First look: Tokina 28-70mm f/2.6-2.8 AT-X Pro (Discontinued)

I've been wanting this lens for awhile - I've heard good things about it. Since this lens has some issues, I basically got it as a throw-in along with another lens I purchased. I can probably squeak by with it:

Out with the Old, In with the New

Sadly, I retired my first dSLR last week. I sold it to someone looking for a fast camera for shooting sports -- still a very good use for it. Here's the last good shot I made with my D1H -- it served me very well for over two years, even if it was a generation or two behind the current times when I purchased it.


But the good news -- to replace it, I got a used and somewhat-abused, but still functional D200. I'm the type of person who likes to actually use their equipment, not admire it sitting on a shelf. So, when the opportunity to save some cash arose by grabbing a D200 with some cosmetic issues (after taking a bit of a plunge off a tripod), naturally I'm going to be interested. Unless the camera doesn't work, I don't really care if it's not in mint condition. Same thing for my lenses. I'm sure I was a photojournalist in a former life or something...

By finding this deal, too, though, I was able to purchase a new lens along with the camera, for about the same price as what D200 bodies alone are going for nowadays. The lens I got is a 35mm f/2 AF-D. It's honestly one lens that I didn't think that I needed, but when I was looking through the viewfinder with the lens, I noticed that it seemed to match the normal viewing perspective. This makes sense when you think about it -- a 35mm lens on a 1.5x digital SLR becomes roughly a 5omm lens on a full-frame or film camera. So, yeah, after never really owning a 5omm when I shot film, I now have the equivalent of 50mm f/2 in digital.

And I'm recognizing how awesome this can be.

I already have a 20-35mm f/2.8 lens, but that sucker is huge. This small, compact lens gives me an extra stop, too, over that lens. It's wide enough to get a lot of stuff in, but not so wide that everything gets distorted. It's really a versatile little lens.

But the thing that I REALLY like about it is that it focuses very, very closely. I'd need to look up the stats, but I'm guessing it's about 3 inches in front of the lens. Combine that with the low-DOF f/2 opening, and it makes for a PERFECT lens for me to do my "Group F/1" stuff...





I love the bokeh! And the "Vivid Enhanced" setting on the D200 is really really nice.

In addition to being a great macro lens, it's also great as a portrait lens. Again, it's wide enough to get a decent head/shoulders portrait without having the distortion of an extra-wide when you get close to shoot the head & shoulders.

When I bought my D2H, I debated long and hard over whether or not to get the D200 instead. I ultimately decided that I preferred the machine-gun speed over the higher resolution. Especially since the D200 had 10 megapixels -- more than I really need. But now, I've decided that in shooting weddings more and more, I need all the resolution I can get. So, I've complemented my D2H with a D200.

Both of them are, really, more camera than I can use. Maybe in 2-3 years, I'll upgrade to a D3 and a D300, but for now I'm set...

Testing the Tokina 300mm F/2.8 AT-X SD

Finally got a chance to put the Tokina 300mm through some tests outside. Fortunately my puppy was a willing subject. What an awesome lens! Between the two of these superteles, I can hardly wait for baseball season -- the 2008 season -- to begin...

Indoor Supertelephoto Portrait

I suppose some people wouldn't call a 300mm f/2.8 a "supertelephoto" per se, but considering its size with lens hood attached, I sure do.

Since my D1H was handy, I slapped on the new-to-me Tokina 300mm f/2.8 that I bought yesterday from the same person I bought the 400mm from. It focuses MUCH closer (8 ft. vs. 14 ft.) and I was able to take the opportunity to grab a quick portrait of my son, cranking the ISO to 1600 and shooting wide open (and removed some of the noise in Neat Image). I had 1/500th at f/2.8, and this lens is a lot more hand-holdable than my 400mm, so I was able to shoot this with only the 15-watt compact flourescent my son was looking into as the light source. Fortunately, he was as willing as always to pose. I just wish he'd follow directions that well when I wasn't taking pictures...

More from the 400mm f/3.5

Still practicing. Still missing shots, because I'm still trying to control this monster. But I'm getting better...


Interesting bokeh...

First Impressions: 400mm F/3.5 EDIF

I happened to luck into my first supertelephoto over the weekend. These lenses don't become available very often, let alone at the price I paid for it. Fortunately I had just enough in my lens fund, and was able to purchase this awesome lens. I can't wait to shoot a baseball game with it, although, I really have to get used to not having a zoom and using a monopod. This lens is heavy!

I've never shot with a supertelephoto, so I'm trying to get the technique down. It's a different world, that's for sure. I need to practice practice practice...





So, I took a break from using my son as a model. I decided to chase our poor dog around the back yard this time. With the compression that a telephoto gives you, I probably could've used a smaller aperture, to get the nose and other features more in focus.



I was blown away by the crispness of the numbers in this picture, when zoomed in at 100%. I don't think the full 4.1 MP image will display when you click on the picture, but you get a good enough idea.

This lens will change my photography. Heck, at this point, that should be my goal in acquiring gear. It's not about the gear you have, really, but about how you use it. It's too bad the Rainiers' season is over, otherwise I'd head to Cheney and shoot away. Need to practice a bit more before I head to Safeco...

First Impressions: Nikkor 55-200 AF-S VR

We're on vacation this week, and as hard as it is to be away from the piano, it's been nice going out in the back woods on our family property and snapping away. We made the trip into Portland yesterday afternoon, and I found the camera shop I was looking for in order to compare a couple of lenses I was considering. I didn't have a whole lot of time, since my son was asleep in the car, and my wife was waiting in the car with him, but they had both lenses I was considering purchasing in stock, and I got just enough time to play with them.

After a quick series of in-store tests, I decided to indeed purchase the Nikkor 55-200 VR lens that recently came out. It dawned on me in the store that I'd never purchased a new lens, other than the lens that came with the first 35mm SLR I bought (the original Canon Rebel). All of my other lenses I've bought either at camera shows or on eBay. I hadn't actually sprang for a lens brand new.

Even though I had two lenses that basically covered the same focal length (my 70-210 F/4 Series E and my Tokina 80-200 f/2.8 -- both manual-focus), and I probably need to replace my 75-300 AF (since it took a 25 foot plunge onto a linoleum floor, even after being somewhat braced for the fall by hitting a woman's arm first), I wanted to get a VR lens. Sure, the 18-200 VR lens would be nice, and I'd like to get my hands on one, but I didn't have the budget for that lens, nor for one of my dream lenses, the 70-200 f/2.8 VR. I wanted to see, however, how well the 55-200 VR that just came out worked with my D2H. After reading some extremely positive reviews, I wanted to check out this lens, and compare it to the twice-as-expensive 70-300 VR.

The 75-300 VR felt a lot more solid (read: heavy) vs. the 55-200 VR, and you really could feel the VR kicking in. With the 55-200, it's a lot harder to notice when VR's working its magic. The 75-300 VR seemed noticably slower in focusing than the 55-200 VR, which sorta surprised me. Might just have been some other variables, though, since I was quickly running these tests, making sure I was OK with only getting 200mm at the long end. In the end, I decided that the 55-200 VR was certainly good enough to at least temporarily sate my VR cravings, and certainly the price was the most deciding factor.

I mean, heck, $250 for a VR lens? One that's light, compact, and could definitely stay on my camera? Score!

And after putting it through the wringer in the woodsy back acreage on our family property, I'm very glad I bought this lens.

On with the first sample shots!


1/8th second, focal length 150MM, ISO 400
Straight out of the camera -- no sharpening, no color adjustment - just JPG conversion in Capture NX and cropping/resizing in Photoshop & Fireworks (batch processing for web done in Fireworks).



1/6th @ 90mm



1/4th @ 70mm



1/40th @ 60mm

More testing the AF speed than VR here. Seems a little slow, as expected, but not anything unmanageable. Espcially since I've been using MF lenses for awhile, with less-than-desirable results.



1/40th @ 100mm



1/6th @ 200mm

Yes, that's right. One-sixth of a second at 200mm. Now, of course, it's not entirely sharp, and I did apply both USM in Photoshop CS and sharpening in Capture NX, but for on-screen viewing, it's certainly acceptible.



1/20th @ 135mm

All but the first image here have been post-processed in Capture NX and Photoshop CS. But considering I was shooting hand-held at ISO 800 or less, and the highest shutter speed I used was 1/40th in these images. I must say that my first impression is very favorable for this lens. The bokeh, in spite of the max. aperture being 5.6, is very solid -- which was one of my big hesitations in buying a "prosumer" VR lens. After all, my forays into the world of f/2.8 and lower were founded during a discussion about the 18-200 VR lens with a friend. I like bang-for-buck values, and this lens is definitely no exception. If the 18-200 VR were only $100-200 more than this lens, then I probably would've bought that lens instead. But since it's 3X the cost of this lens, I'm happy with what the 55-200 VR offers, price-performance-wise.

It's probably worth a bit more than the $250 retail it currently sells for.