anyone try this Tokina lens?

[Cozen]

<h1>Tokina 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6 AT-X Pro D</h1>





Has good reviews on B&amp;H and Adorama. Has a great range. Any opinions on it?

[Jarhead5811]

<span style="font-size: 9pt; color: #000000; font-family: Verdana;"]I don't have experience with this lens but have come to realize that user reviews are limited by the reviewers experience. What I mean is the people reviewing the product may love it, and it mayserve their needs well,but by in large they haven't tried the higher end products therefore they don't know what they are missing. They just know it's the best they've ever tried/had and that on paper the specs appear to match or even beat out the higherpriced products.


<span style="font-size: 9pt; color: #000000; font-family: Verdana;"]Try checking out the reviews on [url="http://www.fredmiranda.com/]FredMiranda[/url]<span class="large"][url="http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=239&amp;sort=7&amp;cat=40& amp;page=2]Tokina AT-X 840 AF-II 80-400 mm f/4.5-5.6[/url]but keep in mind the same istrue there as well.


<span style="font-size: 9pt; color: #000000; font-family: Verdana;"]<span class="large"]My opinion is if it appears to be too good to be true...andthis onedoes. Well, the money this wouldhave cost would get me a good start toward a Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8and love it, but it's one of those few third party lenses that get high marks especialy given that the [url="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-17-55mm-f-2.8-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx]Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM[/url]is not available in non-IS so there is a HUGE ($600.00+) price difference.


<span class="large"]Every time I mention settlingfor a [url="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Tamron-70-200mm-f-2.8-Di-Macro-Lens-Review.aspx]Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 Di LD (IF) Macro[/url] my wife says "$699.99 for a lens that isn't even what you want?". She has me convinced to wait for the [url="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-200mm-f-2.8-L-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx]Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM[/url]even if it takes a looooong, loooooooong time. (Which it will.) The next lens after that one I want is a [url="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-100-400mm-f-4.5-5.6-L-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx]Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM[/url]ifI thought the <span class="large"][url="http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=239&amp;sort=7&amp;cat=40& amp;page=2]Tokina AT-X 840 AF-II 80-400 mm f/4.5-5.6[/url], <span class="large"]Tamron AF 200-500MM F/5-6.3 Di LD (IF) or could hold a candle to it I'd jump. So, I'm still waiting.

[Mark Elberson]

<span class="large"]Every time I mention settlingfor a Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 Di LD (IF) Macro my wife says "$699.99 for a lens that isn't even what you want?". She has me convinced to wait for the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USMeven if it takes a looooong, loooooooong time. (Which it will.)

Even if you compare "apples" to apples (and I use the term apples loosely [:P]) you would need to compare the Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8to the CanonEF 70-200mm f/2.8L which also has no form of optical stabilization. Lets be honest though, the Canon is still over $500 more expensive! I agree with your wife, keep saving for the CanonEF 70-200mm f/2.8LIS []

[Jarhead5811]

I decided a while back that if I just couldn't wait I'd get the Canon EF 200mm f/2.8 L II USM before I got a Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 Di LD (IF) Macroor Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 EX DG HSM II Macro. Like my Wife said, I'd hate to spend that kind of money for something that I'd want to eventually replace.

[adam]

I had one for a couple of weeks during my long search for a plane-spotting lens. It's a compromise...it's the cheapest 400mm zoom out there, and it's also the smallest by a significant margin. Like all Tokina lenses, it's built like a tank. But the image quality isn't on par with the competition...there's a good bit of CA, and it's not very sharp wide-open, even in the center. Wide-open softness is ok on an f/2.8 lens, but when you need to stop down to f/9 or so, you need a LOT of light. Also, it uses a micromotor for AF, so it's noisy and not particularly fast.


If you really need 400mm and this is all you can afford or size is a huge issue, this lens is certainly an option. But you can do better if you either spend a little more or give up some focal length.

[Cozen]

I guess I'll just wait it out and save for a 70-200 F4 IS and get a 1.4 Extender. Doesn't seem like there are too many longe range telephotos that are good and won't break the bank account. Thanks for the feedback.

[Jarhead5811]

<span style="font-size: 9pt; color: black; font-family: Verdana;"]

Doesn't seem like there are too many longe range telephotos that are good and won't break the bank account.

<o></o>


<span style="font-size: 9pt; color: black; font-family: Verdana;"]Agreed, I wish there were. I'm using an ancient Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 <span style="font-family: Verdana;"]II USM. I can't even find reference to this lens on the internet (Possibly because the search parameters keep pulling up the III[/b]). I picked it up in 1997 at a store in <st1:country-region w:st="on"]<st1lace w:st="on"]Japan</st1lace></st1:country-region> for about $90 USD. Reading the reviews and looking at the pictures I'd say it's almost just like the III[/b] USM. Only I'd have to assume the III[/b] represents some slight improvement. And, I'll keep using my old POS until I can afford the real deal.

[adam]

I guess I'll just wait it out and save for a 70-200 F4 IS and get a 1.4 Extender. Doesn't seem like there are too many longe range telephotos that are good and won't break the bank account. Thanks for the feedback.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

There's a good reason for that...as the focal lengths get longer, it takes more difficult feats of lens design and more expensive glass to achieve good image quality.


How often do you expect to use the 1.4x teleconverter on a 70-200 f/4? That lens on its own is a stellar performer, even before you consider the fact that it's one of the least expensive L lenses, but if you're going to be using the teleconverter most of the time, take a look at the Canon 70-300 IS. It's almost as good as the 70-200 f/4 with a teleconverter, less expensive, and you get image stabilization. Or, take a look at the Sigma 100-300 f/4...more reach than the 70-200 f/4, better image quality than the 70-300 IS, and you can find them used for less than $700.

[adam]

I guess I'll just wait it out and save for a 70-200 F4 IS and get a 1.4 Extender. Doesn't seem like there are too many longe range telephotos that are good and won't break the bank account. Thanks for the feedback.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

There's a good reason for that...as the focal lengths get longer, it takes more difficult feats of lens design and more expensive glass to achieve good image quality.


How often do you expect to use the 1.4x teleconverter on a 70-200 f/4? That lens on its own is a stellar performer, even before you consider the fact that it's one of the least expensive L lenses, but if you're going to be using the teleconverter most of the time, take a look at the Canon 70-300 IS. It's almost as good as the 70-200 f/4 with a teleconverter, less expensive, and you get image stabilization. Or, take a look at the Sigma 100-300 f/4...more reach than the 70-200 f/4, better image quality than the 70-300 IS, and you can find them used for less than $700.