Tokina 24-70mm f/2.8 FX Lens Officially Announced & Coming in August

[dpc]

I guess no one has seen an MTF chart? I ask because at $1,000, this lens better be about as sharp as the Canon 24-70 II, otherwise the price difference isn't really big enough to justify it. If their design was close to as good as the Canon, I'd imagine they'd be trumpeting that during the launch. Hope I'm wrong.

You can get a Tamron 24-70 with vibration compensation for between 1,000 and 1,300 (the prices are more variable on this lens than most), and a good copy is pretty good. Used to own it.

If the new Tokina's image quality isn't quite a match for the Tamron, they're going to need to discount it down to <$800.

If you're comparing this lens to the Canon 24-70 f/4 perhaps. The Canon 24-70 f/2.8 II is twice as much, at least where I live.

 

[dpc]

I've owned two Tokina lenses, the original 11-16 and the 35mm macro. I found both to be excellent optically and very well constructed as well as being reasonably priced. I still have and use the 11-16 on my crop body when I'm traveling with only one camera. I gave the 35 to my son. I'm not sure I'd buy this new lens since I already have the Canon 24-105L. I know there's an advantage to the 2.8 but I'm not sure this would be a deciding factor for me. I don't really care whether it has IS or not. If the image quality is good enough, however, I might change my mind and swap the 24-105 out.

Be careful, a 24-70 and a 24-105 are different animals. I sold my 24-70 f/2.8L after I used my 24-105L for a while. The 24-105 was the winner in the sharpness and range department with the IS making up some of the loss of light going from f/2.8 to f/4. The 24-105 is also a fabulous travel-lens. When I need something with shallower DOF or more low-light capability, I go for a 35mm f/1.4. S in short I don't care much for the limited zoom range of a 24-70 and much rather use a prime instead.

True enough. It's unlikely I'll get rid of my 24-105. I do find I seldom use it. I tend more to the wide angle, macro and telephoto. Still, it's a great lens for general shooting and the aperture range is certainly better.

 

[Matthew Saville]

I live down the street from Tokina's USA HQ, and communicate with them directly for lens reviews. I am told that this 24-70 has indeed been tested against both the latest 24-70's from Canon and Nikon, and it is equal or better.

IMO, this lens doesn't compete with the Tamron as much as it competes directly with the Canon and Nikon; considering the plastic construction of the Tamron and the sub-par sharpness that becomes quite apparent when shot on a AA-less 36 MP sensor. (I know you Canon folks are just now getting the 5DsR, but I've been seeing D800e / D810 images from the Tamron for a while now and I'm not very impressed.)

Suffice it to say, that with 52 MP on the horizon for many landscape and studio shooters, (both who don't care about stabilization 90% of the time) ...Tokina's reputation for extremely sharp lenses of robust quality is going to hopefully shine through in this case.