[repaap]

Thanks! Yea, I havent really used My tokinas resently either, since so many new lenses, but now 235 is back in my camera bag!

share some shots with you lens!

[cbope]

Sorry, today was M lens day. I decided to do that because I have yet to shoot either of my M lenses on my K-5, and I wanted to check how those good old lenses work on a modern DSLR and learn the green button workflow.

I'm just downloading my M shots into Lightroom and may post a few in the M lens club thread later. I believe I see some of those beautiful SMC colors already... (and sorry for being off-topic in this Tokina club thread!)

[Konstantinos]

Hello again everyone.
Here's what I've found so far about my erratic AT-X Pro 28-70 2.6-2.8.

1. When at 28mm, it can lock focus on objects that are within about 10 meters away. It can't lock focus on more distance objects. The camera will make a noise trying to move the motor for a msec, but it will give up and the focus hexagon will blink. Move the barrel o notch, say to 28.1 mm, and it will focus at any distance with no problem.

2. When at 70mm, it can't lock focus at very distant objects where it should focus nearly to infinity. As above, the camera will make a noise trying to move the motor for a msec, but it will give up and the focus hexagon will blink. This happens when in Av mode the f number indicated on the display is set from the most open up to f10. Move it to f11 and upwards and it will lock focus at very instant objects... Bugger...

3. Like I said in my previous post, when set between about 38 mm and 70mm, the lens thinks it's a 400mm 5.6 prime, or so it says to the camera. So at an indicated f11, if I want to lock focus at very distant object, it actually is at f5.6.

4. Because it thinks it's a 400 tele lens above 38 mm, when in Av mode at 70mm and when I want to stop it down to get more sharpness or DOF, the shutter speed will not get slower than 1/400 sec, but the camera will boost the ISO instead even in a sunny midday...

5. It must really be stopped down to get any reasonable sharpness. I'll post some pics to see what I mean.

I don't know if my lens had been knocked down or if it missed quality control. The question is: is it fixable? I'd really like to keep this lens as it feels like a serious bit of equipment.
I even ordered a rubber lens hood for it, which arrived today. I don't know yet if it's effective but BOY it looks ugly!

[Konstantinos]

Here's a sharp photo of a little fella. I like the details and very natural colors.

I don't know if the exif is visible but it was taken at indicated 400mm, f16, 1/1000sec, ISO 160. The real is 70mm, f8, 1/1000sec, ISO 160.



Here's a 1:1 crop which looks really nice.



And here's the same fella at 1:1 crop, at indicated 400mm, f5,6, 1/2000sec, ISO 160. The real is 70mm, f2,8, 1/2000sec, ISO 160. Not good, huh?

[Konstantinos]

Here's another theme. A lighter on the grass.

At 35 mm, the indicated exif is real. So this was taken at 35 mm, f2.8, 1/160sec, ISO 160.



A 1:1 crop looks ugly...



At 35 mm, f10, 1/80sec, ISO 800, things improve but are still not, uhh, impressive...

[Konstantinos]

Here, I tried to lock focus on the white monument at the top of the hill.
I couldn't do it until I stopped down to an indicated f11. Is this due to some electrical problem?
I'll repeat the same test on distance objects to confirm this problem because it doesn't make sense...

Indicated 400 mm, f11, 1/640sec, ISO 160 (real 70mm, f5.6)

[Peter Zack]

Well an update. Good reason to use Paypal. My seller was an ass and accused me of being a dealer who took his own stock then switched it to return to the seller. Fortunately one of his photos clearly showed the serial number and I could prove he was full of hot air. Got my money back including shipping although I had to pay shipping to return it.

2 lessons
1) Use Paypal and NOT the gift option (no buyer protections) or a credit card that offers similar online buying protections.
2) If the item has a serial number, ask for it or better yet a photo of it before committing to the sale. If not, some other unique identifier.

FYI, my last 10 items (over the past 6 weeks) on Ebay have not been so great. 4 were new and worked out fine. the other 6 were used camera gear items and every one was defective in some way (3 were lenses). Ebay was good (I have over 700 transactions) but not so much lately.

OK enough of that, Back to your thread.

Konstantinos, I don't know if you can return the lens but it really sounds like it has a couple issues. One the chip that controls camera body communication sounds fried. 2 in looking at the wide open shots, CA is normal for fast zooms and the metal lighter against green grass in bright light is to be expected. Might be more than normal a bit but I'm not one bit surprised. Remember that this is a pre-digital era lens and has no special coatings for the more reflective digital sensor. You will have a few things that don't work as well as a more modern lens.

The second turtle crop is another issue though. I would guess that there is an element inside the lens that is misaligned. That's just awful and it shouldn't be that soft. I will comment though that it's not the best test subject. It would appear that you focused on the far leg and not on the eye. Either that or the lens is backfocusing. Use a large ruler with clean and clear measurement markings. Put the camera on a tripod and at about 45 degrees from the ruler. Take some test shots in good light that is well controlled and allows ISO 200. That will help you determine if it's backfocusing and how sharp the lens is wide open.

If the results are similar to the second turtle shot above, then get rid of this and find another lens. It has too many issues IMO.

[Konstantinos]

Thanks Peter Zack for your response.

I also have ordered many things over the years from ebay, with more than 500 transactions. From cheap books and CDs to parts for my bicycle and car, and then some camera things. Did not have a single problem, and always the items were as described. One item was a SMC FA 35-80mm, bought for about 10 euros and turned out to be a really nice surprise. Only once the seller was probably a crook and didn't send an underwater Panasonic FT3 within a month, but Paypal took care of this and got my full money back.

In the Tokina case, the seller clearly claimed that didn't know much about the situation of the lens so I really took my chances. I may look for a better one at some point but not just yet. I'll try to see if it's fixable first.

About the test you mention, I already did that. Well sort of... The light was not great, a typical indoors fluorescent bulb within a lamp, that allowed only for high ISO, the camera on a small but stable tripod, but the angle of view was about 15 degrees and not 45. At first I found that it needed a +6 focus adjustment but then decided that my testing was not sufficient enough and reseted it... I 'll try and do the test again following your advice.

[cbope]

Definitely sounds like you have a couple issues with that lens, as Peter already pointed out. You might want to find out of there is a repair facility in your area that can look at it, preferably one with Tokina lens experience.

Yes, there are definitely some limitations that we run into when using older film lenses on digital. In particular, the sensor reflectivity issue against the back element is often a problem. I have the AT-X 280 and it works great most of the time, but some light conditions seem to create a lot of internal reflections and this results in very bad internal flare. I've also bumped into this last weekend when shooting my good old SMC-Pentax M 50mm F/2 prime on my K-5. My second shot had huge amounts of internal flare that really killed contrast, luckily Lightroom made a good recovery.

I love my AT-X and will probably never part with it. I don't shoot with it often, but when I do I almost always like the results when working within its limitations.

[repaap]

And you should(if you will get it serviced, make some fine adjust ment. Focus is at left leg, turtle, ours right.) that is really odd that exif is so much off.

Here's a sharp photo of a little fella. I like the details and very natural colors.

I don't know if the exif is visible but it was taken at indicated 400mm, f16, 1/1000sec, ISO 160. The real is 70mm, f8, 1/1000sec, ISO 160.

Attachment 142889

Here's a 1:1 crop which looks really nice.

Attachment 142895

And here's the same fella at 1:1 crop, at indicated 400mm, f5,6, 1/2000sec, ISO 160. The real is 70mm, f2,8, 1/2000sec, ISO 160. Not good, huh?

Attachment 142896

[Gizzynl]

Shot with the 28-70 F2.6-2.8




Shot with the 20-35 F2.8 turned out to be backfocussing. Can compensate almost completely with in body option. However not completely sadly.
























Shot with 80-200 F2.8

[repaap]

Really nice shots! Cool!

Shot with the 28-70 F2.6-2.8




Shot with the 20-35 F2.8 turned out to be backfocussing. Can compensate almost completely with in body option. However not completely sadly.
























Shot with 80-200 F2.8

[cabstar]

Tokina ATX 100-300mm f/4

All shot at f/4 300mm

[Henrik Kristensen]

Tokina ATX 100-300mm f/4

All shot at f/4 300mm

Amazing shots wide open.

Seems like a great lens, high keeper rate ?

[yen800]

Thanks Peter Zack for your response.

I also have ordered many things over the years from ebay, with more than 500 transactions. From cheap books and CDs to parts for my bicycle and car, and then some camera things. Did not have a single problem, and always the items were as described. One item was a SMC FA 35-80mm, bought for about 10 euros and turned out to be a really nice surprise. Only once the seller was probably a crook and didn't send an underwater Panasonic FT3 within a month, but Paypal took care of this and got my full money back.

In the Tokina case, the seller clearly claimed that didn't know much about the situation of the lens so I really took my chances. I may look for a better one at some point but not just yet. I'll try to see if it's fixable first.

About the test you mention, I already did that. Well sort of... The light was not great, a typical indoors fluorescent bulb within a lamp, that allowed only for high ISO, the camera on a small but stable tripod, but the angle of view was about 15 degrees and not 45. At first I found that it needed a +6 focus adjustment but then decided that my testing was not sufficient enough and reseted it... I 'll try and do the test again following your advice.

I am probably on the same boat with you, but I am a seller though. Recently I sold a lens to a Korean buyer on e-bay, but he message me back that it doesn't work like his other m42 lens, yes a m42 lens. So I replied him that I don't see any issues when I check it out and asked him to take a short video. He did some comparison and apparently he has never used manual m42 lens and comparing to his auto m42 lens instead... and he want to refund purely for "fixing" the lens, where the cost for fixing m42 lens apprently is not that high though So then I told him that I really don't see any issues... and file issue to ebay claims or whatever it is called... and ebay thinks I should refund the buyer. and then I also received negative feedback saying I sold the wrong lens... it's a very bad experience on ebay recent days....