In terms of quality it's not a bad lens at all imo but only really worth it if you're madly desperate for the 400mm reach. I owned it for a few months on my D90/300 and found the image quality to be much better than I expected with enough light. However the slow AF got to me in the end so I sold up and bought a Nikon 70-300 VR instead which is leaps and bounds more modern than the Tokina and I honestly don't miss the extra 100mm.
The 80-400 is very heavy and built to pro spec tank standards. Watch out though, the massive front element section rotates when you focus which can be annoying if you're resting it on something (I had to rest it as it was heavy).
Can't remember what it's like at 400mm tbh, I did do a few comparisons and wasn't that put off by them, can't say they amazed me that much either though. Pretty sure I got a few decent pics of a full moon and a stationary baby woodpecker at 400mm
So yeah, if you don't need speedy AF or VR and have a low budget then it's a pretty good lens and cheap for the length. I think Tokina are possibly bringing out a new 80-400 in 2011 though with all the modern stabilization gizmos etc but am sure it won't be £200 either
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.