Tokina 100 2.8 Nikon Raw Samples?

[nerwin]

I was wondering if anyone would be kind of enough to share a couple raw files from their Nikon body and the Tokina 100 2.8 macro (If anyone has one that is!) because I want to compare them to the macros I took with the Nikon 105 2.8G when I had and just to see how Lightroom handles it the way I process them before I decide to buy that lens.

I looked everywhere online but coulden't find any raw samples. If not, no worries! But can't hurt to ask!

Thanks in advance!

 

[KmH]

Raw files can't be shown as photos online.

 

[Overread17 5]

but they can be shared - through email or dropbox

Certainly the editing process choices and choice of software used to render and process the RAW can make some differences; but in general they are tiny and if the OP has RAWs from the other lens and camera combo he can at least ensure he's using the same software and processing approach.

 

[Derrel]

I would do what I do...go to PixelPeeper.com and look at the samples from many users, to see what look, or lens drawing style, a lens might have.

Thom Hogan says the Tokina 100/2.8 macro is a solid lens. Our dear, departed Sharon also had one, it seemed like a very solid lens from what I've seen of it over the past few years. The Tokina 100/2.8 is part of Tokina's higher-end line,m the AT-X PRO series. As you might have heard, TOkina was allegedly foremed by former Nikon employees, years ago, and is knowsn as a brand that has typical glass that is not "warm and yellow", like Sigma, and more-appropriate for mixing in with Nikkor lenses, not Canon lenses. See samples from the 100 f/1.8 AT-X PRO macro here:

Full-size sample photos from Tokina 100mm F/2.8

 

[nerwin]

Yeah I was considering buying the Nikon 105 2.8 VR again but I'm like the stuff I've seen from the Tokina 100 2.8 is just as good, if not better. Sure it doesn't have VR, but honestly...I rarely used VR when I was shooting macro anyways.

$350 new from B&H is one heck of a bargain. I'm no rush to buy one...but I just wanted to play with a couple raw files and compare similar images to my shots that were taken with the Nikon 105 2.8G VR and see if there is any significant differences.

The problem with looking at processed photos on Flickr is that sometimes they are processed to the point it's worse than the raw file haha or they make the quality so terrible that it looks like it was taken with a phone and them compressed for Facebook. lol.

 

[Overread17 5]

Far as I know Canon is the only company that makes a lens with macro-suitable image stabilzation in their 100mm IS L macro. Basically in macro its not just side to side and up and down, but also back and forth motion that affects your focusing. So VR is a boon to have, but its not the be all and end all of a macro lens choice.

 

[goooner]

Far as I know Canon is the only company that makes a lens with macro-suitable image stabilzation in their 100mm IS L macro. Basically in macro its not just side to side and up and down, but also back and forth motion that affects your focusing. So VR is a boon to have, but its not the be all and end all of a macro lens choice.

The 'new' Nikon Micro 105 also has VR if I'm not mistaken. Will probably be my next lens, or an UW, still have to decide, and save some money. The new Tammy SP 90mm F/2.8 Di VC USD MACRO 1:1 also has stabilization.

 

[jake337]

Only issue with the Tokina is the CA can be bad wide open. You'll be stopped down most of the time so it is really only an issue when using it as a portrait lens. I'm not home at the home but I could look for a RAW. Sold the lens a while back though.

 

[nerwin]

Only issue with the Tokina is the CA can be bad wide open. You'll be stopped down most of the time so it is really only an issue when using it as a portrait lens. I'm not home at the home but I could look for a RAW. Sold the lens a while back though.

What are you using now for macros?

 

[jake337]

Only issue with the Tokina is the CA can be bad wide open. You'll be stopped down most of the time so it is really only an issue when using it as a portrait lens. I'm not home at the home but I could look for a RAW. Sold the lens a while back though.

What are you using now for macros?

Not doing much macro lately but I have 127mm of extension tubes and an old 50mm if I need to.

 

[astroNikon]

Anyone have any insight on if the 105/2.8 AF-D is better than the Tokina 100/2.8 ?
I haven't bought a macro yet but that Nikon and the Tokina (for the color renditions Derrel mentions) are on my short list. The VR is nice but a tad too much $$$.

 

[nerwin]

Anyone have any insight on if the 105/2.8 AF-D is better than the Tokina 100/2.8 ?
I haven't bought a macro yet but that Nikon and the Tokina (for the color renditions Derrel mentions) are on my short list. The VR is nice but a tad too much $$$.

I did a little and what I didn't like was the out of focus elements just didn't look that good because it uses 7 bladed aperture instead of 9 rounded ones like the Tokina has. I just found it a bit distracting. But I think the sharpness and color rendition is still very good.

The VR is basically useless if shooting macros, only good for doing portraits or other non macro stuff. When I had the 105 2.8G VR, the VR in that lens really loves to eat up your battery haha and it was quite loud. But that lens focuses really fast even when the limit switch is off, it has to be one the fastest focusing macro lenses out there. But then again, I always used manual focus when doing macro work so is it really worth paying like 2-3 times more than the Tokina 100 2.8? Probably not unless you really need those things.

 

[astroNikon]

Anyone have any insight on if the 105/2.8 AF-D is better than the Tokina 100/2.8 ?
I haven't bought a macro yet but that Nikon and the Tokina (for the color renditions Derrel mentions) are on my short list. The VR is nice but a tad too much $$$.

I did a little and what I didn't like was the out of focus elements just didn't look that good because it uses 7 bladed aperture instead of 9 rounded ones like the Tokina has. I just found it a bit distracting. But I think the sharpness and color rendition is still very good.

The VR is basically useless if shooting macros, only good for doing portraits or other non macro stuff. When I had the 105 2.8G VR, the VR really in that lens really loves to eat up your battery haha and it was quite loud. But that lens focuses really fast even when the limit switch is off, it has to be one the fastest focusing macro lenses out there. But then again, I always used manual focus when doing macro work so is it really worth paying like 2-3 times more than the Tokina 100 2.8? Probably not unless you really need those things.

Yes, I prefer 9 blades myself. The Tokina has focus override too which I've learned to prefer on lenses though most of mine don't have it.

 

[Derrel]

VR is not all that helpful on macro-range stuff. And in fact, it might have a negative impact on bokeh, according to some of the cognoscenti.

Speaking of bokeh and macros: I owned the Canon 100mm EF f/2.8 Internal Focus model (aka "the second one") for a few years....UGLY, horrible, 7-sided bokeh balls on all OOF highlights....slow focusing...very ugly images. The Tamron 90mm f/2.8 AF-SP has a much smoother bokeh rendering, and is in fact kinda "famous" for its beautiful bokeh and its smoothly defocused backgrounds.

SIGMA's 150mm macro though....OMG...JustJazzy has one...and wow....it has gorgeous bokeh under a lot of conditions.

Some of the older Nikon macro lenses have rough bokeh/ugly diaphragm shape, like the 55mm/3.5 Micro-Nikko....FINE for documents and stamps, but not pleasing in the way it shows defocused backgrounds. In a macro lens shot in the real world, there is often a LOT that will be shown OOF; this makes the character of the background rendering, and the diaphragm's symmetry, and blade count, kind of a big deal.

 

[astroNikon]

SIGMA's 150mm macro though....OMG...JustJazzy has one...and wow....it has gorgeous bokeh under a lot of conditions.

Oh great, another lens to look at ...
lol