Tokina 28-70 / 2.8 AT-X Pro SV (or other earlier ones) - anyone use ?

[astroNikon]

As the title asks, has anyone used the Tokina 28-70/2.8 AT-X pro SV (or other variations) focusing lens. Is it any good .. feedback .. good/bad versus comparable Nikon versions, etc.

Thanks

 

[Derrel]

I had two. The first in 2001, the 28-80 f/2.8 AT-X Pro....twenty-eight to eighty mm...I payed an exobitant $649 or $699 for the danged thing which came to be known as Der Flaremeister. Wow....what a POS. WHen shot toward ANY light source brighter than a refrigerator's inside lightbulb, the damned thing flared badly. At f/2.8 to f/4.2 it sucked. It looked like crap on the Nikon D1, a 2.7MP d-slr, if that tells you anything.

Second on I got in a trade + cash for a Nikon FE-2 which broke down on the guy about a month later....then the Tokina 28-70 f/2.6~2.8 crapped out on me... it was the AT-X Pro series with the variable aperture, and was actually "decent", but keep in mind, this lens and the prior were really designed for film, and were part of the early digital era, when we had 2.7 or 6MP d-slrs at most. I recall the max aperture was the "good one", and it was I am pretty sure f/2.6 at max, slowing down just a tad bit to f/2.8 as I recall at 70mm. I had it well,well less than a year, then its AF linkage (crazy clutch shifter ring) stopped going into AF, so it was a manual focus only 28-70 that was a bear to focus. But it was an okay lens. I sent it in and got the repair estimate and was like, "No, don't bother." I shipped it and some other lenses off to a guy in England who had been robbed of all his gear. it is still in the UK.

 

[astroNikon]

Okay guess i will skip that lens
i'll keep saving up for the nikon 28 70 2.8

 

[Derrel]

Okay guess i will skip that lens
i'll keep saving up for the nikon 28 70 2.8

THAT'S actually a pretty good lens. BIG, like a coffee can. Rock solid. I want to say 44.8 ounces in weight....BUT NOSE-dive heavy on small-body Nikons...it'll torque your wrist all damned day long with a light-body camera: it's awful unless you have a BEAST of a camera behind it, like the F5 with a full load of heavy AA batteries, or a D1...it's just a nose-dive specialist because of what it was designed to go with...the F5.

Think "Canon 85mm f/1.2" nose-dive special. Not exaggerating...the 28-70 has a bad combo of short,straight barrel and a lot of mass and ample weight...it's really hard to over-state how much nose-dive it creates on a lighter, newer body. You realllly wanna try one before you spend the serious cash those cost, because well...the thing is a beast.

 

[astroNikon]

Well it's quite a bit lighter and shorter than my 80-200 2.8