Jwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 21 Reply 4, posted (7 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 2593 times:
Ingemar, I've also seen a test in a Dutch magazine where they tested the 28-70 AF-S and 80-200 AF-S against the Tamron 28-200 Mk II.
The Tamron came out on top by a wide margin...
The reasoning was simple: the Tamron is cheaper, lighter, and smaller, and you never have to switch lenses.
The optics were never taken into consideration at all.
That same issue had 2 fullpage ads for Tamron, they'd not carried a single ad of any size for Nikon in almost a year.
Not saying the Tokina isn't a good lens, but I've seen enough incredibly bad reviews to not place much confidence in them.
For wideangles especially I'd always go for Nikon. They are the kings in wideangle lens design.
Tokina are probably good seconds, a group of Nikon lens designers leaving the company to start their own must have some expertise
Jwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 21 Reply 6, posted (7 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 2563 times:
cheeky? Sure. But I'm no bugger
Personally I've lost my soul to prime Nikkors. If I were looking for a very short lens for a DSLR I'd look no further than the 10.5mm DX Nikkor.
Sure it's a fisheye, but that would make it distintly different from the 20 and 35mm Nikkors I already have...
If I had a requirement for something that's not a wideangle I'd go for the 14mm Nikkor instead if I had the money.
For the money I can see how a magazine would call the Tokina the better buy compared to the Nikkor based on value for money.
At half the price and probably close to 90% the optical quality it's a steal.
And I must say I absolutely love my Tokina 28-70 f/2.6-2.8 AT-X Pro. It's an excellent lens and I see no reason to replace it with the equivalent Nikkor even if I'd nothing better to do with €1500 (compared to the good 300 I paid for the Tokina, bought it discounted when it was discontinued).