< ! --Digital window verification 001 -->

Tokina to announce a new AT-X 70-200mm f/4 PRO IF FX lens at the CP+ show

In addition to the new AT-X 11-16 f/2.8 PRO DX Ⅱ Tokina will also announce a AT-X 70-200mm f/4 PRO IF FX lens at the CP+ show in Japan next week:

  • Minimum shooting distance: 1m
  • Lens length: 168mm
  • Ultrasonic motor
  • Built-in "shake correction" mechanism
This entry was posted in Nikon Lenses and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • http://ronscubadiver.wordpress.com Ron Scubadiver

    Interesting.

  • Doug
    • http://www.robertash.com Robert Ash

      Not me. I’m dreaming about all the money I’ll save buying a D800 w/o AA filter instead of buying a Leica S2 :) And I’m dreaming about how much I’ll save on lenses :) and on all the zooms I can buy that Leica doesn’t even offer for the S2 :) :) :)

  • tdr

    Nice to see more lenses from Tokina.

    It’s a shame it isn’t f/2.8, as Canon already makes some excellent and very affordable f/4. Oh, wait, Nikon doesn’t…

    • http://snailartphotography.daportfolio.com/ benjamin

      WHAHAHAHAHA!!!

      i shoot nikon. but i like the way you put it =P

  • Hong kongerFiredrago

    According to Chasseur,s site, it was interesting to see no WT5 connection. personally I would have thought having a ‘good’ wireless link to a laptop valuable in a studio where the D800 could be used to it’s prime. Kept on hearing wt4 did not work too well. On the other hand, wt5 functions would only be half used so to speak as I guess the files will be too large for transmission for a real time shoot. I am currently using a tethered camera to laptop. Anyone with any opinions.

    • LeGO

      A 55-70MB file from a 36mp RAW might be too laggy for the WT-5 to handle. Makes me wonder how much better the WT-4 will work.

      • WoutK89

        Keeping the WT-4 alive, means keeping the EN-EL3 line alive :-S what is that all about? You change the D90 to D7000 with new battery (EN-EL15), you change the D3s to a D4 with new battery (new rules right??). I am not believing until I see it.

  • f8

    sounds lame, but can someone explain or give link of what’s the deal about this focusing to f8 instead f2.8 how the whole things work and why it is different (and better)??

    • http://www.robertash.com Robert Ash

      From what I’ve been reading from the respondents here, it allows the camera to autofocus at F8 when using teleconverters, which take away 1-2 stops of light. The previous generation auto-focused to F5.6 so you lost auto-focus capability when using long, slow lenses with teleconverters, which could take the maximum effective aperture down to F8.

      Smart people here on NikonRumors :) I learn a lot here, there are some very smart people responding. And some very funny ones too :)

      • David C

        So, others have explained the aperture issue and being able to effectively use autofocus and teleconverters. Others have pointed out that a 2.8 lens (without teleconverters) always focuses at f2.8 regardless of aperture set. So from this, you could surmise that if you don’t use teleconverters, going to f8 will have no value to you.

        I believe that to be incorrect. I believe it is also related to how light/dark the environment you are shooting in is (the ISOs of today, allow us to shoot in much darker situations) So in a dark situation, your ISO now gets you the shot, and the fact that the focus sensors go to f8 means they can autofocus effectively in lower light too (an f2.8 lens is only collecting the light of f8 if thats the only equivalent of the light available even though the aperture at focus time is set to f2.8). So an f8 sensor should allow autofocus to work more effectively in lower light, regardless of aperture. Little bit confusing, but does that make sense?

        • WoutK89

          You are correct, it does make the point :) The higher the ISO you can use, the more need for a dark environment correct focus as well. So correct focus at f/8 in “normal” conditions, means correct focus at f/2.8 in less than normal conditions (darker).

    • BartyL

      Regardless of what aperture you set, the camera holds the lens at maximum aperture until the shutter is fired.

      Example: You have a lens with a maximum aperture of f3.5. In Aperture Priority mode you set an aperture of f11. The diaphragm is held open at f3.5 until you take the shot, at which point the diaphragm is closed to f11.

      Why is it done this way? Because the Auto Focus detectors in the camera work by either detecting differences in contrast or phase, and the more light (the larger the aperture) the better.

      Some lenses may only have a maximum aperture of f5.6 or less. This particularly applies to ‘consumer’ zoom lenses at the longest focal length. Every stop of aperture closing down represents a halving of the amount of light reaching the focus detectors. So an aperture of f5.6 admits only 1/4 of the light that an aperture of f2.8 admits.

      The sensitivity of many AF systems has only permitted auto-focus with lenses with a maximum aperture no smaller than f5.6 as this is the least amount of light they can receive and still work. Nikon’s D4 has an increased the sensitivity over earlier systems, allowing it to autofocus down to f8 where only 1/8 of the light compared to f2.8 is admitted.

      As Robert points out above, this is especially interesting to people who combine telephoto lenses with teleconverters. Teleconverters increase the effective focal length of the lens they are used with, but also decrease the effective maximum aperture.

      • El Aura

        Question: do you really think the difference between the D4 and D3 regarding AF with f/8 and no AF with f/5.6 is due to the D4 being more sensitive in low light? AF works over a very wide range of light values, for the D3 it is specified as -1 to +19 EV100. If the light level would be the sole criteria, if it works at -1 EV100 at f/5.6 shouldn’t it work at 0 EV100 at f/8 and 1 EV100 at f/11 and so on?

        • rhlpetrus

          AF sensor is not related to imaging sensor, it’s a separate module. What this means is that Nikon has managed to improve the ability of the AF sensor to work in lower light compared to D3s. What’s the problem?

          • El Aura

            The point is that whether a camera’s PD-AF can work at f/8 or only at f/5.6h as basically nothing to do with light sensitivity of the AF sensor. It just has something to do with angles the AF sensor is pointed at.
            If f/5.6 is the limit at an EV of 19, down to an EV of -1 (as it is the case with the D3), how can the absolute light level be of any influence on the maximum f-stop the AF works with? It most obviously is not.

            The D4 has two separate AF improvements: (a) some of its AF sensors look at a wider angle (or look just at the f/8 angle, or look at two different angles, who knows) and (b) the AF sensors got more ‘light sensitive’ and can work with less light.

            • BartyL

              “…the AF sensors got more ‘light sensitive’ and can work with less light.”

              I see, so you’re saying that what’s actually happened is that Nikon has improved the sensitivity of its AF system? I see my mistake now.

  • http://www.jaysonandrachael.com Jayson

    Nice to see another choice in the 70-200 market. I’d rather see a 2.8 max aperture but for a lot of people, f/4 is fast enough.

    • http://snailartphotography.daportfolio.com/ benjamin

      I think everyone would love a larger aperture ( i default to the 135 f2 ais), but when you consider price and weight, it becomes prohibitive. in my case, i replaced the 80-200 af-d with the AF-S version which was simply fantastic, but because it was so heavy, i was reluctant to use it even during paid shoots. and as a part time shooter/hobbyist i couldnt justify $1.3K sitting in my dry cabinet 90% of the time and had to let it go. on the upside, i got acquainted with the 180 2.8D which is stunning, and really fits my style now. horses for courses.

      • Sahaja

        Yes, the 180 2.8D seems to be a much overlooked lens.

        • LeGo

          Yeah. Got the 200mm f/2.0G but still love my 180mm f/2.8D.

      • Dr Motmot

        According to reviews, the 180mm has bad chromatic aberation, have you found this with your lens? I would really like one but am hoping Nikon will update it sometime soon (although they have been beaten to it by Sigma with the 180mm macro).

      • mike

        It would be nice to have more than just the sigma for 50-150/2.8. That should be roughly the same size as this lens.

  • kaze kaze

    is it just me… or that’s a first VR (uk-um, I mean “shake correction”) tele zoom lens from tokina?

    May be the way to go, 17-35 f4 on one body and 70-200 f4 SC on second body for the casual work, then my trusty 17-35 f2.8 and 70-200 f2.8 VR2 for the paid ones.

  • a4

    In your face, Nikon! Again.
    I’ve been waiting for this kind of lens for the F-mount for a bit too long now, and I’m sure there’s quite a lot of us. Now, when this should finally come true, unsuprisingly it isn’t Nikon to announce it. And how about any affordable DX 17-50(-ish)/2.8 lens (among others)? Is there anybody listening in Nikon at all? The longer I shoot Nikon, the less Nikkors I own – weard, huh?
    Hope this one’s going to be a winner IQ-wise (and Tokina can do this, no doubt) for a reasonable price.

    • http://ronscubadiver.wordpress.com Ron Scubadiver

      This would make a nice companion for the 17-35 f/4 zoom. Perhaps we will see a 24-105 or 24-120 f/4 with stabilization at a much lower price than the Nikon version.

  • Dolph Lundgren

    The 16-28/2.8 is an excellent lens and now after the new 17-35/4 and 70-200/4 all there’s really missing at this time is a revised Tokina 28-80/2.8; they can remake it as a new 24-70/2.8 …
    I like Tokina lenses; good optics, well built.

  • cfeather

    A big yawn.
    f/4 and “pro?”

    • Hom Thogan

      Yeah like: f/4 and L in Canon you know? Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L, Canon EF 24-105mm f/4l, Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L, Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS. Let’s not forgive the Gold ring (meaning Legacy lens) Nikkor 24-120mm f/4 VR AF-S.

      Want more examples? how about the:
      Nikkor 16-35mm f/4G ED VR
      Nikkor 200-400mm f/4G IF ED
      Nikkor 200-400mm f/4G VRII
      Nikkor 200mm f/4D IF ED
      Nikkor 300m f/4D IF ED
      Nikkor 500mm f/4G ED VR
      Nikkor 600mm f/4g ED VR

      Because your enormous ignorance knows no bounds or limits allow me to explain this:

      The maximum aperture doesn’t dictates how “pro” is a lens, it is determined by the image quality, features and construction (ruggedness).

      So please get back to your cave and resume what were you doing.

    • Hom Thogan

      Yeah like: f/4 and L in Canon you know? Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L, Canon EF 24-105mm f/4l, Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L, Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS. Let’s not forgive the Gold ring (meaning Legacy lens) Nikkor 24-120mm f/4 VR AF-S.

      Want more examples? how about the:
      Nikkor 16-35mm f/4G ED VR
      Nikkor 200-400mm f/4G IF ED
      Nikkor 200-400mm f/4G VRII
      Nikkor 200mm f/4D IF ED
      Nikkor 300m f/4D IF ED
      Nikkor 500mm f/4G ED VR
      Nikkor 600mm f/4g ED VR

      Because your enormous ignorance knows no bounds or limits allow me to explain this:

      The maximum aperture doesn’t dictates how “pro” is a lens, it is determined by the image quality, features and construction (ruggedness).

      So please get back to your cave and resume what were you doing.

  • broxibear
    • RondoX

      Yep. As a part of the Nikon Professional Users Series, Nikon will showcase the upcoming D4 February 7th & 8th in Tokyo. And then on February 17th in Osaka.

      • broxibear

        Thank RondoX.

      • Hhom Togan

        Just out of curiosity is your nickname in anyway associated with Castlevania Dracula X: Rondo of Blood?

        You are potentially going to earn +15,000 points and a 1up

  • Hom Thogan

    Sad that’s Tokina the one taking the lead of what Nikon should have done years ago…

  • http://www.Azety.fr Jeff

    i have a simple question :

    WHY this lens ?

    Tamron have a good 70-200 2.8 ( sigma too , canon and nikon too, but im talking about money. How much this one ? less than the tamron and sigma 70-200 2.8 ? )

    THANKS TO ANYONE WHO WILL ANSWER ME ABOUT THE why AND money QUESTION

    • a4

      As for the why part: Weight and size for instance? If the lens is super-sharp wide open, why bother with a one-point-something kg barrel on an all day trip when you can have something, that weights half as much and is much easier to fit in the bag, with you? And stabilised it would be a lot easier to shoot handheld…
      As for me, I don’t use the tele-range too often, thus no need for a huge and heavy pro lens – not to mention that I could hardly justify the price paid for it, being just an amateur – but still would welcome a decent glass with a constant speed and great sharpness throughout the whole zoom range, as my current 70-300 VR surely is good for the money, but definitely has its flaws…

      And for the money part: I hope for for the price tag to be under $800, once it’s real and for sale…

      • http://www.Azety.fr Jeff

        thank you for this answer :)

        i didnt know about weight and size, its a good point.
        But 800$ = 800€ so i prefer to choose tamron / sigma 70-200 2.8 which is 300€ / 500€ second-hand.

        • a4

          I didn’t want to be too optimistic about the price ;). Bought my 70-300VR new for about 600€ four or five years back and will be happy if this one is going to be for more or less the same…

  • Vincent

    The absence of this lens from the Nikkor lineup is one reason I’ve been procrastinating my move from Canon to Nikon (yes, a lens can do that to you).

    The image quality : weight/size ratio is a serious factor for amateurs and pros alike. And that’s not even mentioning the kind of influence that a +$1000 price difference makes on photographers’ choices (or lack thereof). I believe in quality f4 lenses and married with a 70-200 range is a winning combination whether you are full frame or not. I also hope that Nikon will be spurred by this bold move by Tokina.

    My take on the f4 vs 2.8 thing:
    Those who want to squeeze nicer OOF (Out-of-focus) highlights and background blur from their portraits can either a) go full frame, b) go 2.8, or c) move their subjects a few more steps away from the background, and/or move themselves a few steps back from the subject and zoom in. Disclaimer: One option is a significantly cheaper investment, and worth trying initially. No points for guessing which one =>

    For myself, the advantages of a smaller, lighter 70-200mm f4 grossly outweigh (mind the pun) the extra stop of light on a 2.8 lens equivalent. Remember that distant mountain range you couldn’t quite isolate when you were on holidays because you didn’t want to lug the equivalent of a lamb roast on your back? Sure you can make your partner carry your backpack with your 2.8 in it… but partners tend to remember these things…no coochie coo for you tonight! Also, sticking a bigger lens on your camera WILL get you more noticed, and this is sometimes not for the best, especially when it comes to the intimidation factor with new subjects.

    So an f4 becomes suprisingly versativle: reasonably weighted walkaround lens, a great portrait lens, a casual wildlife lens etc BUT and most importantly is NOT optically compromised. If anything, the contrast and sharpness can prove to be better than 2.8 as proven by Canon’s f4 70-200mm lineup. Spend the extra $1500 saved on another lens or 2 lenses. I used to own a 70-200mm 2.8 before I sold it and I can basically say this: I missed more shots by not having it with me than shots I would have gained because it had an extra stop over an f4. Consequently, the only 70-200mm 2.8 lens that’s ever getting even close to my kit again is one I can pour coffee into and costs less than $30. A truly useful 2.8.

    Note for popeyes: If you are fortunate enough to be built like a brick outhouse, and size and weight differences are about as significant to you as is knowledge regarding the effects of water tempertaure on the consistency of gold fish droppings (and if so, I have some collegues you’d be interested to get to know), then go ahead and get a 2.8 70-200mm if you can afford it… but don’t leave it at home!

    Besides, I would rather have an f4 zoom and a tack sharp, light prime lens (say a 1.4, 1.8, or even 2.8 macro) for portrait work, than a one 2.8 zoom does it all option.

    Unfortunately the photography industry is one of those where bigger is not always better. Bigger sensors? Maybe. Bigger bodies? Decreasingly so. Bigger lenses? Definitely not. As always size matters, but in this case it’s the other way round for me – that’s lenses mind you ;>.

    Well done Tokina… let’s just hope it delivers.

  • Toli

    Is it a nice lens to hope Tokina release and available with Sony mounts in ≤$1000.00 USD…will order 1 ASAP.

  • Back to top