Tokina 28-70 f/2.6-2.8 ATX Pro II


Status
Not open for further replies.

tsdh

New Member
Jul 8, 2002
340
0
0
Singapore
Visit site
#2
Originally posted by ckiang

Ideally, the AFS 28-70mm f/2.8D ED-IF but not enough $$$ so I probably have to settle for the Tokina version.
Regards
CK
Last year I bought that Tokina (ATX Pro II, latest version), but finally I sold it because too soft at its widest aperture. And now stick back to my old Nikkor 35-70/2.8
Not enough $$$ to buy AFS 28-70/2.8, and can't find other alternative.

The pics below were taken using both lenses on the same subject, same rol of film (Kodak Portra 400VC). Scanned using Canon film-scanner at 2720 dpi, and cropped (100% view, no resizing).

Nikkor 35-70/2.8 D, at 70mm f/2.8


Tokina 28-70/2.6-2.8 ATX Pro-II, at 70mm f/2.8
 

ckiang

Senior Member
#3
Splitting thread into a new thread as it's getting OT.

Hmm... slight but noticeable difference. Think for the kind of price, I can probably live with it.

The 35-70/2.8 is a great lens, but I hate the range. Neither here nor there. And if I get it, I'd desperately need a lens to fill the gap between my 20 (widest) and this 35-70. 17-35/20-35 is going to be quite prohibitive in price. 24 or 28 prime sounds doable, but is still an extra cost. So 28-70 range will be nice :)

Would be excellent if Nikon has a 28-70/2.8 non AFS, but they don't :(

Regards
CK
 

tsdh

New Member
Jul 8, 2002
340
0
0
Singapore
Visit site
#4
Originally posted by ckiang
The 35-70/2.8 is a great lens, but I hate the range. Neither here nor there. And if I get it, I'd desperately need a lens to fill the gap between my 20 (widest) and this 35-70. 17-35/20-35 is going to be quite prohibitive in price. 24 or 28 prime sounds doable, but is still an extra cost. So 28-70 range will be nice :)
Would be excellent if Nikon has a 28-70/2.8 non AFS, but they don't :(
Regards
CK
Same with you, I hate the range of just 35-70 (and its bad bokeh), that's the reason I bought Tokina 28-70. Unfortunately, the result is not up to my expectation of a pro-grade lens.
I can't justify the cost of AFS lenses, since I don't need such fast AF speed. For the time being, I fill in the wide-end with a Nikkor 18-35/3.5-4.5 (and 24/2.8 prime if hi-quality is required).

The Tokina is great for its price, its build is solid.
If you buy this lens, test its AF at close distance (around 1m or less), see whether the focus slightly miss or not. Some batch doesn't work well with Nikon, its AF will miss around 1cm near the minimum focusing distance.
 

ckiang

Senior Member
#5
Originally posted by tsdh

Same with you, I hate the range of just 35-70 (and its bad bokeh), that's the reason I bought Tokina 28-70. Unfortunately, the result is not up to my expectation of a pro-grade lens.
I can't justify the cost of AFS lenses, since I don't need such fast AF speed. For the time being, I fill in the wide-end with a Nikkor 18-35/3.5-4.5 (and 24/2.8 prime if hi-quality is required).

The Tokina is great for its price, its build is solid.
If you buy this lens, test its AF at close distance (around 1m or less), see whether the focus slightly miss or not. Some batch doesn't work well with Nikon, its AF will miss around 1cm near the minimum focusing distance.
Guess we have not much of a choice, do we? I have tested a Sigma 24-70 before, its worse. Not only it has the super expensive 82mm filter thread, its also slow and noisy in the AF.

But from your scans, I can say the Tokina is close enough, at more than half the price of the 35-70/2.8, and I can live with that slight difference. Unless there's something better at that kind of price. Which there isn't. :(

Regards
CK
 

Kho King

Senior Member
Jan 20, 2002
2,513
0
0
41
shashinki.com
#6
Tokina already has the 28-80mm pro, why people still considering buying the 28-70mm pro II? Is the Pro II better optically? Or is it because of price? :dunno:
 

ckiang

Senior Member
#7
Originally posted by Kho King
Tokina already has the 28-80mm pro, why people still considering buying the 28-70mm pro II? Is the Pro II better optically? Or is it because of price? :dunno:
Price is one, and there are still people who say the 28-70 is optically better. This is something I cannot really determine. :( But you do pay quite a bit more for 10mm extra, and to have the MF/AF switching "fixed".

Regards
CK
 

Kho King

Senior Member
Jan 20, 2002
2,513
0
0
41
shashinki.com
#8
The Pro II minimum focusing distance is 70cm, the pro 28-80mm is 50cm (much higher magnification for close up wide angle shot). This is the main reason I like the pro 28-80mm, besides the af/mf switch and the little window on the lens.

Ck, r u buying new or 2nd hand?
 

ckiang

Senior Member
#9
Originally posted by Kho King
The Pro II minimum focusing distance is 70cm, the pro 28-80mm is 50cm (much higher magnification for close up wide angle shot). This is the main reason I like the pro 28-80mm, besides the af/mf switch and the little window on the lens.

Ck, r u buying new or 2nd hand?
Thinking of 2nd hand. Someone offer me $400 for the 28-70 Pro II.

Regards
CK
 

Minority

Senior Member
Jul 26, 2002
542
0
16
Singapore
www.pbase.com
#11
Originally posted by ckiang
Splitting thread into a new thread as it's getting OT.

Hmm... slight but noticeable difference. Think for the kind of price, I can probably live with it.

The 35-70/2.8 is a great lens, but I hate the range. Neither here nor there. And if I get it, I'd desperately need a lens to fill the gap between my 20 (widest) and this 35-70. 17-35/20-35 is going to be quite prohibitive in price. 24 or 28 prime sounds doable, but is still an extra cost. So 28-70 range will be nice :)

Would be excellent if Nikon has a 28-70/2.8 non AFS, but they don't :(

Regards
CK
If I may add I did some research the tokin ATX 280 is pretty ok if you shoot from f4 and above. But most of the time you don't have to shoot at f2.8 right. ( well would be nice if its perfect. But the price diff -- me comparing to the Canon 28-70L ) its my understanding that its real or if not equally sharp ( compared to the Canon L lens) from 5.6 onwards. For 1/3 the price...... could be tempting..
 

tsdh

New Member
Jul 8, 2002
340
0
0
Singapore
Visit site
#12
Originally posted by Minority

If I may add I did some research the tokin ATX 280 is pretty ok if you shoot from f4 and above. But most of the time you don't have to shoot at f2.8 right. ( well would be nice if its perfect. But the price diff -- me comparing to the Canon 28-70L ) its my understanding that its real or if not equally sharp ( compared to the Canon L lens) from 5.6 onwards. For 1/3 the price...... could be tempting..
It is ok at f5.6 and above. Altough most of the time we may not shoot at f2.8, but it defeat the purpose of using the big and heavy f2.8 lens if it can't perform well whenever we need it.
For 1/3 the price, .... well, probably that could be the reason.

The Tokina ATX Pro actually has good optics (manufactured by Hoya) and designed by Angenieux. But it suffer from bad quality control at the production line.

The pic below is a crop of 2720dpi scan, taken with Tokina 28-80/2.8 at 80mm f8. The left pic is the whole film frame, and the right pic is the 100% view at 2720dpi of area indicated by the red rectangle. Sharpness is good, really a bargain for its price.


There is one other thing:
In a high contrast environment, it bleed (ghosting). Worst at f2.8 which turn the picture almost as if taken using a soft filter (diffuser). Stopping down to f5.6 help, but if the contrast is increased (shooting under bright sunlight), then it still show this problem.
Following are the crop of 2720dpi scan showing this problem. All crop were unretouched, cropped at 100% view, no resizing.

This one was cropped from an indoor wedding picture, was shot using Tokina 28-70 at 70mm f2.8 It shows the bleed. The edges between the dark and the bright, seems as "glowing". (should not caused by over-exposure). My other lenses never show this problem under similar condition.


Below is a crop from the same wedding, was shot at f5.6 outdoor under bright sunlight. The flower seems "glowing".


Despite all of those problem, generally this lens is good, and still a bargain at its price.
 

Minority

Senior Member
Jul 26, 2002
542
0
16
Singapore
www.pbase.com
#13
Hi

That is a really good review. I am really comtemplating to either get a tokina 28-80 f2.8 or a Canon 28-70 f2.8. The price of cannon has really been putting me off... But given the fact I am still not a pro. and I don't shoot at often as I like blowing such a huge sum of marnee on a Pro lens could be a waste. But as usual just can't help feeling that if I am gonna to spend $$$ must well go for the best....

Minority:dunno:
 

Minority

Senior Member
Jul 26, 2002
542
0
16
Singapore
www.pbase.com
#14
Btw what you have mention above how obvious are they on a 4R or 5R or 6R or 8R.

Are they only obvious in if I blow the pic up real big like an 8R?
 

#18
Originally posted by Minority


If I may add I did some research the tokin ATX 280 is pretty ok if you shoot from f4 and above. But most of the time you don't have to shoot at f2.8 right. ( well would be nice if its perfect. But the price diff -- me comparing to the Canon 28-70L ) its my understanding that its real or if not equally sharp ( compared to the Canon L lens) from 5.6 onwards. For 1/3 the price...... could be tempting..
Thing is, the reason why I am considering the 28-70/28-80 f/2.8 is because of the f/2.8. f/4 is still not that bad, f/5.6 is no point - I might as well stick with my 28-105. ;p So, I'd really want to shoot it at f/2.8, if it's not that bad.

From tsdh's initial post of the comparison, it's very acceptable to me, for the price difference.

tsdh: The 2nd set of pics is the 28-70 or 28-80?

Regards
CK
 

beachbum

New Member
Jun 29, 2002
594
0
0
Visit site
#19
anyone used the sigma 28-70 f2.8 EX version? how is it?
i am also thinking of getting a good mid range zoom to replace my EF28-105 usm. cheers
 

#20
Originally posted by beachbum
anyone used the sigma 28-70 f2.8 EX version? how is it?
i am also thinking of getting a good mid range zoom to replace my EF28-105 usm. cheers
Dunno about the Sigma 28-70, but the 24-70 is rather bad. Soft pictures, noisy and slow AF, HUGE and expensive 82mm filter.

Regards
CK
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom