Tokina 100-400mm

Location : Derbyshire Spotter Watch Member : No

Hi,

I have come across this lens and was wondering if anyone has any experience of it? Guessing it isn't that popular as I can't see a review of it anywhere lol! Just seems like £130.00 for a 400mm could come in useful?

(Would be using it on my Sony A200).

Apprecite any advice.

Subject: Re: Tokina 100-400mm 2009-08-07, 06:44

I thought about this one when I was looking for a 400mm, but was warned off it like the plague. For only £130.00, you can probably guess the image quality is not going to be spectacular, to say the least!

Hope this helps

Ben

Location : Derbyshire Spotter Watch Member : No

That's originally what I thought. It is on Ebay http://tiny.cc/sLcvB

Maybe I will go with the Tamron 70-300mm for now.

Location : lincolnshire Spotter Watch Member : no

TheOriginalMonty wrote:: For only £130.00, you can probably guess the image quality is not going to be spectacular, to say the least!

I know your only young mate, but where do you get statements like that from.........I feel you listen to much to those on the 'other' forum. But like i said you are young and advice is not a bad thing its just which bits you want to believe

Now i know every man has a right to his opinion but i couldnt believe what i was reading on the other forum...and i quote

Quote :: Would really like to get a 40D body, as Im only using a 400D at the
moment. Was wondering if anyone had one (second hand is fine!) or will
have one for sale, preferably before RIAT?

Quote :: as im only using a 400D

Mate if you cant get good photos with one of those, your in the wrong game........ ive been using a 350D now for 4yrs and in the first 3yrs ive had photo published in mags ive got 2 pages on A.net... 5 pages on Jetphotos...and 12 pages on Airfighters and all those photos where taken with the 350D AND a very cheap £100 70-300mm lens. And ive many more pics in my collection that would easily be accepted on to those 3 sites, but I gave up uploading to them 2yrs ago

Its not what you've got, its how you use it

Location : Scotland Spotter Watch Member : No

lblake wrote:

TheOriginalMonty wrote:: For only £130.00, you can probably guess the image quality is not going to be spectacular, to say the least!

I know your only young mate, but where do you get statements like that from.........I feel you listen to much to those on the 'other' forum. But like i said you are young and advice is not a bad thing its just which bits you want to believe

He's not wrong though is he? The more you spend on glass the better image quality it'll resolve is a pretty good rule of thumb. There is a reason that the Canon 100-400L and the Sigma 50-500 costs several times as much. At the end of the day though it's what the buyer can afford that's relevant, although it may be wise to buy good glass once instead of buying lesser glass and then having to upgrade.

Quote :: Its not what you've got, its how you use it

Indeed, but there's no reason that people can't upgrade to faster, better bodies. In your quote the poster states that (s)he 'only' has a 400D when talking in comparison to the 40D, as if the 400D is a lesser camera than the 40D...well, yeah...it is! Not saying that the 400D isn't a perfectly usable and competent camera but put it up next to a 40D and it'll come up short. The poster wanted to upgrade camera body, that's all.

Location : lincolnshire Spotter Watch Member : no

agdickie wrote:

lblake wrote:

TheOriginalMonty wrote:: For only £130.00, you can probably guess the image quality is not going to be spectacular, to say the least!

I know your only young mate, but where do you get statements like that from.........I feel you listen to much to those on the 'other' forum. But like i said you are young and advice is not a bad thing its just which bits you want to believe

The more you spend on glass the better image quality

Well that statement doesnt stand up, ive seen many a photo taken with those lenses and they've been pig awful. Just because it cost an arm and a leg doesnt guarantee top quality images all the time

In fact id rather invest in how to use photoshop proberly

Location : Scotland Spotter Watch Member : No

Conversely I've seen excellent shots taken on 'bog standard' 70-300s but that doesn't mean that the image quality is better than the more expensive glass, just that the person on the end of it is using it better.

What I'm saying is that, in general, the more you spend on glass the better the optical quality. I'm not arguing that because you've go expensive glass it makes you a good photographer.

Location : lincolnshire Spotter Watch Member : no

agdickie wrote:: The poster wanted to upgrade camera body, that's all.

Walk before run definitely springs to mind

I may be way off base with this statement and i will stand ready to be shot down in flames, but i just felt it was... He saw thats what the big boys were using and he wanted one

Listen if your 17yrs old and your only shooting the odd aircarft at the odd airshow, theres totaly no need to upgrade from a very new 400D

All im saying is, theres nothing wrong with a cheap lens...learn its strengths learn its best settings and learn how to use PS properly

Admin Location : Bristol, UK

lblake wrote:: In fact id rather invest in how to use photoshop proberly

No matter how good you are using Photoshop, if an image isn't sharp with good clarity, then in my opinion it's not going to be a good photograph. You can apply sharpening, but with sharpening comes noise.

There’s a reason why top of the range lenses are expensive... You compare a Sigma 70-300 to a Nikon 70-300 VR - You'll see the difference and the same normally applies throughout the ranges.

Mike

Edit: As Andrew is saying, just because you have a top of the range lens and camera body, it doesn't mean you'll be a good photographer and will get wonderful images from it, there's most certainly always a case of "All the gear, no idea".

Location : lincolnshire Spotter Watch Member : no

MikeB wrote:: Edit: As Andrew is saying, just because you have a top of the range lens and camera body, it doesn't mean you'll be a good photographer and will get wonderful images from it, there's most certainly always a case of "All the gear, no idea".

What do you mean "as Andrew is saying"!!!!!!!! Thats what ive been saying for the past 40mins

Mellow

Admin Location : Bristol, UK

lblake wrote:

MikeB wrote:: Edit: As Andrew is saying, just because you have a top of the range lens and camera body, it doesn't mean you'll be a good photographer and will get wonderful images from it, there's most certainly always a case of "All the gear, no idea".

What do you mean "as Andrew is saying"!!!!!!!! Thats what ive been saying for the past 40mins

Mellow

I mean...

AGDickie wrote:: I'm not arguing that because you've go expensive glass it makes you a good photographer.

I edited to add that, to clarify, I'm not saying thay just because someone has good kit, they'll get great images.

But that doesn't mean only 'pros' can buy good kit. Your trying to say, that people shouldn't buy expensive lenses because cheap ones are just as good. That simply isn't the case - Glass is the main tool in any photographers kit.

Edit: You're also saying that even if you've got a cheaper lens, if you can use Photoshop, then you'll have pictures just as good as those taken with expensive kit - Occasionally, yes, that may be the case, but good lenses provide consistency.

Location : lincolnshire Spotter Watch Member : no

MikeB wrote:: Your trying to say, that people shouldn't buy expensive lenses because cheap ones are just as good. That simply isn't the case - Glass is the main tool in any photographers kit.

Im not arguing the fact that a £100 lens is as good as a £2000 lens, thats madness to think that

No i wasnt saying that at all, i was saying the opposite... People can buy cheap a lens AND get consistently GOOD quality images, once they have learned its strengths and its settings

Its no good telling someone NOT to buy a lens just because its only £130
and saying you can guess the quality because its not £800 worth

Mate of mine has had a 100-400mm l is lens for over a year now and he still cant get a pic accepted on A.net

Ill not repeat what he said when i offered him my £100 one

Location : Manchester

Quote :: ive had photo published in mags ive got 2 pages on A.net... 5 pages on Jetphotos...and 12 pages on Airfighters and all those photos where taken with the 350D AND a very cheap £100 70-300mm lens

Got a link to your shots..?

Location : Derbyshire Spotter Watch Member : No

SO lol! I would love a 100-400mm Sony lens BUT realistically it is WAY out of my price range...if I did go for this lens, and I havn't written it off yet, maybe it would improve my photography to take shots with it? After all I was at Waddington airshow shooting with a Fuji S5700 a few weeks ago...VERY challenging for moving images!

Location : lincolnshire Spotter Watch Member : no

Charles022 wrote:

Quote :: ive had photo published in mags ive got 2 pages on A.net... 5 pages on Jetphotos...and 12 pages on Airfighters and all those photos where taken with the 350D AND a very cheap £100 70-300mm lens

Got a link to your shots..?

Sure mate... i think ive done them right

JetPhotos.net

AirFighters.com

AirLiners.net

Admin: Edited links to stop page from being too wide.

Admin Location : Bristol, UK

lblake wrote:: Its no good telling someone NOT to buy a lens just because its only £130
and saying you can guess the quality because its not £800 worth

I'm defiantly not telling him to avoid buying it, neither is Ben, however... he asked for peoples thoughts on it, Ben gave his experience of it.

Which at that point, you in my opinion, quite condescendingly said because Ben is young his statement was wrong. Then went on to say, because you've had one or two images published you must be right - I've seen some awful pictures published in magazines, so because ones been published, it doesn't make it great.

You think that a £130 lens will be spectacular quality if you used it? - I can assure you it won't give out consistent good photos of aircraft especially at 400mm.

I know from experience you can get good pictures from a cheap lens, but I also know from experience compared to an expensive lens the good results aren't consistent - I rarely get an image that isn't pin sharp and good quality (of course, I occasionally mess up my settings, like everyone does). However, on my cheaper lens, I had to always apply quite a bit of sharpening and I often got soft images.

I'm going to stop replying now so this topic can get back on track, apologies to optimus prime.

Location : Manchester

Quote :: You think that a £130 lens will be spectacular quality if you used it? - I can assure you it won't give out consistent good photos of aircraft especially at 400mm.

I use to use the 75-300 but know I use the 100-400L both on a 450D body. The 100-400 gives out great results 95% of the time IMO and the 75-300 40% of the time. BIG difference there. A £1000 lense its obviously going to be better than a £100 lense.....

Moderator Location : Between Coventry and Leicester

Well if you fancy trying the £130 lens then go for it.
if you want the cheapo option of the 100-400m range £130 is not a big outlay
if you are learning ,

But as been said above, it wil not be like a Canon 100-400 costing new today around £1300 ,But it will give you a good picture if the light and your settings and technique are present .

On a Sony it will have the Benifit of the super steady shot built in. so for £130 worth a try i would say.
if you are on a budget and cannot justify paying out thousands on a lens,then its an option .

Location : Derbyshire Spotter Watch Member : No

No worries, it was interesting reading opinions lol!

What is the 'other' forum excuse my ignorance?

Still not sure whether to just go with the Tamron 70-300mm then? Confused

My budget is £200 tops would rather stick to around £130.00 if poss.

(Just read what you said Vulcan558), thanks, makes sense Big Grin

I would love the Sony 100-400mm but until someone pays me to take shots (I wish)! don't think I could afford it LOL!!!

Moderator Location : In a layby

optimus prime wrote:: What is the 'other' forum excuse my ignorance?

that would be this one http://forums.airshows.co.uk/

To be honest, it really depends on how often and where you plan to use your lens? If you only visit one or two shows a year it might be worth a gamble and buy the Tokina. If you want a lens which gives your better performance on a regular basis and at close distances (bases etc) then its probably better to save a little more money. Not sure if the Sigma 70-300mm comes in Sony fit? If it does thats another one to consider.

Location : United Kingdom Spotter Watch Member : No

Buy it, see how you get on with it, if you find that it is rubbish put it on eBay someone will buy it!

And what was wrong with all the advise we gave you last time? Big Grin

http://fightercontrol.forumotion.com/photography-questions-f4/sony-lens-advice-t12942.htm

Location : Derbyshire Spotter Watch Member : No

Cheers, sorry Paul Whistle

was set to get one of those lenses then this 'bugger' turned up and got me asking questions again lol!

I actually reserved the Sigma 70-300mm APO and a guy in the shhop (not a member of staff), had returned on bcause of gears stripping lol!

Subject: Re: Tokina 100-400mm 2009-08-07, 13:52

I purchased the Tokina 100-400mm in Key West in 1998 to use with my Eos 50E (35mm) and it worked on my 20D which i brought in 2004, My pictures at Airshows and Airfields have got better as i have learned how the lens likes to act with the camera,(as with everything practice makes perfect) Only this year have i upgraded to a 40D and a 50-500mm.

Location : Derbyshire Spotter Watch Member : No

Hi Andy,

Thanks for your input...I have just brought the lens so hopefully I'll post some photos on this site soon Thumbs Up

Thank you all for the valued advice Smile

Moderator Location : Between Coventry and Leicester

Well i hope you have fun with that lens.
and look forward to some pics from the combo.