a just a lot more $$$$.

</ul>

When I first got into the EOS system 6 years ago, I started off with the Canon 28-105 USM, which I rapidly outgrew. I traded up for the Tokina 28-70 AT-X Pro, and about a year ago, upgraded to the 28-70 AT-X Pro II version. I haven't yet seen the 28-70 Pro SV, but so far, it looks to be a significant downgrade both mechanically and optically from the Pro II (more about this later). I also haven't seen the Tokina 28-70 AT-X in person, but I would naturally expect it to be a fair step down from the good AT-X Pro lenses.

Optically, I've found the 28-70 AT-X Pro and Pro II to be very similar, and both are far sharper and have much less distortion than the Canon 28-105. Perhaps I got a good unit, but my Pro II produces satisfyingly sharp images right to f/2.8 (maybe just not *quite* sharp enough for that eye-popping snap, but still very sharp), getting just a tad soft near the corners. This is important to me, since I tend to shoot quite often at wide apertures, and I like my prints to be large and razor-sharp. I have not compared it to the 28-70 AT-X, but if the prior reviews are accurate in terms of how it compares to the Canon 28-105, then the AT-X Pro II is a *much* better lens than the AT-X. I've also read that the optical performance of the 28-70 AT-X Pro II is actually better than the 28-80 AT-X Pro lens, which also doesn't surprise me, given some of the "good but not great" 28-80 reviews I've read. This brings me to my conclusion that the new 28-70 AT-X Pro SV is a significant downgrade. The recent reviews of the SV have been very negative... I suspect Tokina was not moving it's 28-80 AT-X Pro while the better 28-70 Pro II was still on the market at a lower price. Hence, the move to a cheaper version of the 28-70, which sounds like it belongs in their AT-X category, not their Pro lineup. What a big disappointment for me to see the 28-70 Pro II discontinued.

Now, a little more about the 28-70 AT-X Pro and Pro II, specifically... These lenses are an absolute dream for the manual focus enthusiasts out there. Mecahnically, the focusing action is silky smooth, with little resistance, and absolutely no slack whatsoever in the mechanism. I really wonder how they do it. I can focus with this lens to extremely fine increments in a way that I have never found possible with any other lens I've tested. The mechanism doesn't 'stick' or grab... it's just oh-so-smooth. Beautiful. And what I said regarding the manualf focus action applies equally to the overall mechanical build quality. These Tokinas are built like tanks, and although that makes them heavy (which I actually prefer for steadier hand-held shooting), they have a robust construction that should stand up to a lot of abuse that would break most lenses.

Let's see, other items in favour of the AF270 AT-X Pro II... bayonet mount lens hood. This was the only reason I upgraded from the AT-X Pro. A mandatory addition to any piece of glass this big is a good lens shade, and I found myself in too many awkward positions, trying to shade the lens with my hand back when I owned the AT-X Pro. Non-rotating filter mount, 77mm (same as the other AT-X Pro lenses), is a thumbs-up. I like being able to exchange filters with my Tokina 80-200 AT-X Pro (another lens to die for), even if I don't use them very often. Wonderful balance and handling. If you're contemplating blowing your savings on the Canon 28-70 /2.8 L, you owe it to yourself to set aside your brand-name loyalty and test this lens. Yes, the Canon L is a tad nicer, but in my books, just can't justify the extra $1000. Once you're shooting at f/5.6 or higher, you'll have a very difficult time distinguishing between photos taken with these two lenses.

Warts (28-70 AT-X Pro II): The focusing ring system on the Tokina lens is a bit finicky to operate. Re-engaging the clutch, takes some practice, and even then it's a 1 second operation, instead of the 0.1 second operation it could be. Also, the AF motor, while quick, isn't as quick as the Canon, and while it's not loud, it's not silent either. Distortion near the corners at 28mm is annoying, although the Canon 28-70 L behaves about the same in this respect. If you need very rectilinear images at this focal length, pick up a prime or some other lens. If you're used to a consumer zoom, you'll probably find the Tokina to be refreshingly distortion free by comparison.

In short, my recommendatations are:

28-70 AT-X Pro: an excellent lens. Get one if you can, but be prepared for the lack of an adequate lens hood.

28-70 AT-X Pro II: even better, with a proper lens shade.

28-80 AT-X Pro: not convinced. More expensive, but doesn't offer any real advantage over the above lenses. Optical quality is apparently not even as good...

28-70 AT-X Pro SV: AVOID! Spend your money elsewhere, unless you're looking for a lower-grade lens. At least until there are more reviews...

28-70 AT-X: a lower grade lens. Consider the Pro SV as an alternative.

Canon 28-70 f/2.8 L: Beautiful glass, sharper than the AT-X Pro II below f/5.6, and slightly faster, quieter AF. Otherwise, a just a lot more $$$$.

The verdict: if you're money-wise, and you can get your head around the name-brand issues, I think the 28-70 AT-X Pro II is a far better value than the Canon L, and it's performance comes very, very close. For the next range in focal length, have a look at the Tokina AF828 80-200 f/2.8 AT-X Pro, which comes even closer to Canon L-glass optical performance, perhaps even on par!

Finally, a small beef. Tokina's lens naming. All of the aforementioned lenses from Tokina share very similar names, and I'm sure I've seen reviews of these models under the wrong name, or people discussing different versions of the lens and hence not seeing eye-to-eye. Be alert to this. It's so easy to confuse these lenses, or mistake them for one another, but they are each unique and different. Whether it's a marketing ploy by Tokina to 'sucker' people into buying a lens based on the reputation of it's preceeding version is debatable, but if so, it's a dirty game they're playing. But alas, I know what it's like to work at a company where the marketing vision is completely discordant with the engineering practices. Despite the rather poor naming choices, some of the Tokina lenses are truly excellent products, so don't discount them.