| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/31/2006 01:41:47 AM · #1 |
| The actual name is TOKINA AT-X 840 AF D. It's a redesign of a current 80-400mm lens. The forcasted price is $650 which sounds great for this focal length. Here is a LINK. |
|
|
|
05/31/2006 02:32:50 AM · #2 |
Seems to have a great range and a great price.
|
|
|
|
05/31/2006 02:33:50 AM · #3 |
| I haven't heard anything but I'd sure like to see some image stabilization on a lens that gets to 400mm... especially when there are already 2 other lenses that have the feature. |
|
|
|
05/31/2006 04:19:53 AM · #4 |
| looks pretty slow for no IS. useless without a tripod |
|
|
|
05/31/2006 06:32:04 AM · #5 |
Originally posted by a1leyez0nm3:
looks pretty slow for no IS. useless without a tripod |
Useless without a tripod? No way, you just need good light. I've shot lots with my Tammy 200-500 handheld at 500mm, it has no stabilization and slower apertures than the Tokina 80-400. I'll wait until there are some reviews to pass judgement but if the new 80-400 is as good as some of Tokina's shorter lenses it'll be a winner. It surely beats the competition on price.
|
|
|
|
05/31/2006 11:35:46 AM · #6 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
Originally posted by a1leyez0nm3:
looks pretty slow for no IS. useless without a tripod |
Useless without a tripod? No way, you just need good light. I've shot lots with my Tammy 200-500 handheld at 500mm, it has no stabilization and slower apertures than the Tokina 80-400. I'll wait until there are some reviews to pass judgement but if the new 80-400 is as good as some of Tokina's shorter lenses it'll be a winner. It surely beats the competition on price. |
Yeah you need good light, or a tripod in a lot of situations. Depends where and what you're shooting. |
|
|
|
05/31/2006 12:03:16 PM · #7 |
1/1000 shutter is all you need, and that's easy in decent light. With an ap of 4.5-5.6 it's better than alot of it's competition and the price is very very good. You want IS? it's out there but not at this price level.
Also, shooting at 640mm (equivlent) the field of view is so small you'll want a tripod anyway. My friend has a canon 500 4.5L and uses a monopod 100% of the time  even when he can get the shutter speed up there.
|
|
|
|
05/31/2006 03:14:47 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
1/1000 shutter is all you need, and that's easy in decent light. With an ap of 4.5-5.6 it's better than alot of it's competition and the price is very very good. You want IS? it's out there but not at this price level.
Also, shooting at 640mm (equivlent) the field of view is so small you'll want a tripod anyway. My friend has a canon 500 4.5L and uses a monopod 100% of the time even when he can get the shutter speed up there. |
decent light is hard to come by in 50% of my telephoto shooting, and I think most people can account to that. the lens has a F5.6 ap at 400mm... pretty slow. on the canon 100-400 L IS i had the IS on for every shot and i was really glad it had it. I'm saving for the 300 F4L IS canon glass
Message edited by author 2006-05-31 15:19:36. |
|
|
|
06/01/2006 01:05:06 AM · #9 |
That is the updated version of the Tokina's old 80-400mm zoom.
The new one is suppose to have new optics for dslr, hence the "D" designation. It is their consumer line as well since it does not have the ATX "PRO D" markings.
From the two toke's made for dslr's the 12-24 ATX Pro-Dx, which I had, and the new 100mm ATX Pro-D macro, which I have. Both have a bit of CA when wide open, they tend to be sharp, are built better than other third party makers, and are a bit cheaper.
Never seen a test of it though, but going from their prior attempts, unless you are really bothered by a slight bit more CA wide open than competitors lens, I'd strongly consider the lens.
|
|
|
|
06/21/2006 10:58:37 PM · #10 |
I am looking at the original version as a possible option. Does anyone know how good or bad this lens was. Would the seconed version be better?
Thanks
jim |
|
|
|
06/21/2006 11:10:58 PM · #11 |
yeah, i would like info too, because i need something larger than my 70-300, but i cant afford it as well as another lens... would it be an upgrade as far as optics?
|
|
|
|
06/21/2006 11:19:27 PM · #12 |
My opinion for what it's worth:
I will never waste my money on anything as slow as or slower than f/5.6...IS, OS, VR, doesn't matter, it's not going to happen...
I *had* a Sigma 50-500 (AKA BIGMA) for a week (before I returned it) and f/6.3 (that's roughly a half-stop slower than f/5.6 by the way) was yielding shutter speeds that are just so useless it's not even funny.
But let's say you're looking at the Canon with IS or a Nikon with VR, it's not going to matter because VR isn't going to stop a bird's wings from flapping or a soccer player's leg from blurring from kicking a ball...
Anyway...a couple (relatively) cheap, yet practical options:
Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 - (168-420 f/4 with 1.4x with AF or 240-600 f/5.6 with 2.0x with AF if you need the reach)
Canon 500 f/4.5 - NO AF with TC
Sigma 500 f/4.5 - NO AF with TC
Anyway, those are some of the options I'd be looking at if I needed something in that length -- I think the 120-300 2.8 with a 1.4xTC (if needed) is probably one of the best buys you can make and one of the most versatile longer lenses you can get for your money.
|
|
|
|
06/22/2006 01:12:13 AM · #13 |
I'm not sure I agree with the comments that slow equals useless. I have shot thousands of bird photos using the Tamron 200-500 f5-6.3 without problems. When the light is especially low, like in shooting small birds in the brush, I use a monopod (sometimes a tripod) and at times my SB 800 flash that syncs at 1/500th. Set the camera to shutter priority at 1/500, the flash to tti fill and off I go. I also have used a Flash Extender for longer reach when needed. But for the most part I just shoot the lens as is. BTW - I also shoot it quite a bit with a Tamorn 1.4x TC which gives me 1000mm eqiv. for less than $1,000.
Now that is not to say that if money is no object a faster lens would not be the way to go. I also shoot my Nikon 70-200 2.8 VR quite a bit and it is sweet. I even recently bought the Nikon 1.7x TC that gives me 340mm at f4.8 and it is still sweet. But you are comparing apples and oranges. For $800 the Tammy, and I imagine the Tokina asked about here, is great reach for the $.
|
|
|
|
06/22/2006 08:18:33 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by a1leyez0nm3:
decent light is hard to come by in 50% of my telephoto shooting, and I think most people can account to that. the lens has a F5.6 ap at 400mm... pretty slow. on the canon 100-400 L IS i had the IS on for every shot and i was really glad it had it. I'm saving for the 300 F4L IS canon glass |
So the 300 is shorter...put a 1.4 TC on there to get 420mm and guess what, you got an F5.6 lens again...and possibly optically inferior with the TC in there.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2026 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 01/01/2026 03:26:54 PM EST.
