Musings after using the Tokina 80-400 (plus imgs)

As per another recent thread, I've recently bought a Tokina ATXii 80-400 lens, which I've had fun trying out during dog-walks with Harry my patient assistant over the last day or so!

First of all the musings:

Build quality is excellent. Decent metal construction and feels like it is going to last. Only the zoom lock feels a bit insubstantial but not a huge issue.

Despite the tank-like build, it's also remarkably compact and reasonably light given the range it covers. I've never been tempted by Bigmas and the like because they're so big I'd never use them. I'm sure they would outperform the Tokina, but of no interest to me if they are left behind at home.

Image quality is better than I expected it to be. This might sound like damning the lens with faint praise, but it's difficult to track down a proper professional review of the thing, and I was working on the assumption that as it's a relatively old design, and compact as noted above, then it must mean compromise.

I spent some time this afternoon comparing it with the Pentax 55-300, which to be honest I had assumed would outperform the Tokina without too much trouble. I think I may have to eat my words.

The Pentax definitely handles lens aberrations and fringing better (although the Tokina is no Tamron 70-300 purple monster). The Pentax also has nice extras like quick shift focus, and a lens hood that enables use of polarisers etc while still fitted.

However, if you compare the images side by side, there's precious little to choose between them. I doubt you could spot the difference at most focal lengths and apertures unless you were pixel-peeping. And the big surprise for me was that where there is a difference, I think it's in favour of the Tokina: especially at 300mm.

Both lenses benefit significantly by stopping down a bit especially at longer lengths.

One other thing that I've noticed is that image quality at 400mm deteriorates markedly - to the point where I think it may even be better to take a shot at 300m and then crop accordingly! So the next phase of compulsive testing will be to see if I can identify the point beyond which it is not worth zooming.

In the meantime, the link below will take you to a few early images for those who are interested:

link

Jon

Hi Jon,

Interesting to read your review....I tried to get hold of the 80-400 before eventually buying the 55-300 as I'd read a few good user reviews but couldn't find one anywhere. Your photos back up what I read, looks a nice lens & you did well to get one

Simon

Hi Simon,

Thanks - and yes, I've been looking for one of these on and off for over a year now, and was surprised when it came up on EBay!

I thought you/others might be interested in some further thoughts on comparison with the 55-300 after some obsessive pixel peeping this evening! I haven't posted all the shots here as frankly it's pretty dull stuff, but suffice to say that I used a tripod, SR off, remote control to trip the shutter, to try and keep the comparisons as fair as possible.

First thing is that colours between the two lenses are actually remarkably close. Tokina seems to have a similar and slightly warmer response that I am used to from Pentax lenses, rather than the cooler tones of some Sigmas and Tamrons that I've used. The Pentax looks marginally more contrasty.

Second is that the 55-300 undoubtedly does better at dealing with fringing and aberrations, as I mentioned above, although the Tokina is not awful in this regard.

My thoughts on sharpness at different focal lengths:

80mm

Centre - the Pentax lens is sharper wide open, and the Tokina does not catch up until around f8.

Borders - the Tokina is better around the borders - signficantly so - even at the widest aperture.

135mm

Centre - again the Pentax is better wide open in the centre, but the Tokina matches it by around f6.3, and if anything is marginally sharper if you stop down further although barely noticeable.

Borders - the story is similar to above - the Tokina performs better at every aperture.

200mm

Centre - the tables begin to turn. The Tokina is faster than the Pentax at this point, and the Tokina shot at f4.5 is as sharp as the Pentax at f5.6. There is very little difference in sharpness between the two from f8 onwards, although the Tokina may just about have the edge as you stop down further. These differences are barely worth talking about.

Borders - again, the Tokina holds things together better around the edges.

300mm

Centre - the Tokina outperforms my copy of the Pentax at every aperture, although the difference is small. Neither of them are especially good wide open.

Borders - no surprise here - the Tokina performs better. At the longest lengths, the Pentax controls fringing notably better than the Tokina, and in the shots I was comparing this was particularly notable around the borders (but the Tokina fringes everywhere).

Finally, from comparing the Tokina at 300mm and at 400mm, it would seem to me that below f8, you'd be better sticking to 300mm and cropping. Only beyond f8 does there appear to be an advantage in going to full telephoto. As mentioned in my post above, now I need to see where the image quality begins to drop - I've read elsewhere that you can get to around 360/380mm and get better results than 400 - so that's a job for next weekend!

Hope this lot was interesting to someone other than me!

Jon

Twas interesting to me - thanks for the detailed analysis. It's a lens which has a growing interest for me.