Tokina 100-300mm F4 AT-X 340 AF-II A-mount lens review by sandboa
|sandboa#268 date: Dec-7-2005|
flare control: 4
|ownership:||I own this lens|
|compared to:||Tokina 100-400 f/5.6-6.7|
Tokina 400 f/5.6 AT-X
Sony 70-300 SSM G
Minolta 300 f/4 G
|price paid:||~$200 (used)|
Built like a tank.
well placed tripod collar
|negative:||It is heavy, but well built lenses weigh more. Not sure if this is really a negative.|
|comment:||I owned a cheap Tokina 100-400 and was very disappointed in the picture quality (sharpness, flare). I was looking for a replacement and considering the new KM 100-300 D, but it was out of stock everywhere. I stumbled across this lens on KEH and read a few reviews which sounded positive, so I splurged the $200 for it. Wow! What a great lens.|
I also have a Tokina 400 f/5.6 AT-X since I had read good reviews. This lens blows that lens away when it comes to sharpness and contrast.
Prior to this purchase, I had every intention of buying the KM 300 f/4 G as my main wildlife lens (I can't afford the big glass!). However, I am so happy with the sharpness of this lens at 300 that I don't really see the need to go out and buy another sharp 300 f/4.
It doesn't focus lighting fast, but it is fast enough for me and it doesn't hunt.
Sure, it is a big lens and the KM is smaller and lighter. But the constant f/4 and tripod collar make this lens a better choice for me.
Great lens. If you can find one, snatch it up!
EDIT - I have subsequently purchased the Minolta 300 f/4 G and the Sony 70-300 SSM G. The Minolta is clearly a superior lens to the Tokina, but not so much so that I put the Tokina away. It's closer focusing and ability to zoom means I still pull it out when I need the flexibility of a zoom.
The Sony SSM does focus faster and is lighter, but I think the image quality at the long end is superior in the Tokina lens. The Sony is a little bit softer at 300mm. It is really close, and the Sony is a nice lens, but it isn't twice as nice as the Tokina and yet it costs twice as much (or more!).