Need Help with Tokina 300mm 2.8

tflak

tflak

Veteran
Have an opportunity to buy a Tokina AT-X 300 SD (Nikon) - it's the old manual focus version of this 300mm 2.8 prime. Weighs a ton, but I've seen the lens and shot some footage with it. Very sharp lens, but I'm not used to a lens of this focal length and was surprised by the extremely shallow DoF, even at high apertures. The far hyperfocal distances really threw me too. But I guess all this is to be expected with a 300mm lens.

It's in mint condition with all the original filters. The owner was originally asking $1,000 for it but has since come down to $300. I'm tempted. Anyone familiar with this lens? What do you think - worth $300? Thanks.
 
Thanks - that's what I'm thinking too because I've physically checked it out for all the things you'd normally look at in a used lens and it's cherry. And the footage I shot looks great. Plus all the reviews I've read are stellar, although they're all for a later version that introduced autofocus (same model #). So that's why I'm thinking I must be missing something inherently wrong with this lens version, etc. that maybe someone else may know about. Because $300 seems really low.

Should mention that I have the new 100-300 on pre-order, but it's 5.6 at 300mm compared to 2.8. The Tokina is heavy, no autofocus and no OIS - still - 2.8 for $300!
 
Last edited:
I really love Tokina AT-X lenses. They are build like a tanks.
Most probably your grandson will be shooting with it. Right at a time then you'll try to explain that "Panasonic" not always had been cheap subsidiary of HunWuyBi Industries. :-)
Go for this lens.
 
For $300, I'd run you over to get it... If it's in decent condition, the $1k he wanted originally is a good deal.
 
Yeah have you priced a modern 300mm f/2.8? $300 would be a good deal even if the lens was pretty messed up! A 100-300 f/5.6+ zoom is in no way and ought not even be talked about in the same sentence as a 300mm f/2.8 - completely different animals. How useful a 300/2.8 will be for you depends on what you shoot, but you can't pass it up for $300.
 
Thanks guys! Bought it!

Forgot to mention it also has the original lens hood, case and leather pouch - all in great condition. Sweet!
 
I was almost going to pull the trigger on something similar a few weeks back but nowhere near that price.

Sounds like a great deal...I'm interested to see how it will compare with the 100-300mm pana as well (shooting surf photos/ action sports stuff)

I just scored a Tamron Popular 500mm F8, beast of a lens but for $25 a cool toy. (not a mirror lens it's huge..from maybe circa 1970??)

You really need solid sticks to shoot without the O.I.S at that length, I still have the training wheels on right now with video.

It shoots ok still's but haven't had enough good light to really give it a good test.



Oh yeah back on topic.....


BUY IT NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
thisisapocalypse said:
Yeah have you priced a modern 300mm f/2.8? $300 would be a good deal even if the lens was pretty messed up! A 100-300 f/5.6+ zoom is in no way and ought not even be talked about in the same sentence as a 300mm f/2.8 - completely different animals. How useful a 300/2.8 will be for you depends on what you shoot, but you can't pass it up for $300.
Click to expand...
Just for reference, an Olympus 300/f2.8 SHG lens is a $7K special order beast. 70-300/4-5.6 is $399. The difference is not only two extra stops of light, but likely a superior image quality.

I think pulling manual focus wide open on such a long lens will be quite a challenge, especially on somewhat fast-moving subjects, but you couldn't go wrong for $300 :)
 
svecher said:
I think pulling manual focus wide open on such a long lens will be quite a challenge, especially on somewhat fast-moving subjects, but you couldn't go wrong for $300 :)
Click to expand...

These kinds of comments always make me smile. And other old timers too I would suppose. Watch any football games from the mid 1980s or earlier. And you'll see a throng of photogs with manual focus bodies like F3s, AE1-Ps, etc., using 300mm F2.8 lenses. If you were a pro, you had one. Period. Most of the best sports photographs from this era were shot on 300mm 2.8s and we thought nothing of it. :)
 
;-) But it is not easy :-)
I have Tokina AT-X 100-300mm and many other manual lenses and on SLR you generally need good focusing screen (not the default one coming on DSLRs).
In GH1 it is esear, but only to degree. Slow frame rate during zoom and rolling shutter make it hard to focus sometimes.
Well se real resolution as soon as sensor will be able to pull full picture at 120fps (or at least 60spf).
But it requires another few years :-)
 
I am crushed because my Canon FD 135mm f1.8 is only 270mm at f3.6 with the Canon FD 2X-B teleconvertor. :embarasse

Congrats on your purchase!
 
PerroneFord said:
These kinds of comments always make me smile. And other old timers too I would suppose. Watch any football games from the mid 1980s or earlier. And you'll see a throng of photogs with manual focus bodies like F3s, AE1-Ps, etc., using 300mm F2.8 lenses. If you were a pro, you had one. Period. Most of the best sports photographs from this era were shot on 300mm 2.8s and we thought nothing of it. :)
Click to expand...
Well, back in film days (photo) I started with manual focus cameras. Heck, one even had to "manually" advance the next frame and set exposure according to "manual" rules - normal daylight: F/8, shutter speed = ~ISO rating of film; very sunny +1 EV, overcast -1EV and so on. Used some tele glass, but not for "action" and not this long/bright. Yeah, so I have a lot of respect for the "old timers" who could/still can pull it off, especially when shooting movies :)
 
sydsurferguy said:
I was almost going to pull the trigger on something similar a few weeks back but nowhere near that price.

Sounds like a great deal...I'm interested to see how it will compare with the 100-300mm pana as well (shooting surf photos/ action sports stuff)

I just scored a Tamron Popular 500mm F8, beast of a lens but for $25 a cool toy. (not a mirror lens it's huge..from maybe circa 1970??)

You really need solid sticks to shoot without the O.I.S at that length, I still have the training wheels on right now with video.

It shoots ok still's but haven't had enough good light to really give it a good test.

Oh yeah back on topic.....

BUY IT NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Whoops just saw your post..cool can't wait to see some results...congrats....lucky s.o.b....lol
Click to expand...

Thanks! Am really stoked about having this lens. Hope to have some footage soon and will be sure to share. Most likely going to be wildlife stuff rather than action sports - even for the 100-300.

That Tamron's got to be a bear - how can you go wrong for $25, right? What's it weigh?

Definitely going to slap the Tokina on some solid sticks. See this as more of an in-place lens rather than a walk-around for sure. Shooting things like entrance to a fox den, nests, etc.

Should be fun!

svecher said:
Just for reference, an Olympus 300/f2.8 SHG lens is a $7K special order beast. 70-300/4-5.6 is $399. The difference is not only two extra stops of light, but likely a superior image quality.

I think pulling manual focus wide open on such a long lens will be quite a challenge, especially on somewhat fast-moving subjects, but you couldn't go wrong for $300 :)
Click to expand...

As you point out, I got a great deal. Not sure I could even focus on fast moving subjects at this point. Will take lots of practice. Probably end up using this lens for more static subjects that require a faster lens than the 100-300.

PerroneFord said:
These kinds of comments always make me smile. And other old timers too I would suppose. Watch any football games from the mid 1980s or earlier. And you'll see a throng of photogs with manual focus bodies like F3s, AE1-Ps, etc., using 300mm F2.8 lenses. If you were a pro, you had one. Period. Most of the best sports photographs from this era were shot on 300mm 2.8s and we thought nothing of it. :)
Click to expand...

After having used this lens for just a short time, I have a ton of respect for anyone who could manual focus with these lenses for sports. Amazing what you can do and get used to when there's no other choice. It's an art for sure.

Vitaliy Kiselev said:
;-) But it is not easy :-)
I have Tokina AT-X 100-300mm and many other manual lenses and on SLR you generally need good focusing screen (not the default one coming on DSLRs).
In GH1 it is esear, but only to degree. Slow frame rate during zoom and rolling shutter make it hard to focus sometimes.
Well se real resolution as soon as sensor will be able to pull full picture at 120fps (or at least 60spf).
But it requires another few years :-)
Click to expand...

Hopefully, the AF100's focus on color will help here. Also have a Z-Finder for the GH1 and I find that the extra magnification coupled with blocking out light helps too.

Having handled this lens, your comment about having something my grandson might even shoot with someday was right on in terms of the quality being good enough to last that long. Sadly, with the speed of how things change these days he'd be more likely to display it as some type of amusing relic. But that's okay too. As long as it doesn't end up in some dumpster. But I taught my kids to respect quality so, hopefully, that wouldn't happen.

Thanks again to everyone who commented and helped me out. I'm a very happy guy! :D
 
lpowell said:
I am crushed because my Canon FD 135mm f1.8 is only 270mm at f3.6 with the Canon FD 2X-B teleconvertor. :embarasse

Congrats on your purchase!
Click to expand...

Thanks! Now just think about what that Canon could do with the new extra tele conversion feature!
 
svecher said:
Well, back in film days (photo) I started with manual focus cameras. Heck, one even had to "manually" advance the next frame and set exposure according to "manual" rules - normal daylight: F/8, shutter speed = ~ISO rating of film; very sunny +1 EV, overcast -1EV and so on. Used some tele glass, but not for "action" and not this long/bright. Yeah, so I have a lot of respect for the "old timers" who could/still can pull it off, especially when shooting movies :)
Click to expand...

Yeah, yeah..."Why, I used to walk six miles to school through four foot drifts!" Haha...some of us are getting a little old aren't we? But, seriously, I think it's great to remember the past and recall those "good old days" - helps keep things in perspective. I have some good stories about the early days of desktop video that the younger set just rolls their eyes at; wondering why in the world anyone would even bother!
 
stonebat said:
Congrats tflak. Now send your actors to the moon. I bet you can record footage from earth :)
Click to expand...

Haha - probably not too far fetched - especially with the extra tele conversion function. Man, I really can't wait to take that for a spin. Should be interesting to say the least.
 
Just thought I'd share some stuff I finally shot with that Tokina AT-X 300mm f/2.8 you guys helped me decide to buy. Certainly money well spent.

This is GH13 footage of a hawk having lunch on my patio fence shot from inside my place through a sliding glass door at a distance of around 30 feet. Unfortunately, couldn't reposition the camera to get rid of the door frame on the right side. Just happened to walk into the room, noticed the hawk and was able to crawl on my belly over to the camera (on tripod), reach up and turn it on without him seeing me.



And this is the same lens testing out the overcranking on my AF100. Have been so busy messing with this camera that I haven't really done much with the GH2's ETC mode yet.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top