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.
  • jo

    Good news, go well with my tok 11-16mm, great lens

    • Nothing to see here. I got a 70-200mm vr 2 from the nikon outlet for less than than 2k. Well that was over a year and a half ago. Get a 80- 200 for about 1 grand. NOW.

      • karl

        and while you’re at it, don’t forget a decent monopod, since the 80-200 does not have a VR and is usable only at f5.6 and smaller at the tele end.
        Oh, and with the screw-drive AF – it will probably focus slower than this new tokina.

        • Karl, you’re right, just look at all these shots. Not one of them is sharp:


          • karl

            did you take a look at photos taken by 16megapixel DX cameras ?
            Yes, they are soft.

            • Spy Black

              Yeah, if you look at those images at full res, you can see that they’re soft, but still overall not horrible. The lack of VR doesn’t bother me, but the Nikkor has a little more fringing than I’d like, however.

              We’ll see how this new Tokina fares in comparison.

        • …and it certainly absolutely couldn’t possibly be a sharp one stop down as a lens designed to be f4 wide open.

          /extended sarcasm

          • karl

            the canon 70-200 F4 lens would kick it’s butt wide open anytime. A shame for Nikon, really.

          • mike

            Canon 70-200/4 is sharper wide open than their 70-200/2.8 stopped down to f/4. The smaller max aperture means that there are fewer compromises.

        • Joe

          I don’t know what you’re talking about. My 80-200 has no screwdriver AF but AF-S and fantastic image quality just as the latest 70-200 VR II. An absolute bargain for the 700 EUR I paid for it used, compared to the VR II starting at 1700 EUR used.

          • karl

            your AF-S version is a discontinued product.

            Nikon continues to sell only the previous – screw-driven lens called “AF Zoom-Nikkor 80-200mm f/2.8D ED”


            • Joe

              Yes, it is discontinued. But what is the problem with that? Does it stop mine producing great images?

              If a 70-200/4 is that important for you, go over to Canon. Get the right tools for your job.

            • karl

              Joe, Nikon makes better cameras and I have invested money in Nikon gear already.

              The discontinued AF-S stops me from buying a new lens with 2-year guarantee. Also if it wasn’t discontinued, it would retail for 1500 eur at least.

              70-200/4 is important to me, and I’ll sure be buying the tokina, unless it is as bad as the 50-150 Sigma.

      • iamlucky13

        The 80-200 is a great lens, but I suspect this Tokina will be priced a hair lower. While you give up a stop of aperture, you gain AF-S and and VR.

        Different choices for different users.

        And if Tokina wants to live up to some of their past quality, this lens will deliver darn close to comparable sharpness as the Nikon 80-200.

        • El Aura

          Some seem to have forgotten that their are two 80-200 mm f/2.8 AF lenses, one with screwdrive AF and one with AF-S (and the AF-S has a different and presumable better optical formula).

          • karl

            ..and can only be bought used, since it’s discontinued

            • El Aura

              If I can buy lenses used, I usually do that.

  • Josh

    Nikon, get with the program, yo!

    • karl

      let’s hope this tokina will be at least half as good as the canon 70-200mm f4L IS USM

      • It won’t be. Maybe it will only back-focus twice as much as Tokina’s current 70-200mm f/2.8.

        • Mike

          You mean Tamron’s 70-200 2.8. Tokina doesn’t have one currently.

        • nah

          there goes your credibility

        • David C

          I have several Tokina lenses. They are all excellent, built like tanks and image quality for the money is excellent (absolute image quality isn’t quite Nikon level though). The only issues with most Tokina lenses are that they have historically been screw driven AF (which is now being corrected), and CA, but the CA is easily corrected by Nikon’s jpeg engine in-camera or with post-processing of RAW.

      • Ren Kockwell

        Let’s hope you get a life and stop trolling Nikon forums so you can praise Canon lenses.

        • karl

          Unlike you, I am open minded, and ready to acknowledge high quality products without checking first if they are made by Nikon.

          I love my 24-70 Nikon lens, but I’m not gonna shell out 2200 eur (that’s $2900) for the 70-200 VRII, simply because I would not make that much use of it. I am an amateur and have absolutely no intention making any money off my pictures.

          So if this tokina is anything like the Canon version, I am more than prepared to pay 800-1000 eur for it.

    • Indeed.

      This is a niche that Nikon should have filled quite some time ago. . .

    • Astrophotographer

      Well, Nikon does have a Japanese patent recently for a 70-200 f4. So it may come soon.

  • AaronL

    GREAT! They will sell a boat load of them if its good.
    It’s a big hole in Nikons offerings.

    • Why is it a hole? Nikon makes a:

      70-200 f/2.8
      80-200 f/2.8
      55-200 f/4-5.6
      55-300 f/4.5-5.6
      70-300 f/5-5.6

      The lack of a 70-200 f/4 is not a ‘big hole’.

      • Sunny

        It is a BIG HOLE, indeed!
        You don’t know how popular Canon 70-200/4 is among Canonites?

        • It’s popular because it’s a decent lens that’s available cheap used.

          Brand new Nikon won’t be available used or as cheap, hence lacks a raison d’etre.

        • nor do we give a crap.

          • Hamuga

            What do you mean we, Kemosabe?

      • having use all iterations of the 80-200, id say:

        80-200 AF ED (and D version) – decently cheap, dependable only from f4, a lil too heavy(1.3kg) for my taste

        80-200 AF-S – incredible lens, af is lightning fast but abit low contrast and is HUGE and heavy (1.5KG).

        they were both too big and heavy to bring around everywhere and i swapped them out for a 180 2.8 D and 85 1.8D which performed exceptionally while being small.

        55-200/300 – dx only lenses, neither give IQ i will depend on for paid shoots (or my own shooting for that matter)

        70-300 – dark and again not something i will rely on for paid shoots or my own shooting.

        possibility of a 70-200 f4 – good iq and better contrast while being smaller and more affordable. this IS a hole in the line up. one zoom that i’d seriously consider for event shooting.

        • David C.

          I agree. I have both he 70-200 f2.8 vr II and the 80-200 f2.8 D. Both very great lenses, but the 80-200 is heavy and non-VR so I think a 70-200 f4 VR at about the same price (within a few hundred) would fill a hole for Nikon shooters that can’t afford (or don’t want to shell out that much for) the 70-200 f2.8.

      • karl

        sure it is.
        Very few amateurs can afford the 70-200 VRI/VRII lenses, and the 80-200 AF-D lacks VR and is very soft at the tele end. It won’t focus on entry level DSLRs and AF won’t be very fast on a D90/D7000 either. It’s also unnecessarily big and heavy for DX shooters.
        A fast tele lens for DX is absolutely missing in Nikon’s lineup. We need either a f4 FX lens, or a f2.8 DX lens. It would have been too late 5 years ago !

      • iamlucky13

        The 55-200 and 55-300 are good values for their prices and easy to travel with, but really not in the same class as any of the others above – cheap build, uninspiring focus speed, slower apertures, and soft at the long end.

        The 70-300 gets closer, but still slow aperture and a bit soft at the long end.

        The other said what needed to be said about the 80-200’s.

        The hole is not big in terms of focal length, but in terms of overall quality, price, and size it’s a fairly substantial hole, and one that a lot of users have been hoping to see filled.

      • Ralph

        I suspect what people want is a pro quality lens in an f4 speed. I certainly would like all my f2.8 lenses in f4 because they would be half the weight. I generally shoot at f8 anyway.

        The f4-5.6 lenses you mention are not pro image quality nor build quality.

    • Emanuele

      It’s a BIG hole in FX Nikons offerings. Where is a mid-cost alternative for my D700? No chance for me, I dont wont a old, slow, 80-200.

    • Nikon Shooter

      Lol @ “big hole in FX Nikon’s offerings”.

      Even my f/2.8 lenses feel incredibly slow in comparison to my f/1.4 and f/1.8 glass. An F/4 lens is simply too slow and not that good of an investment as far as price/performance is concerned. Either save up for the Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 or buy the 70-300 now. The 70-200 f/4 is a “poser” lens. Has similar specs and looks as the f/2.8 lens, yet lacks the most important attributes of a pro lens.

      I’m not even going to speculate on the sharpness of this particular lens either, but if we take a look at the track record of all third-party offerings you may now be looking at an f/5.6 lens unless of course the sharpness is not that important to you.

      • karl

        maybe you haven’t noticed this one either:

      • “An F/4 lens is simply too slow and not that good of an investment as far as price/performance is concerned.”

        Are you kidding me? 16-35/4, and 300/4.0 AF-S are BRILLIANT lenses. Both work perfectly, and both are incredible values. I’m sure there are plenty of other examples I’m missing (not to mention Canon’s 70-200/4L IS!).


  • Tokina is love your lenses, keep it up!

    • Bernardo vaghi

      I Love*

  • Anonymus Maximus

    Well if Nikon will not produce f4 top quality lenses Tokina will.

  • ysp

    Awww, Tokina beat Nikon to it.

  • Mike

    Any word on pricing yet?

  • I bought their 11-16mm for my wife; excellent lens. I hope this one performs well, too. I don’t need it – already have a nikon 70-200mm VRII. But I’d really love to see some FX primes from tokina.

  • guzzo3

    at least tokina with the 70-200 f4, that’s good because cheaper 😉

  • Marko

    F**ck, and I have just spent a fortune for the Nikkor 70-200 VRII as I had enough of waiting for a f4.

    • Anonymous

      Why are you repenting? You got yourself an excellent piece of glass and remember, it is f2.8 and f4… it allows twice the light at the max aperture. At lower light levels and/or for subject separation it can be an invaluable tool.

  • Peter


  • RogM

    This is the exact lens I have wanted for my D300s. Here’s hoping it comes out soon! I will be in line.

    • MB

      For your D300s I wouldn’t go past the Tokina 50-135 2.8, probably the same size as this new one. No VR tho and focus not good enough for sports, but for portraits it’s great.

      • John Richardson

        Agreed. have been using the Tokina 50-135 F2.8. focus is indeed slow hence not great for sports, it is a little heavy but, very sharp. I usually carry a tripod for this one as there is no VR and it bit heavy for me. But I would recommend it. Build quality is stellar. Price is right.

  • ActionJunky

    It’s great to see competition, but when I start nearing the $1,000 price range for a lens, I want to see F2.8. I know the Nikon is nearly $2,000, but this is just not that appealing to me. I have the Nikon VRII, purchased in anticipation of the D800.

  • R!

    Nikon is late as usual…

    • Roberto


    • Emanuele


  • Peter

    I hope this works with the Nikon tele converters..

  • Brian Davis

    70-200 f/4? What the fuck is the point?

    • Mike

      Uh, some people shoot landscape or studio and shoot at f/8-16. If they never shoot at 2.8, spending $1000 less on a less is a welcome proposition. And since Nikon has a huge gap between their $500 70-300 VR and 70-200 VRII, this is additionally welcome. Yes there is an inbetween 80-200 f/2.8, but it doesnt have VR and most versions are AF-D. There is zero option right now for a 70-200 f/4 VR (or whatever Tokina calls it) for Nikon shooters. This is great news!

      • I think Landscape photographer don’t need f/4 zoom, we’re need 70-180 Micro because it can get more close-up into the every detail of the land. but the performance of current version is not match a 36 megapixel camera. (And 70-180 Micro was discontinued)

        Then we want new 70-180 Micro~!!!

        PS. My friend was landscape photographer and he actually shot at 1.4-2.8. 😛

        • Hmm. Who needs a macro lens for landscape work to get ANY detail out? There’s absolutely no difference if you shoot with the 70-180 Micro at 180mm or the 180/2.8 prime at 180mm. The FOV, DOF, and compression are all exactly the same after roughly 2′ infront of the camera (should focus breathing from the 70-180 not be taken into account). It’s absolutely pointless to pay $2k for the 70-180 Micro as a landscape shooter. There are plenty of other, more appropriate options out there, for far cheaper.


          • Not if you’re doing close-ups a lot.

            • Tom

              Landscape being the subject of the photography in this case.

            • There are a lot of close-up subjects in landscapes. Then you can use image-stacking in photoshop to get great depth of field (wind permitting :)).

            • I can’t think of a single situation where anyone would ever, ever need a 1:1 true micro lens. The 80-200 has a MFD of 5′. Plenty enough room to focus stack whatever you’d like at 200mm. I’d love any type of example of a landscape shot between 1:1 and 1:4 with a macro lens. I really don’t see the need…


            • Fair enough. But there are plenty of things we don’t need that make life easier for photographers in one situation or another. We don’t need F4 lenses, we can just beef up our muscles 🙂 We don’t need F2.8 lenses, we can just crank up the ISO or use slower shutter speeds with VR. We don’t need apertures smaller than F11, we can just focus stack.

              But each feature/lens/etc. has its times when it makes life easier for us. Same thing with micro lenses.

              But to each his own, if you don’t see a need that’s perfectly ok, but that may not be true of another photographer. Cheers!

          • However I looking for a better 70-180 Micro because 70-300 is not have a collar, 70-200 is too huge and it’s great if you can have 2 in 1 lens. It’ll save weight and space. 🙂

      • onodera

        I almost never shoot in the 105-200 mm range on DX. Maybe I would if I shot indoor sports, but you need f/2.8 for that. I shoot mostly landscapes and buildings, and I tend to jump from around 105mm to whatever the longest focal length I have. A 100-300 f/4 or a 80-400 f/4-5.6 would be a much more welcome lens. And a 16-105, of course.

        • All of the lenses you’re asking for already exist by Sigma, Tokina, or Nikon. Sorry, but I think you’re the minority here.. (of course, tons of people are waiting for a 80-400 refreshment)


          • onodera

            They do exist, but not with VR *and* AF-S.

    • spder

      I always don’t understand why everyone is craving for this lens.
      I’ll be glad if someone could convince me the benefit i get from this lens vs 70-300mm VR.
      70-300mm already has very good IQ at the 70-200mm range, with aperture vary from f4.5-5.6, yes slower, but f4 is not fast either. No room for use if really go into low light condition.
      How to justify the extra bucks we pay for…
      I think Nikon priorities the releases of this range of lens very well… 70-300mm can fill up the hole for a while..

      • karl

        what I am looking for:
        creamy bokeh, faster AF and better build quality. I assume this new lens will easily beat the 70-300mm in these qualities.
        Also f4 is two times faster than f5.6.

        • * lets in 2X as much light. 1 stop faster.

          that said, it is a big difference. i d expect the 70-200, with a less extreme zoom range, to also have better distortion, better flare resistance, and hopefully better contrast and less smudgy colours. they have an old manual RMC 80-200 f/4 which noticeably trumps the 70-300 vr on DX at 200mm both set side open. im looking to get another copy of that lens to see its performance on fx.

          • karl

            * I assume everyone reading this rumor already knows what an f stop is, so there’s no need explaining that where an f5.6 lens requires ISO6400, a f4 lens needs just ISO3200 to gather just as much light.

            So it is 2 times faster. And that’s exactly the difference of 1 f-stop.

            • WoutK89

              But his addition is correct *rolls eyes*

            • karl

              correct, and unnecessary

  • Moe Jacknally

    Where is the 8-400mm F1.4? 🙁
    I am disappoint!


    • Comments like this are ridiculously pointless.

      • Drunkcaballo

        So is yours Mark

      • Josh

        Who died and made you the Pope?

      • Bob2

        I hope Nikon comes out with a sense of humor, so you can buy some.

        • I suggest buying Tamron’s sense of humor, it is much cheaper, though, you won’t always get the joke with a 3rd party humor system.

        • Brock Kentwell

          Bob2 just pwned everyone.

  • I have my sigma 100-300 F/4 so no need for 70-200 f/4 🙂

  • John M

    This is great news. Maybe Nikon will finally be spurred into action.

    • Mike

      This already kinda looks like a Nikon lens. I wouldn’t be surprised if Tokina makes one for Nikon. Just like they did the 12-24 f/4 DX lens.

      • WoutK89

        Psssssst, remember, this is NIKON rumors 😉

      • John Richardson

        Look at the official company history of Tokina. I would highly doubt they would ever be farmed to make a lens for Nikon. It would be a matter of Nikon losing face in the corporate boardroom that is.

        • WoutK89

          Indeed, even the 12-24 looks a lot different (already zoom and focus ring have been switched). Just because two companies share the same type of lens, does not mean they are the same lens.

  • I wish Tokina would start building some fast primes.

  • Ben

    The only thing I miss with Tokina is VR and a decent SWM (to stay in Nikon terms). For the rest I am really pleased with the quality they deliver for this price. I’m looking for the 11-16 and the 50-135 at the moment. Perfect zoom range for DX, not offered by anyone else.

    • Eric

      Hey ben I am actually selling my 50-135 2.8(in perfect condition). Loveeeeeed the lens but I shoot mainly film these days so I don’t really use it since it’s DX. I’ll probably regret selling it if I go back to DX but what can ya do when you got Grad School books to pay for:(

      If you are interested let me know and I can somehow get you my contact info.

  • David

    Very keen for this – I’ve been hoping for something like this for ages, and would pull the trigger on this plus a Sigma 120-300/2.8 to replace my 70-200 VR1 like a shot.

    This lens, as I read it – 70-200 focal length, but lighter and smaller to carry, and if they’ve done it right, then still weather-sealed; add it to the 120-300/2.8 (which seems like the perfect exotic for sports, but is a bit of a brute to carry around all day) and I’d be very happy. They’re the two biggest holes (not old lenses that need refresh, but ones that actually don’t exist) other than a lightweight wide-angle DX prime (24/2 or similar) that I can think of in the Nikon lens lineup.

    • Gab

      I agree with this, expect that dx prime should be a bit wider, anywhere between 16-20.

  • Dweeb

    Wow “Pro” lenses. Nikon — time to get with it.

  • red

    well I have the TOkina 50-135 and love this lense.

    As an canon APS-C user there will be no gain compared to canon 70-200F4. I guess the tokina will be 1000 euro price range and can hardly outperform the canon 70 200 f4 IS.

    I would prefer a DX lense so at least it will be lighther.


    • karl

      that canon 70-200 f4 of yours is exactly what many nikonites (me including) are jealous about. Nikon does not make anything remotely similar.

      • Emanuele


      • Ren Kockwell

        Honestly. You pop up out of nowhere and put up over a dozen posts crowing about a Canon lens. How obvious can you be?

  • Timo

    This is awesome news! Not only have parts of the Nikon community, including me, waited for such a lens – but also that Tokina finally makes lenses with an optical stabilizer. If they gonna introduce that into some other of their lenses, that would be nice 🙂

    • That’s the part I was excited about too. Been waiting for them to jump into the VR/IS/OS game. If Nikon doesn’t hurry up Tokina’s going to refresh their own 80-400 and add their VR onto it and really make thing interesting.

  • El_Pickerel

    Wait. Built in “shake correction” AKA “vibration reduction” in a Tokina? This is HUGE to me. I’ve been hoping to see that show up in their longer lenses.

  • Levi H

    Could someone explain to me why everyone is complaining so much about Nikon not having “Pro” glass at f/4 all the way through 70-200mm?

    We’ve already got f/2.8 all the way through with VRII? That is “Pro” to me. Why would you want anything less if you’re a Pro and had the money?

    I understand it’s a competitive lens cost wise for those who can’t afford the 70-200 Nikon, and there is a gap in Nikons product line. I get that, I guess I’m just wondering about those thinking Nikon has to “catch up” on it’s “pro glass”. Maybe I misunderstood.

    • Truthfully, not everyone needs to have the F/2.8 added weight, size, or cost. If you never have the need to go down to F/2.8, why pay for it? Why carry the extra weight, or waste the room in your bag for something you’re never going to use?

      Just because they DO make a “better” version, doesn’t make this any less of a professional lens (if Nikon were to make one).

      And speaking of “better” lenses is really a general, relative term. While the 70-200/2.8 may be versatile, it’s not “better” for the shooter that doesn’t need the F/2.8 aperture. If the F/4 has VR, and is every bit as sharp as the /2.8 when stopped to F/4 and beyond, what makes the F/2.8 any “better,” if you don’t need the extra stop?


      • El Aura

        But some people don’t need the f/4 added weight, size, and cost and preferred to use a professional grade f/5.6 lens.
        The question is not whether a given lens would be preferred by some people, the question is whether it is preferred by enough people (and that is not just production+development cost must be covered by sales volume and additional body+lenses sales by people switching to Nikon, or not switching away because of the more diverse lens offering, they also have to compensate for reduced sales of competing lenses like the f/2.8 version).

    • Mike

      Well, I think, independent of anything else, that it’s good marketing for Nikon to have a 70-200 f/4. Apple used the iPod to drive Mac sales, and it’s worked well. Perhaps if Nikon has a modern 70-200 f/4, it would drive camera sales too. Right now, the soccer parent (not literally, but to illustrate my point) who is about to buy their first DSLR is researching telephoto lenses too. This buyer knows enough that 300mm at f/5.6 is not particularly fast and is its weakest at that focal length in terms of sharpness. The 70-200 VR II is just plain out of their price range, and the oldest sample of the previous 70-200 VR is approaching 10 years old – too risky). But look, Canon has a 70-200 f/4, that sits inbetween, price wise. Lost sale to Nikon, two lost sales actually… Camera and lens and maybe flash.

      16-35, 24-120, ?-?, 200-400, 500, 600. A 70-200 f/4 VR, makes the f/4 line up complete.

      • WoutK89

        200-400/2.8 and 500 or 600/2.8 – Too big and heavy to produce (see Sigma’s 200-500/2.8 lens), and that is if you want same sharpness similar to what you have now in the f/4 lens. So actually these lenses are not just f/4 for f/4, but for the reason that they are easier and more practical to produce and sell.

        In my eyes if you like the versatility of zoom, the 200-400/4.0 is part of the 14-24 / 24-70 / 70-200 lens line, and doesnt need 4.0 partners. So there is no gap between the 24-120 and the 200-400.

        • Emanuele

          I have 16-35, 24-120 and I’m waiting for years a 70-200 f4 to complete my bag.

          • WoutK89

            But you dont own the 200-400, so you can not say if you “miss” the gap? You just want something longer with f/4, and why not 70-250/4.0 for instance?

    • Doyle Hargraves

      Fair question. A real professional that makes a living with his gear would have no problem justifying the extra cost of the 2.8 Nikkor at US $2400. A hobbyist though would likely give up the 1 stop for reduced size, weight, & cost, assuming the optics are decent.

      • karl

        …and for every Pro photographer, there are about 50-100 amateurs… it’s ridiculously obvious that a 70-200 f4 lens for a grand will outsell a 70-200 f2.8 for two grands by a factor of 10 at least.

  • LarryC

    “..and is every bit as sharp…” is pretty big “if”.

    Also, in my experience, many lenses are “better” when closed down at least 1 stop from their limit. So, while is may be possible both lens will be equally good at f/8, there is a reasonable likelihood that the 70-200 will likely out perform the Tokina at f/4 and maybe 5.6.

    • Hmm. Maybe I’m missing it, but I don’t see the logic that one 70-200 will perform better at F/4 simply because it CAN go lower. The 50/1.8G performs as good as the 50/1.4D at 1.8, even though the 50/1.4 CAN go lower..


    • jastereo

      “there is a reasonable likelihood that the 70-200 will likely out perform the Tokina at f/4 and maybe 5.6”

      And it probably should for 2300$ – but given the relative IQ of the lenses that Tokina has been putting out it will probably be very very good at f/4 and excellent at f/5.6 for probably 800-1000$ (less than half the cost of the new Nikon).

      If that littlest bit of difference is a factor for you, then it’s probably not for you. For a ton of other people who don’t “really” need the f/2.8 (hobbyist, parents shooting soccer in broad daylight, landscape, hikers, etc) it will be a very welcome choice. Basically, all the same reasons Nikon should have a smaller/lighter 70-200 f4.

      I would have loved having the option a few years ago to go along with my excellent (and very sharp) Tokina 12-24 f/4.

  • Stuart

    If the price is tempting enough this could be my first tokina.

  • shadowfoto


  • YES! I’m planning a long hiking trip in Peru and I was dreading taking my monster Nikkor 70-200 VR I at over 3 lbs. Just yesterday I was drooling over the Canon shooters option of the 70-200 F/4 which weights half as much as the Nikon or Canon 2.8 versions. As long as its not more than around $1000, they’ve got at least one buyer.

  • FX DX

    I have 70-200 Nikon, but if I were in the market for this focal length range now, I would seriously consider this one. Hoping this will be around or less than $1000.

    New Non-Pro FX Dream Team. Great and affordable:
    Nikon 16-35 f/4
    50mm f/1.8 AFS-G
    Tokina 70-200 f/4

    • Tokina 17-35 F4
      Nikkor 50 F1.8 G
      Tokina 70-200 F4 VR

      • CamaMan

        Jao Željko, uz toliku uštedevinu još kupujes objektive za nas siromahe…
        Sram te bilo…:-)

  • Tokina’s 1m minimum focusing distance is fantastic and very attractive, assuming it can focus that close throughout its zoom range. I can’t use Nikon’s 70-200 for portraits done in living rooms because the minimum focusing distance is too far away. Have to use my 18-200mm DX lens in such situations.

    • photdog

      A real bad thing about Nikon tele is at least some go wider at the nearest focal distance: the 70-200 goes back to about 170mm and the 28-300 goes even back to 130mm
      Canon goes opposite direction with the 70-200: it goes longer which I like much better

  • This certainly could be interesting. The key thing is its going to have to cost less than or similar to a used 70-200 2.8 VR1.

  • No idea where this lens will be priced, seems like people are throwing around $1K. Given that price, I would prefer the Nikon 80-200 f/2.8 it doesn’t have VR but it’s a stop faster which to me is the better option.

    • rhlpetrus

      But it’s kind of slow for action, isn’t it?

      • It’s better for action than a VR type lens at f/4. You need faster shutter speeds, and the way to get that is to crank the ISO up or use a larger aperture. I’ll take the f/2.8 lens any day.

  • Aldo

    To Admin: Please tell me if I’m wrong, but I think this is the first Tokina lens with image stabilization right? If so, this lens is important just because of that. Lets remember that Nikon and Sigma are at court right now because of patents over Nikon’s VR system. So, I’m guessing Tokina’s approach to stabilization would be a new system developed from scratch.

    • WoutK89

      And it will be the second lens with the silent motor if I am not mistaken (I am not counting the built-in motor version lenses, they are not silent)

      • WoutK89

        Ok, correct that, the 16-28/2.8 had this as well. And the 17-35/4.0 will probably too (as it is also soon to be released). So 4 lenses will have this motor.

  • As a recent convert from Canon to Nikon, I’ll say that Canon’s 70-200 f/4L IS was THE lens that almost kept me from switching. I owned the 70-200 f/2.8L IS, the 70-200 f/4L IS, and Sigma’s 120-300 f/2.8, and I extensively used Canon’s 70-200 f/2.8L IS II. When I was traveling or shooting skiing, climbing, or other outdoor action sport, I would invariably grab the f/4 version due to its compact shape and light weight. It fits in a smaller backpack and I can carry it all day at high altitude with all my other backcountry gear. It was sharper than the 70-200 2.8 Mark I, sharper at equal apertures than the copies of the Mark II I used, and sharper than the Sigma. I really hope Nikon produces a 70-200 f/4 VR in the near future.

    • LeGo

      Interesting observation there.

      Friends who own both said that the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II was finally the equal of the Canon 70-200mm f/4 IS at the same aperture setting.

      There will be a good cause for celebration if a Tokina or a Nikon equivalent is finally made that can match the price, performance and weight/length of the Canon 70-200mm f/4 IS.

  • AM

    I got my Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8 VRII last year when [NR] broke the news of Nikon’s new pricing policy. I was able to save $300 thanks to [NR]. I’d never change my Nikkor for a Tokina f/4.

  • Fabian Gonzales

    About time! Eight years I have been waiting for this lens. This would have been perfect for DX. Now that I’m moving to full-frame, less so. But still welcome.

    I wonder what took 3rd party manufacturers so long?

    Nikon really, really failed on this. In general Nikon is pretty fail when it comes to updating their lenses.

  • jorg

    nice one, tokina!

  • Steve

    It will be a killer if its under $1k.

    70-300 f/5.6 VR: MSRP $589.95
    70-200 f/2.8 VR: MSRP $2399.95
    80-200 f/2.8 non-VR: MSRP $1224.95

  • ghfgfd

    i need a 800 1.8 :-O

  • ghiost


  • rhlpetrus

    Tokina knows about D800 … 😉

  • What a catastrophic waste of money!

  • CamaMan

    Lol! To bad Nikon didn’t patent the colors and the look it uses on the lenses.
    I mean if people can be sued just for making photos “similar” to a copyrighted photo why not protect a lens look.

  • PeterO

    Wow – D800 under 3000 Euros? This is getting interesting!

  • RondoX

    You know…

    I really HATE when something like this is announced and everyone starts bashing just simply to justify and defend what they already own.

    Does anyone remember the Tokina 50-135mm 2.8? That was the best built telephoto for $500 period. Tokina for me always meant quality and value. Nikon’s consumer grade lenses don’t even compare.

    No one is going to sell their 70-200 VR II for this lens. But if the price and weight is right, they may leave it at home.

  • broxibear

    Nikon D800 : Chasseur d’Images breaks the news and stop rumors ?…
    “Nikon has invited a bunch of journalists worldwide to a press event on Febr 7th. A press event widely relayed by leaks on rumors websites. Everybody expects that day to be the release date of the delayed D800 we almost got to announce in September. Nikon rcently came up with new new NDA rules (a bit silly by the way when you read the rumors that have been spreading these past months and that seem to be confirmed….). My colleagues at Chasseur d’Images, Guy-Michel and Ronan are not happy AT ALL. Their magazine is powerful and they decided to break the news and stop the silly rumors once for all. Here are the main specs of the D800 according to the magazine.”

    • broxibear

      Here’s the Chasseur d’Images link (French),146552.0.html

      • Myl3s

        Yea, I cam across this earlier today. I think It’s garbage, had sent a link to peter and hasn’t posted anything so I’m assuming he does as well.

        The first link is terrible, they mis-translated all kinds of stuff, much more enlightening to google translate the french page — and I think they’re actually bitching that they haven’t been given a sample model before the announcement; so they decided to release what they THINK they know about it. Really no new information, just confirmation of what we already knew, maybe with the exception of talking about AF and how it’s the same as d4, which I’m suspect of.

        • broxibear

          Hi Myl3s,
          The guys at Chasseur d’Images have been pretty reliable with other leaks and information, I’ve no reason not to believe the article and the Nikon NDA situation. I don’t think Reponses Magazine will be releasing their magazine before the Nikon announcement…bet they got an interesting phonecall from Nikon HQ a few weeks ago lol ?

    • BTW, this is not the first time Chasseur d’Images leaks information before the official announcement. And how is this information “official” if they can no longer get press releases in advance. The specs are the same as I reported them here few months ago.

      • broxibear

        There’s nothing new about the D800 left to leak Peter except the price ?…we could start a rumour lol ?
        ***BREAKING NEWS***
        D800 to have two XQD card slots !!!

        • Ken Elliott

          Really? Mine has only one, next to the eSATAp SSD.

          • broxibear

            The XQD slots are underneath Ken, right next to the “Made In China” logo.

        • I hope so

          If the D800 does have 2 XQD slots, I for one will purchase immediately.

      • DX2FX

        Now is the rear LCD screen 3″ …. or 3.2″ ?

      • Myl3s

        What did they leak, I remember they had leaked something significant, like 1 or d7000? and they’re pissed the didn’t get a sample model, well go figure. And needless to say this isn’t helping things between them and nikon. Stupid.

      • rhlpetrus

        I think the fact that it follows most of D4’s new features is worthy news. And nice that Nikon is doing that and not crippling D800 to protect D4, even if they already look quite different just because of sensor. But it’s true, most basic features are exactly what you had from the start. KUTGW!

        Now: anything else that we still don’t know?

  • broxibear

    Oops, sorry PeterO and why?…you’re post didn’t show up when I posted below.

  • Back to top