optical quality of new Tokina 28-80 f/2.8 is very poor

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Camera Equipment : One Thread

I have been using Canon EOS 28, 50, and 85 mm f/1.8 lenses, along with a 100-300 USM. I decided to try out the Tokina lens due to many positive reviews on the web, and a desire to have a zoom of this type for half the price of the Canon equivalent. I am extremely disappointed with the image quality (sharpness) of this lens. It doesn't even approach the quality of any of the primes, when the primes are wide open, and the zoom is around f/8 (even in the center). Even my Olympus Stylus Epic outperforms the zoom at 35mm. There were also some exposure variations from prime lens to zoom lens, when exposure was set the same on the camera.

If you have PERSONAL EXPERIENCE WITH THIS PARTICULAR LENS, do you think I should a) return it, get the Canon and never look back, b) exchange it for another Tokina, because it MUST be a faulty sample of an overall great population.

If you think the lens is great, what are you comparing to, what are your standards, and what are you using the lens for?

Thank you for your time,

Kevin

-- Kevin Allen (kevinmallen@worldnet.att.net), November 27, 2000

Answers

Hi Kevin!

There's substantial sample variation in lenses from many of the companies out there making them. I'd suggest exchanging it for another as long as you can get a commitment that you can return it if you aren't satisfied.

-- Mark Wilkins (mark_wilkins@yahoo.com), November 28, 2000.


I don't own this lens, but wanted to let you know that your question inspired me to put up my old Tokina zoom in the photo.net classifieds. The details of my experience with Tokina are there. The ad is no joke. Hope this helps.

-- Hector Javkin (h.javkin@ieee.org), November 28, 2000.

I bought the Tokina ATX-Pro 28-80 f2.8 several months ago to fill a gap between my Nikon AF20-35 f2.8 and Nikon AF-S80-200 f2.8. It appeared to have a good reputation, had the 77mm filter thread of the other lenses, and was about 1/3 the cost of the Nikon AF-S28-70 f2.8.

At the time, I expected the lens to have relatively light use. Circumstances changed when I had the opportunity to photograph over one hundred school kids (singly, and in groups of 2 and 3.) The negatives were subsequently scanned with my Polaroid Sprintcan 4000 for printing up to A3 size on my Epson 1270, and the results are excellent. Good contrast and edge to edge sharpness - especially in the range f5.6 - f16.

All of the above photos were taken at relatively short distance with studio flash. I took some test shots outdoors, and the scans showed some light falloff towards the edges and minor colour fringing at f2.8.

Overall, I'm more than happy with the example I have - not quite as good as the Nikons, but very close. Mechanically, it is well built, feels solid, and the manual/automatic focus change is well designed.

-- Tony Gorell (anthony.gorell@eds.com), December 01, 2000.


I used this lens for most of the work I do. It is quite sharp, built like a tank. I am not so sure about the sharpness cocnerns at all. I have a 70-200 4L and can't really see too much difference.

-- Evrim Icoz (evrim@evrimgallery.com), September 05, 2001.

thanks for the answers, guys. It's been awhile since this was posted, but I figured I'd update since Evrim recently came across it. I sent the lens back, and was going to exchange it. However, I came across a used Tokina 28-70 f/2.6-2.8 at Southeastern Camera in Raleigh (close to where I live) NC. I tried out the lens and compared it to a used Canon 28-105 they had in the store -- shot some of my girlfriend at the time (wife now) outside the store in the shade, handheld at f/8. Well, the slides showed the same problem that I had with the 28-80 f/2.8 -- the whole frame was very soft, almost like it had a diffusion filter over it, but not as sharp as with a diffusion filter. The 28-105 images were normal (sharp). So, I decided to tell B&H to keep the lens and refund my money.

Later, I tried out a 28-135 IS, and decided to go with that. Did some test shots to determine sharpness, vignetting, bokeh, etc. and found out it's got less barrel distortion at 50mm than my Canon 50mm f/1.4 Got to stop down a little more to get sharpness all the way across, especially above 70mm, but most of the stuff I do doesn't require me to get that anal. I've shot a couple of weddings with it, along with lots of portraits and family get-togethers (mine), and the results are great. Equal to those of the 28-80 L that I rented a while back. I've even shot some street scenes with Provia 400 and fill flash at 1/2 sec hand-held @ 35mm, with background unblurred enough to read small letters on storefronts down the street. Pretty sweet. Barely vignettes with Heliopan KR3 and polarizer (both slim). Pretty solid, but not that heavy. Lens hood rotates more easily than I would like, but I just check it often to make up for it. Overall, great zoom lens and you can get 2 for the price of a 28- 70 L. But if you're going for best possible reproduction and planning to enlarge to > 8X10, stop being lazy and get out the prime lenses.

Later,

kma

-- kevin miles allen (kevinmallen@worldnet.att.net), September 07, 2001.



Moderation questions? read the FAQ