Tokina Lenses - Whats the general concencus ?

NeilMc

NeilMc

Messages
302
Name
Neil
Edit My Images
No
Guys

I was in the local camera shop looking at a Nikon 12-24 F/4 in their used section but when we couldnt strike a deal the very helpful chap produced a Tokina equivilant which was over half the cost.

Now me being a natural born cynic felt it would be half the cost for a reason.

Is my natural predjudice against anything non-Nikon justified ?

All the guys in the shop praised Tokina saying lenses like their 11-16 F2.8 was stunning etc.


And its all well and good reading reviews etc but there is no substitute for real life unbiased opinions from people who've used both.

What are you thoughts ?
 
Find a review of the lenses.

Look HERE
 
Last edited:
NeilMc said:
Guys

I was in the local camera shop looking at a Nikon 12-24 F/4 in their used section but when we couldnt strike a deal the very helpful chap produced a Tokina equivilant which was over half the cost.

Now me being a natural born cynic felt it would be half the cost for a reason.

Is my natural predjudice against anything non-Nikon justified ?

All the guys in the shop praised Tokina saying lenses like their 11-16 F2.8 was stunning etc.


And its all well and good reading reviews etc but there is no substitute for real life unbiased opinions from people who've used both.

What are you thoughts ?
Click to expand...
I'm a fan of Tokina glass and own a couple, as well as Nikon lenses. The Tokina 12-24mm is ok, very well built but has dreadful CAs - I believe the newer version is possibly worse, though haven't tried that. The Nikkor 12-24mm is a whole lot better (which is why I got it), albeit a whole lot more expensive! You can find some decent deals used though.

The Tokina 11-16mm is very good though and well worth investing in if the range suits (both versions). It would be interesting to see how the new 12-28mm goes too.
 
PaulButler said:
I'm a fan of Tokina glass and own a couple, as well as Nikon lenses. The Tokina 12-24mm is ok, very well built but has dreadful CAs - I believe the newer version is possibly worse, though haven't tried that. The Nikkor 12-24mm is a whole lot better (which is why I got it), albeit a whole lot more expensive! You can find some decent deals used though.

The Tokina 11-16mm is very good though and well worth investing in if the range suits (both versions). It would be interesting to see how the new 12-28mm goes too.
Click to expand...

IMHO, every manufacturer makes some great lenses, and some dogs. And every manufacturer has QC tolerances/issues.

But, as with most things you generally get what you pay for...with Canon/Nikon some of what you pay for is the name, but not that much. And as with everything, as you get higher in price you pay more for smaller improvements...

I've had some great Tokina atx-pro lenses (on film). I currently own a couple Sigma EX's. But I mostly own Nikkors.
 
Thanks for the feedback so far guys.

Excuse my ignorance but what are dreadful CAs ?
 
NeilMc said:
Thank you, an interesting read. also references poor CAs
Click to expand...

You can fix ca in one click in Lightroom, so not a problem unless you mainly shoot video (maybe you can fix that too in premiere)

Tokina wide lenses are very good, except maybe 17-35mm
 
I never foubd CA to be a problem at all on my 12-24 certainly nothing that couldnt be fixed.

Flare control isn't Tokina's best attribute but they are super sharp and probably have the best build of all lenses.

I'd get the 12-28mm if I were in the market for another.
 
I just returned a 12-28 F4 Tokina it was so bad with CA :gag:The 11-16 f2.8 is in a different class it is excellent:nuts:
 
I have owned a few Tokina lenses.

#1 Tokina 12-24 it is OK (not great) - still using it after 6 years although it doesn't see a huge ammount of use.
#2 Tokina 100 mm f2.8 Macro - failed after very little use (proably less than 1000 pics over a couple of years).
#3 Tokina 80-400 (#1) failed to autofocus after ~ 15 pics. It was replaced by another one. Optically they were good.
#4 Tokina 80-400 (#2) failed after ~15000 pics (~1 year as I shoot motor racing). I replaced this with a Canon 100-400.
 
Brilliant, thank you guys this is all the stuff reviews never tell you
 
I have two third party lenses, a Sigma and a Tamron, both are excellent, as said 'names' come at a premium price wise, so don't dismiss based on a label.
 
Tokinas generally have decent build quality but poor optics, I've had many Tokinas and all have been awful for CA. They are generally good enough, but none are holy grail lenses.

24mm f2.8: Slightly soft, poor CAs, flare.
25-50mm F4: Nasty build for a metal lens, slightly soft, masses of purple fringing, loads of flare
28-70mm f2.8: slightly soft at f2.8, major glow at long end, not too bad for CA for once, Build quality as 25-50mm. Good resolution and sharpness once stopped down.
11-16mm f2.8: High quality build, Strong CA, resolution annoyingly low. Very sharp. Awful Bokeh.
80-200mm f2.8: COuld destroy a battleship, Very poor optics for a lens in this class. Some glow, horrendous purple fringing which mixes with the glow so that it cannot readily be removed in PP. Nasty bokeh, definitely would not pay full price for one!

Notice a trend?
 
OldCarlos said:
I also had the 11-16 pro. Sharp & built like a tank.
Click to expand...

Yes, that is their very best one. 12-24 is pretty good, and 16-28mm is OK on FF. That's about it, and there aren't too many great alternatives to these ones.
 
daugirdas said:
Yes, that is their very best one. 12-24 is pretty good, and 16-28mm is OK on FF. That's about it, and there aren't too many great alternatives to these ones.
Click to expand...

Their 100mm macro is meant to be pretty good too though seemingly rare. I too am a big fan of the 11-16. One of my all time favourites.
 
Alan Clogwyn said:
Tokinas generally have decent build quality but poor optics, I've had many Tokinas and all have been awful for CA. They are generally good enough, but none are holy grail lenses.

24mm f2.8: Slightly soft, poor CAs, flare.
25-50mm F4: Nasty build for a metal lens, slightly soft, masses of purple fringing, loads of flare
28-70mm f2.8: slightly soft at f2.8, major glow at long end, not too bad for CA for once, Build quality as 25-50mm. Good resolution and sharpness once stopped down.
11-16mm f2.8: High quality build, Strong CA, resolution annoyingly low. Very sharp. Awful Bokeh.
80-200mm f2.8: COuld destroy a battleship, Very poor optics for a lens in this class. Some glow, horrendous purple fringing which mixes with the glow so that it cannot readily be removed in PP. Nasty bokeh, definitely would not pay full price for one!

Notice a trend?
Click to expand...


Yep.... thanks for the feedback Alan
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top