Tokina 28-80mm f/2.8 AT-X 280 AF PRO
(From Tokina lens literature) You asked, we listened. You asked for lighter weight in the lens that you used most often, yet you wanted the same famous AT-X quality and durability. Tokina's answer is the AT-X 280 AF PRO. To maintain strength, duraluminum alloy and a chrome plate brass mount plate was used as its foundation. Then modern composite material formed the outer barrels, focus and zoom rings. This result was a lens that weighed less than its predecessor, but maintained AT-X quality.
SD glass, and inclusion of an all glass molded aspherical element in its two aspheric optical design completely corrects all aberrations, providing high contrast and sharpness right to the edges. The minimum focus distance is just 19.7 inches (50 cm) throughout the entire zoom range, which allows close up shots at a magnification of 1:5 at the 80 mm setting.
Tokina has sped up auto focus and improved handling by incorporating a One-Touch Focus Clutch Mechanism which allows the focus ring to be moved from AF to manual focus with just a quick snap movement of the manual focus ring. No other AF/manual switches on the camera or lens need to be set.
Tokina 28-80mm f/2.8 AT-X 280 AF PRO
Tokina 28-80mm f/2.8 AT-X 280 AF PRO User Reviews
8 out of 10 points and recommended by dugong5pm (52 reviews)built like a tank, f/2.8, pricenone
among other 3rd party manufacturer, this lens is the one that would likely survived a nuclear blast.. it's built like a tank - very solid (and yes, heavy!)reviewed June 5th, 2013 (purchased for $275)
it feels like pro lens, for a tiny fraction of a pro lens (I got mine for $275 used, sony alpha-mount).
In IQ department, this lens has a "decent" performance. Produces sharp images (from f/4 and up), nice bokeh & tones.. but it's not the one that's got the "wow" factor.
for the price, it's a no brainer.. espcially if you want to get something more than the lens kit.
9 out of 10 points and recommended by ReverendOlaf (3 reviews)Built like a tank--ney, betterCould be sharper wide open
I snagged this lens to fill a void in my arsenal and to dabble in the realm of f/2.8 zooms. Nikon glass was out of my budget (even the humble 35-70/2.8), and I was leery of a used Sigma, thus it was down to the Tamron or this beast. I figured if nothing else the craftsmanship of the Tokina would make it indestructible, so the decision was made.reviewed December 19th, 2010 (purchased for $300)
With that (and the $300 price) in mind, I'm very impressed. It's a great constant f/4 lens, and a serviceable f/2.8 one (especially portraits). AF is snappy, yet loud, and it does miss at times (more than even slower Nikkors), but not enough to be an issue, and it's always close (ie it's the DOF and technique as much as anything). The manual focus clutch is a wonderful feature, as is the overall MF feel. Flare is an issue and a hood is strongly recommended. The Tokina one is excellent, and I suggest finding a copy with that. The Tokina caps, well not so much. Spring for the Nikon ones.
What's awesome--the build and feel
What's not--the wide open performance, and a positively awful aperture ring lock
6 out of 10 points and not recommended by sigreen (1 reviews)Image quality is clean and AF is reasonably fast and acuratefilter/hood mount is a terrible build design
I hd purchased this lens almost 6 months agao and since my first outing with it i have had terrible problems with the filter/hood mount attachment. It is attached to the lens barrel with 2 very small screws through the mount tube and into the main lens tube. The problem is the holes in the plastic mount tube are a millimetre from the edge of the tube. So during these 6 months of owning this lens it has been back to Tokina 4 times for repair replacement. 2 days ago i took the lens out of my bag to find it was broken again.reviewed May 25th, 2009
And since Tokina Australia have no more (I purchased the last one) I am stuffed.
9 out of 10 points and recommended by gunther1966 (1 reviews)Great value - use this lens on my Nikon D200 as my general use lens. It feels beautifully balanced on the D200 and the image quality is far better than that of the Nikon kit lens. The build quality is very high, I have found theAF quick & accurate &amInitially I thought it was soft wide open until I got use to using it - focusing is crucial & it can be tricky to get the AF lined up in the right place so often result to manual focus. Prone to glare need to use lens hood in daylght.
Having used this lens for sometime now and got use to making some allowances - using the hood if in daylight, manually focusing if wide open - this has become mydefault lens. The build quality is fantastic and I like the different textures of the focus & zoom rings.reviewed December 2nd, 2007 (purchased for $380)
In short I love this lens & have no regrets at purchasing it at this price.
4 out of 10 points and not recommended by yuj (5 reviews)Build quality, feel, f/2.8, focus clutch mechanism, felt-lined lens hood.Weight, flare, soft, noisy AF.
I recently purchased a copy of this lens for my Canon 20D after reading mixed reviews for this lens. I wanted to like it a lot: the feel of the lens when I took it out of the box and mounted it was exceptional, and all of the parts felt amazing.reviewed January 5th, 2007 (purchased for $350)
On the other hand, optically, it's a mixed bag; the lens I got front focused quite significantly, so I had to manually focus (which was very easy and accurate thanks to that smooth MF feel). Also, the aperture wouldn't stop down to quite the right value so equivalent exposures with differing aperture values produced slightly different exposures (up to +2/3 EV @ f/4). Apparently it's a problem with all newer EOS cameras, or so I've heard.
At 28mm f2.8, the lens is okay, and improves after a stop. On the other hand, at anything past 50mm f2.8, such as 80mm f2.8 this lens is pillow soft and doesn't really get very much better until it's at f5.6. Even then, it's about the same sharpness as the 18-55 kit lens. In fact, I was quite surprised when, at f5.6, both lenses produced a very similar image. Actually, I preferred the look of the 18-55 which controlled contrasty scenes better.
Another note I'd like to add is that the flare control on this lens is absolutely nonexistant. Any little source of light will cause internal flare and ghosting in this lens, even if the source is way ouf the frame. Even the tiny lights in my room give off huge amounts of flare.
All in all, this is a lens that I really wanted to like. I loved the feel and everything, but there was just too much going against it and sadly, I had to send it back.
10 out of 10 points and recommended by CocoMonGo (8 reviews)Cheap for built, constant 2.8 and qualityOnly wish was that the zoom ring was bigger
I gave this lens an over 10 because of its price versus it's performance. An equal Nikon or Canon cost 3-4 times more. While honestly I have yet to use the Nikon equalivent, I would not pay for the the Nikon unless I am a full time pro photographer with a lot of cash.reviewed December 16th, 2006
Performance wise, its fast on focus (f/2.8 helps), and the focus clutch mechanism is great since its s short secure pull/push. A small issue I have is that the zoom ring is a little too thin for my liking since it is something I would use more often then the focus ring.
8 out of 10 points and recommended by aquajon (3 reviews)Good Autofocus.Good construction, but doesn't last as long as it should. Ghosting in natural light.
This was the first lens I got when I git my Nikon F100. My wife bought the combination for me as a gift. I have never had a complaint about using this lens. The pictures have always been of high quality, and fairly sharp. On an Nikon body the autofocus is faster than one normally expects from a non Nikon lens, even on my D200 i am happy with the autofocus. This lens does ghost A LOT when shooting in natural light, but the pictures still looked o.k..reviewed November 26th, 2006
The lens is beginning to break down, after five years, I would have hoped that it would have lasted longer.
Overall it still is a good value for the money, I don't, however know how much my wife paid for it five years ago.