I took the new (used) Tokina 300mm f/2.8 out for a spin the past couple days during my daily travels. I didn't get the chance to make it to the zoo, like I wanted but summer's on its way. What I do have is a quick test I did on a tripod overlooking the local lake. The sun provided a beautifully rigorous set of variables for any lens to overcome. High contrast, strong highlights, flare, just about everything.
Let's Get To It
I have to say, although I don't have a lot of experience with other f/2.8 telephotos, I am rather impressed. You can make some beautiful images with this lens. Obviously this lens has its shortcomings. But for the money, I am very happy.
Below is the test key image. Being a bright sunny day, this high contrast situation will definitely showcase the lenses ability, or inability to handle CA. The lens runs through f/32 and runs 1/2 stop clicks until f/22 where it then is one click to f/32. Somehow I goofed and missed f/22 in this test. Not only that, despite having a tripod, I managed to get some camera shake at f/32. Diffraction was already degrading the image so much I hardly feel it necessary to worry about this. I don't know anyone buying an f/2.8 lens to shoot at f/32. So f/22 and f/32 are absent from these examples. Image info is posted lightly in the bottom left corner of each image as well.
f/2.8
f/4
f/5.6
f/8
f/11
f/16
Note:
First off, allow me to clarify something. A comment on a previous post brought to my attention, something I may have forgotten to communicate in these lens tests regarding performance. The comment was just that I was focusing on wide-open results heavily, despite the lens being able to deliver fantastic results at later apertures. To that, I just want to say this.
Let us assume as with almost all optics I have come across, optimal optical performance will be at some middle aperture of the lens. Typically lenses are at their best at f/5.6 or f/8. However, often times the difference between very expensive optics and cheap-o's comes down to how that particular lens can handle "the extremes". How does it handle in highly specular situations, how does it perform wide open, how do the peripheral factors of the lens such as bokeh look? It is those aspects of lens that I invariably explore. For it is through such scrutiny the great lenses can be found still performing.
Analysis
So with that said, is this lens worth the f/2.8? Is it worth buying the f/2.8 to use at f/4 since buying an f/4 may mean you must use it at f/5.6 for usable results. I think the lens performs quite satisfactorily at f/2.8. It's a bit soft but retains a great amount of detail and after some post, can produce some very nice images. Edge sharpness looks pretty good. Near the corners the lens softens for sure. Definitely has an issue with CA, but again, many of the Tokina lenses I have used do have this issue. Perhaps a little post could improve this. At f/4 I would say the lens improves greatly, certainly in regards to the CA. There is some light fall-off at the early apertures but nothing abnormal. I tend to like a bit of vignetting anyway. By f/5.6 I think this lens looks great! After f/8 diffraction begins taking the image back down. Even at f/11 it is very evident.
Contrast is great. I find Tokina lenses to typically be a little more contrasty than their Nikon contemporaries. The 300mm MF is no exception. Contrast is an interesting issue relative ot the digital age. Primarily because I prefer to control this in post. I typically shoot RAW and worry about contrast when I get to the computer. Granted, the less post, the better. And a lens does need a certain quality of contrast. I am only saying, I don't feel it is "quite" as imperative as it was with film, though definitely still important.
All in all, a great lens for about half to a third the price of the Nikon. If you are looking for a lens for some serious freelance work that need to be technically very adept, I would recommend just buying the Nikon. According to those who use them, they're excellent. You (or your client) however, know your own needs better than anyone. For what I am doing right now, this lens will be just fine!
Just for the heck of it I made a few other images with this lens at ISO 3200 on the D700. Love that camera.
1/200 @ f/2.8 ISO 3200
1/60 @ f/2.8 ISO 3200
1/5000 @ f4 ISO 200
1/1000 @ f/5.6 ISO 200
Wrap-Up
I will continue to shoot with this lens and see what I can get out of it. I also just recently used a teleconverter, the Nikon TC-14A, just to see what happened and I actually got some very nice results. Likewise, I am happy with results from a used AF Tamron 1.4x TC I found for $30 at a local camera shop. It seems this lens is relatively conducive to TCs.
First off, allow me to clarify something. A comment on a previous post brought to my attention, something I may have forgotten to communicate in these lens tests regarding performance. The comment was just that I was focusing on wide-open results heavily, despite the lens being able to deliver fantastic results at later apertures. To that, I just want to say this.
Let us assume as with almost all optics I have come across, optimal optical performance will be at some middle aperture of the lens. Typically lenses are at their best at f/5.6 or f/8. However, often times the difference between very expensive optics and cheap-o's comes down to how that particular lens can handle "the extremes". How does it handle in highly specular situations, how does it perform wide open, how do the peripheral factors of the lens such as bokeh look? It is those aspects of lens that I invariably explore. For it is through such scrutiny the great lenses can be found still performing.
Analysis
So with that said, is this lens worth the f/2.8? Is it worth buying the f/2.8 to use at f/4 since buying an f/4 may mean you must use it at f/5.6 for usable results. I think the lens performs quite satisfactorily at f/2.8. It's a bit soft but retains a great amount of detail and after some post, can produce some very nice images. Edge sharpness looks pretty good. Near the corners the lens softens for sure. Definitely has an issue with CA, but again, many of the Tokina lenses I have used do have this issue. Perhaps a little post could improve this. At f/4 I would say the lens improves greatly, certainly in regards to the CA. There is some light fall-off at the early apertures but nothing abnormal. I tend to like a bit of vignetting anyway. By f/5.6 I think this lens looks great! After f/8 diffraction begins taking the image back down. Even at f/11 it is very evident.
Contrast is great. I find Tokina lenses to typically be a little more contrasty than their Nikon contemporaries. The 300mm MF is no exception. Contrast is an interesting issue relative ot the digital age. Primarily because I prefer to control this in post. I typically shoot RAW and worry about contrast when I get to the computer. Granted, the less post, the better. And a lens does need a certain quality of contrast. I am only saying, I don't feel it is "quite" as imperative as it was with film, though definitely still important.
All in all, a great lens for about half to a third the price of the Nikon. If you are looking for a lens for some serious freelance work that need to be technically very adept, I would recommend just buying the Nikon. According to those who use them, they're excellent. You (or your client) however, know your own needs better than anyone. For what I am doing right now, this lens will be just fine!
Just for the heck of it I made a few other images with this lens at ISO 3200 on the D700. Love that camera.
1/200 @ f/2.8 ISO 3200
1/60 @ f/2.8 ISO 3200
1/5000 @ f4 ISO 200
1/1000 @ f/5.6 ISO 200
I will continue to shoot with this lens and see what I can get out of it. I also just recently used a teleconverter, the Nikon TC-14A, just to see what happened and I actually got some very nice results. Likewise, I am happy with results from a used AF Tamron 1.4x TC I found for $30 at a local camera shop. It seems this lens is relatively conducive to TCs.
Tokina MF 300mm f/2.8 with Tamron AF 1.4x TC
