Tokina AT-X Quality?

[EdColorado]

Is anybody out there able to comment on the quality of the manual focus Tokina AT-X lenses? In particular I'm considering the purchase of a AT-X 28-85mm f3.5-4.5 macro in a Nikon AI mount. I have and really like a couple of Tamron Adaptall lenses, and a Tamron Nikon mount AF lens, but have never used any other third party glass.

 

[jimgalli]

I had the AT-X 80 - 200 f2.8 for many years until my daughter lifted it. It was a really great lens. Come to thinnk of it she stole my 85mm f1.8 too. Kids!

 

[r-brian]

I've had a couple of AT-X lenses over the years for my AF Nikons, 80-200 f2.8 AF and 20-35 f3.5-4.5 AF. Both were excellent lenses, never had a problem with either. Both gave excellent results. A Tokina AT-x is my lens of choice over all other 3rd party lenses. Comparing the price of them to a Nikkor, they can't be beat. Now that I'm shooting MF Nikons, I don't have any Tokinas so I can't say how the older MF AT-X's are.

 

[dynachrome]

Tokina AT-X Quality

I have a 50-250 AT-X lens in Konica mount. It's surprisingly sharp but slow. If you have a tripod or use fast enough film it's nice. I have the 28-85 f/3.5-4.5 AT-X in Konica, Nikon AI and Canon FD mounts. It compares favorably with other good zooms in this range. The problem is that it's so slow on the long end you need a camera with a very bright viewfinder to use it effectively. Of the cameras I have the F-1 or F-1n with an L D screen seems best for this lens. When I put the E3 screen into one of my Nikon FE bodies that might be a little brighter. I only wish I had this lens in Minolta mount. With an X-700 and a grid type screen I would be able to focus it in almost any light. I think my 28-135 f/4-5.6 Tokina is an AT-X. This is a large and heavy lens so it doesn't get out much. The same lens was also made with the Konica name and slightly different cosmetics. The lens is reasonably sharp but it isn't really suited to architectural work at the 28mm setting. I have the 90mm f/2.5 Vivitar Series 1 macro lens in Canon FD mount. Tokina made this lens and also made a version under their own mame with the AT-X designation. That one was a little prettier and some people think it has slightly better coating. Both lenses are excellent. I missed getting an 80-200f/2.8 in Canon mount by only a few dollars a few years ago. Another AT-X lens which is supposed t be good and which I would like to eventually get is the 100-300 f/4.

 

[nyoung]

Owned the 80-200/2.8 AT-X in Nikon mount. Mourned when it was stolen. Well built, optically excellent. Would buy another if it came along at a good price.

 

[Kevin Caulfield]

I have a 35 to 70mm Tokina, which I used to use with a Pentax P30N, and was very satisfied with its optical performance.

 

[flatulent1]

I have the 80-200 f/2.8 ATX for Canon FD. Excellent lens. It was my primary lens when I got my first T90 years ago, never wanted another. I too would like to find one for Nikon mount, I have an F4 that's crying to be used.

 

[removed-user-1]

@flatulent1 and nyoung - KEH has one in Nikon AI right now - Dead Link Removed

 

[Ken N]

I had a 35-70/2.8 AT-X. A most fantastic lens in contrast and sharpness. Remarkably flat-fielded for macro work too, when combined with an extension tube. Heavy, though. I acquired a 100-300/4 AT-X a year and a half ago. An excellent lens, but just a touch on the low-contrast side when shot wide open. At F5.6 and F8, it's as good as anything else out there.

 

[glockman99]

Is anybody out there able to comment on the quality of the manual focus Tokina AT-X lenses? In particular I'm considering the purchase of a AT-X 28-85mm f3.5-4.5 macro in a Nikon AI mount. I have and really like a couple of Tamron Adaptall lenses, and a Tamron Nikon mount AF lens, but have never used any other third party glass.

I have the exact same lens on one of my Nikon F3HP bodies as my "walkabout lens". BUY THE LENS! It is an EXCELLENT lens. I would put it up against any Nikon lens for quality.

 

[Ralph Javins]

Good morning, Ed;

The AT-X Series in the Tokina lenses was their best. It competes fairly well with the Vivitar Series One lenses, the Tamron SP lenses, and other similar well built lenses, including the camera manufacturers own lenses. While the AT-X lenses may not have the camera manufacturers brand name recognition, they can produce very nice photographs. Isn't that what we want them to do?

 

[Renato Tonelli]

I still have my 80-200mm for my Pentax LX. In my opinion it's an excellent lens.

 

[domaz]

I have the 400mm 5.6 ATX and I think my 17mm is also an ATX, both EOS mount. The 400mm is quite good- especially for a long lens. The 17mm is also pretty good.

 

[ozphoto]

I own 3 ATX lenses: 17 f3.5, 28-70 f2.8 and a 300 f4. All wonderfully sharp and solidly built. I had the 17 as an FD version and when I upgraded to an EOS it was the first lens I purchased. I also loved the older FD Tamron lenses; still have an original 180 f2.8 that is superb. Unfortunately the newer "plastic" style ones had me changing to the Tokina brand.

Now if I can just get my hands on an EOS 80-200 f2.8 in either brand I'd be in heaven!! You won't be disappointed with an ATX lens - sharp solid and excellent results.

- Nanette
www.nanettereid.com

 

[mudman]

I agree with everyone else - very good lenses. Here's a photo from a 35-70 f2.8 wide open

 

[sage]

Can anyone comment on the 20-35?

 

[unohuu]

I have the 20-35 f/2.8 and it is my go to WA lens.