Tokina 100 2.8 Nikon Raw Samples?

[nerwin]

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

So I wasn't the only one?

 

[nerwin]

The other thing I didn't like about the 105 2.8G VR was the swirly bokeh at certain distances, like for portraits. Some like it and some don't, so it's really subjective.

I've looked at a lot of portraits taken with the Tokina and I don't see the swirly bokeh and that maybe do to the Tokina have WAY less elements than Nikon 105 2.8G. But I don't honestly know, just a guess haha.

 

[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

So I wasn't the only one?

I might just get the Nikon 70-180 macro (9 circular blades) and call it a day as my 50mm w/Closeup attachments lets cover another range for other close stuff.

 

[Derrel]

No, but SERIOUSLY...look on the net for pics made with the Sigma 150 pre-vibration control macro lens. Or, the newer stabilized one. See, the thing is...this is a relatively-speaking, a "new" lens design, and the focal length of 150mm is uncommon. For decades, there's been 100,105,135, and 180mm and 200mm lenses...many people like a really creamy background rendering: as a lens gets longer in length, the absolute size of the aperture creates more of what is scientifically called background blur. This is the "secret". This is not DOF, this is background blur.

We're not talking about the relative size of the aperture settings or their f/value: we are talking about the absolute, actual, physical diameter of the hole the light comes through. Let's say for easy mathematics, f/3.3, or "one third" of the focal length being the width of the aperture. On a 300mm f/2.8, one of the kings of blur, f/3.3 is a hole that's 99mm diameter (mathematically); on a 100mm telephoto lens, that same f/3.3 is 33mm across; see how this is going?

There's a reason that 150mm, 180mm, and 200mm macro lenses have been made, for decades now. And there's a reason the lens designers are starting to emphasize smooth background rendering, and rounded bokeh balls on OOF point light sources. The older Nikon macro Astro mentions is an interesting, true macro zoom.

 

[nerwin]

No, but SERIOUSLY...look on the net for pics made with the Sigma 150 pre-vibration control macro lens. Or, the newer stabilized one. See, the thing is...this is a relatively-speaking, a "new" lens design, and the foal length of 150mm is uncommon. For decades, there's been 100,105,135, and 180mm and 200mm lenses...many people like a really creamy background rendering: as a lens gets longer in length, the absolute size of the aperture creates more of what is scientifically called background blur. This is the "secret". This is not DOF, this is background blur.

We're not talking about the f/value: we are talking about the absolute, actual, physical diameter of the hole the light comes through. Let's say for easy mathematics, f/3.3, or "one third" of the focal length being the width of the aperture. On a 300mm f/2.8, one of the kings of blur, f/3.3 is a hole that's 99mm diameter (mathematically); on a 100mm telephoto lens, that same f/3.3 is 33mm across; see how this is going?

There's a reason that 150mm, 180mm, and 200mm macro lenses have been made, for decades now. And there's a reason the lens designers are starting to emphasize smooth background rendering, and rounded bokeh balls on OOF point light sources. The older Nikon macro Astro mentions is an interesting, true macro zoom.

But for $350 NEW, you can't complain about the performance of the Tokina 100 2.8. I think its great for the occasional macros and portraits.

 

[Derrel]

Yeah, agreed, $350 is a good price for a new, autofocusing, meter-coupled macro lens. The Tokina 100mm AT-X Pro is a well-regarded macro lens, for sure. I looked at the sample pics on the site I linked to above...the lens looks good. But honestly...I would rather buy a used 105mm f/2.5 AiS manual focus, and a $20 used extension tube for occasional close-up shots of small stuff. However, I do know you enjoy new lenses, and if the new lens would make you happy, go for it, definitely.

I dunno...I do like the looks of the pictures the Tokina makes. It is **always fun** to have a new lens to use.

 

[nerwin]

Yeah, agreed, $350 is a good price for a new, autofocusing, meter-coupled macro lens. The Tokina 100mm AT-X Pro is a well-regarded macro lens, for sure. I looked at the sample pics on the site I linked to above...the lens looks good. But honestly...I would rather buy a used 105mm f/2.5 AiS manual focus, and a $20 used extension tube for occasional close-up shots of small stuff. However, I do know you enjoy new lenses, and if the new lens would make you happy, go for it, definitely.

I dunno...I do like the looks of the pictures the Tokina makes. It is **always fun** to have a new lens to use.

Oh I don't mind used lenses, most of the lenses I own are used. Even the 28 1.8G I just bought is used. But used prices of the Tokina 100mm is just about the same as new!