# New Toy - Tokina 28-70 f/2.6-2.8 ATX PRO



## rexbobcat (May 25, 2015)

This is an interesting lens. I first heard about when I first began shooting and, seeing as how I was a cheap-as-hell high school student, I sought it out pretty heavily. I never managed to get my hands on one though, because they were rare online and the competition was pretty fierce to acquire one.

For anyone interested (if anyone is), this was a lens produced after Tokina purchased the design rights to the 28-70 f/2.6 design from cinema lens producer Angenieux. It's widely considered to be the best 28-70 lens that Tokina has produced. There were several medium zoom lenses produced by Tokina later on, but they tried to be economical with the designs, and we all know how that goes.










It's not a perfect lens. Not even close. Not. Even. Close.

But for $250, I didn't expect it to be.

1. There's a two step process for switching between manual focus and autofocus. First, you have to engage the focus mechanism by pushing the focus ring up toward the end of the barrel. Then you flip the conventional focus switch on the side to AF. One thing, though, and this is something that almost gave me a heart attack because I thought the lens was broken: if the focus clutch is pulled into manual focus mode, _the lens will still autofocus_. It'll just be really, really slow, inaccurate, and imprecise. Remember that if you get this lens and notice that the autofocus won't focus to infinity and is incredibly sluggish, the focus clutch is probably in the wrong position.

2. The focus itself is really sketchy. I don't know what kind of focusing motor this lens uses, but it seems similar to the arc form drive that older canon lenses use. It's VERY loud (it sounds like a small drill mixed with a Hot Wheels car), and it likes to hunt for focus a bit. I think it might be because its motor makes it difficult to do really precise focus movements so it need to hunt. In low contrast, it has trouble.

3. Now sharpness. Another area in which this lens is odder than most. For one, at f/2.8 on both ends, it's not too sharp. It's usable, but it's about a 5/10 compared to the Canon 24-70 II's 10/10.
However, it's sharpness also depends on the closeness of focus. At 70mm, for example, the lens really struggles with sharpness at infinity and at its closest focus distance. At middle focus distances, it is noticeably sharper.




63mm f/2.8, ISO 160, 1/1000





28mm f/2.8, ISO 200,  1/1000
I don't know if you can tell, but the focus is on his hand and not his face. This situation should not be a difficult one for most lenses, but this lens struggles in this shady area.




28mm f/6.3, ISO 100, 1/640
At f/4 this lens is quite a bit sharper across its focal range, and at 5.6-f/11, it's about as sharp as any other decent lens at the same aperture.




68mm f/2.8, ISO 100 1/320

The last photo was focused almost to infinity, and just to show how awful the sharpness is at 60-70mm, f/2.8, at infinity:

This is a 50% crop. And this was after I used live view to double check focus. Yikes.




Overall, it is very obvious that this lens was meant for the film era when most people didn't pixel (grain?) peep and it wasn't as easy to print past 11x14.

It can't replace the Canikony equivalents, and I'd even wager to say that the cheaper Tamron offering out classes it as well. However, for 1/3 the cost of the Tamron and 1/5 the cost of the Canon, it's honestly a pretty great deal.

I still consider it one of the hidden gems.


----------



## tirediron (May 25, 2015)

Nice review, Rex!


----------



## Socalbimmer (May 26, 2015)

Is this available in the market now?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## onlywangu (May 27, 2015)

Wea can i find it coz im in Tanzania


----------



## rexbobcat (May 27, 2015)

Socalbimmer said:


> Is this available in the market now?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



You'd have to buy in online, because it is no longer produced. I got mine on Ebay.


----------



## rexbobcat (May 27, 2015)

tirediron said:


> Nice review, Rex!



Thanks! It's funny. Technically speaking, this lens can't stand up in many ways to modern lenses due to its inconsistent performance. However, it's one of those rare lenses that has what I can only describe as...a soul...if that makes sense.

 It's truly a unique lens that I could see myself growing attached to in spite of its shortcomings.


----------

