Tamron and Tokina at the 2012 CP+ show in Yokohama, Japan

Pin It
Tokina's Stabilized 70-200 F4 lens

Tokina's Stabilized 70-200 f/4 lens

A quick hands-on report on the new Tokina 70-200mm f/4 lens by Psycho_McCrazy:

About the Tokina 70-200 F4 Stabilized: based on what the person who was at the booth said, it will probably be released later in the summer (August Maybe), at a price of 100000 Yen in Japan. Now I am not sure whether this will be a list price, or actual market price. International prices were not fixed as yet. Also, the Yen price translates to ~1300$ US if I use current exchange rates. But the actual pricing may vary - don't take my word as final.

Tamron's Stabilised 24-70-2.8, No word on pricing or availability date

Tamron's Stabilised 24-70-2.8, No word on pricing or availability date

Above images are by Psycho_McCrazy, the rest by Jeff Chen:

Tamron and Tokina at the 2012 CP+ show in Yokohama Japan

Tamron and Tokina at the 2012 CP+ show in Yokohama Japan

Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 lens at the CP+ show

Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 lens at the CP+ show

This entry was posted in Tamron, Tokina and tagged . Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • Harold Ellis

    wasn’t the main idea of “third party”, that it is cheaper, acceptably good alternative?
    did they got the memo?

  • lorenzino

    Too expensive. I may well spend something more and get the Nikon 70-200 2.8, at least I am sure it is top quality with no compromises (although heavier, but that Tokina does not look light either…)

  • http://www.flickr.com/genotypewriter genotypewriter
    • http://www.split.hr/Default.aspx Željko Kerum

      Listed price in Japan are always 40-50% higher than actual ones.

      Fluorite glass? Is that a reason why NASA can’ use Canon, instability?

      • http://www.flickr.com/genotypewriter genotypewriter

        NASA’s not using Nikon for high resolution imaging or their lenses. It’s most likely for the easy access to low light.

        Also you might want to get your hands on Canon’s super teles and compare them to Nikon’s aging “equivalents”. Canon wipes the floor with them. I’m of course speaking from hands-on experience ;)

        • http://www.split.hr/Default.aspx Željko Kerum

          Canon super-teles, phantom MkII super-teles? I dont’ even seen them but they probably introduce them because current ones sucks compared to Nikkors.

          • http://www.flickr.com/genotypewriter genotypewriter

            You don’t sound like you have used either the Canon ones or the Nikon ones lol

          • http://www.split.hr/Default.aspx Željko Kerum

            You are obvious a Canon fanboy. ”Everything with red ring is better.” hahahaha

  • joytek311

    I am amazed that people don’t mind going to Yokohama given that it has a nuclear radiation level of the area around the Chernobyl NPP:

    http://fukushima-diary.com/2012/02/7-microsvh-in-yokohama/

    I love electronics and digital photography, but I would NEVER get anywhere near that place … the radiation there is totally out of control, and I wonder if any of the new products produced after the meltdowns at Fukushma will be found having higher rad readings?!

    I got my geiger counter ready next time I will be buying any gear made in Japan … and that is not just being paranoid … there was a story about a shipment of brand new Japanese cars being forbidden entry into Russia due to very high rad levels having been detected by customs … this is only bound to get worse I fear …

    Is anyone else worried about this … or is everyone just blissfully unaware of the true extent of the nuclear crisis we are facing?

    check out this site for an up-to-date news stream of the nuclear disaster STILL unfolding in Japan: http://www.enenews.com

    • Harold Ellis

      then never fly either. only flight to japan would give you about 100x dosis of radioactivity then being there for a week

      • joytek311

        your statement is not correct since it does not take into account your exposure to radioactive dust and food one is bound to ingest while staying in Japan … all you focus on is the radiation exposure that is over when one leaves the place … but what about the hundreds of thousands of hot particles that will be lodged in yur lungs and gut for possibly years after constantly irradiating the few surrounding cells and quite likely eventually leading to cancer and other diseases … and what about the radioactive Cesium and Strontium being integrated into your muscles and bones for a LONG time after your trip … these are PERSISTENT and INTERNAL sources of radiation that do have a terribly profound effect even once one is away …

        judging by your bad spelling I am assuming that you are one of those who is hired by the Japanese authorities to comb the web for “negative” comments about the nuclear mess and to “shoot down” these comments with the standard:
        “It is like an airplane ride” or “It is like eating a banana” … well no it is not, but hey time will prove me right on this one.

        • lorenzino

          Well, you look like a troll, don’t you? And your info is partial at best.
          Now, Japanese authorities are not being clear on radiation levels: fact. There may be risks for people who live in Japan (like me): fact.
          BUT: there are hundred non-governative agencies now monitoring the status of the air (wind, dust, etc.) in Japan, and in the area near Tokyo the situation is absolutely under control.
          Food is a different thing, as it is impossible to monitor everything every moment.
          All this, however, has NOTHING to do with cameras.
          What is your point in posting here, exactly?

  • Martin

    hmmm, photos are nice – but what about size, weight? i mean, to settle with f/4 it should be small and light, at least.

    • lorenzino

      It does not look like…

    • ToddH

      I agree, f/4 does not sound appealing. I’d take bets it settles around $750-800 once the hype dies. f/4 is good for outside, but i keep my 70-200 on 2.8, because i really love the separation i get from the long focal length+large aperture, shooting day or night.
      come on Tokina!! you make quality built lenses, now make the ones we want to buy!!

  • Craig

    US$1,300 is what I gave for a new, image stabilized Sigma 70-200 f2.8 last year.

    I purchased that lens because many reviews put it very close in quality to the Nikon which is a US$1,ooo more.

    In view of what I wrote above, the new Tamron is over priced, and not by a little.

    • Harold Ellis

      then try nikon, you will be surprised.
      100% of world sigma reviews are done after sigma sends them FREE sample. Shops get about 30% margin (in Germany) on all Sigma stuff, so they are likely to recommend it to you as well. Nikon have here only 4-10% for retail.

  • Rover

    Tokina 16-28/2.8 had MSRP of $1400, then showed up on B&H for $850. I hope this pattern remains for the telezoom…

  • bob2

    If I shot Canon, I’d just stay with the Canon version, both for its known quality and for resale value (TP lens used prices often fall off a cliff);

    As for Nikon, there is the used (and relatively inexpensive) Nikkor AF 70-210mm f/4 from around 1990. Slow AF, needs body with AF motor. Can usually be had for under $200. Somewhat low contrast wide open, but a decent performer. There, I just save you over $1,000. :-)

  • Back to top