This Rare Lens Has an EXPENSIVE Secret... (Tokina 28-70mm f/2.6-2.8)

[@volante8657]

Tamron 28-75 is famous at that time because of how cost-effective it was, but for every other perspective, Tokina is always king(excluding the Nikon 28-70) That's why after I sold my first one 10 years ago because of a bent lens barrel, I bought a second copy again

[@tonypmedia]

I have TWO of these lenses... they ARE tack sharp especially right at F4 and down to around F8. Soft does not mean "not as sharp" and "pristine" is only a factor of creative detail. To me based on your video it's pristine according to the look and feel. The glass on these lenses are excellent and tbh for film, I prefer that softer look but I have this backed behind my Sony camera and it's really tack sharp(and clear) when you adjust the crisping and detail level then add the right gamma and curve. I don't like everything to have that razor/moiré like effect on my images especially on human subjects. I got two because I found one I already had but a little dusty on the inside and bought one on ebay that's more fresh. You actually can get that sharp look with the lens, gotta work it but for the most part it's on purpose not a 2024 Sigma art totally tack sharp lens, but it's sharp. You have two ways to bump that to. Great video my guy.

[@oddtechman]

yeah they come in at around £200 + postage costs here in the uk.. but they only seem to be available with nikkon f mount for some reason. nice video and thanks for sharing!

[@zaymax_7]

They're available in a lot of other mounts, but only nikon f mount will give you the aperture ring, which is what you'll really need in vintage lenses

[@dark-california]

There are also the Pentax mount versions Get either of both and an adapter

[@tonybaker55]

I have the Tokina ATX Pro 28-80 f2.8 and that too is an amazing lens. Got mine for £116 in mint condition a few months ago. This lens also has a soft look at F2.8-f4, but certainly sharpens up after that. CA is also a bit of a problem, but easily fixed.

[@unbroken1010]

I would call " the soft look" something that's done on purpose

[@Sup90210]

Every lens is soft wide open and improves when stopped down.

[@troy3456789]

@@Sup90210 I think it's opposite of that. Stopping down increases lines of confusion while increasing dof.

[@corkscrewww]

我有个f2.6-2.8版本的，不知道和f2.8版本的镜头有什么区别😂

[@TheJ_G]

Sounds like your copy needs an internal cleaning. I have the same angenieux version of the lens but it’s not hazy at all. It’s not hyper sharp, but it’s also not what I would consider soft either.

[@marcp.1752]

There have been at least three different versions of this Tokina 28-70, and i've had them all. F2.6-F2.8 was soft, never the same like CaNikon 28-70/2.8 lenses, go figure. The original one was based onto the Angenieux lens design, but what gives? People hype it with clickbait like the holy grail, which it isn't. It's a decades old, optical lens design. I shoot for almost 4 decades, just saying.

[@Mme.Swisstella]

Just saying what?

[@bryanbarajasBB]

Now a video with various anamorphic adapters and ISCO on this lens😁👍

[@FoxTailWhipz]

I'd love to get my hands on some anamorphic adapters soon!

[@leeevans1874]

Had 3 for 15 years , before any vintage FB groups got sniff off it , they cost me 35 each . Fortunately the early blackmagic groups had folk looking for glass to cover the early small sensors and those fellas had lots of vintage searching , this was tip off from there .

[@Digi20]

An interesting alternative might be the old tamron 28-75 2.8 - looking at my old photos with it the character wide open is very similar. the bokeh looks completely different to a modern lens and contrast wide open is definitely muted. its usable sharp but in the center but never tack sharp. its readily available (here in germany for ~150€ but can be had even cheaper), has a manual focus (but rather short throw) ring with hard stops and with the canon EF version you can adapt it to basically any camera. its a bit plasticy though and the tube will not like heavy matte boxes attached to it.

[@PeterMKent]

I also have and love this lens, I got it way back when the 5DIII came out and have used it over the years on the 7D, 5DII, 5DIII, BmPCC, GH4, GH5, BmP4K and now he X-T3. It's now my longest owned zoom lens, I've had the Canon 17-55/2.8 IS and 70-200/2.8L IS II, Nikkor 17-55/2.8 and 70-200/2.8, Tokina 14-20/2, and Sigma 18-35/1.8 and 50-100/1.8 along with a set of Samyang 1.5s and various EF primes but I keep coming back to this unique image and I know this is a lens I'll never sell.

[@jdsmedia]

Its a great lens. The softness might be only on those 2.6-2.8 versions. I have the fixed f2.8 version and its sharp even at f2.8. Its been my main lens for a while now, best lens you can get for the money imo.

[@troy3456789]

I thought it might be the coatings causing that soft focus; but that doesn't make sense if the 2.8 is sharper.

[@MannyScoot]

I used this lens for many years and it's a lovely piece of glass...... I use for wide now a Tokina opera 16-28mm f/2.8 FF .....

[@wakkowarner8810]

Wow! They made a good cinema zoom for Nikon. Nice!

[@satan5259]

I'm not sure you addressed the "this is why" part of the title. There are like multiple tens of these on eBay right now from $150 to 300, primarily in Japan for Minolta A, Nikon F, and Canon EF mounts. They ship internationally. Your content is clearly great and capable of standing on it's own two feet without resorting to exaggeration or cliffhangers on the title. For anyone interested, I would also recommend the Nikon F version of this lens as it comes with manual aperture control. Parfocality is finicky to achieve and requires either an exact adapter flange distance, or shimming/finessing/adjustment. Bad adapter = drifting focus and no parfocality. Cheers

[@iamchristianconcha]

what adapter did you recommend?

[@satan5259]

@@iamchristianconcha I can't recommend any simple adapter as I only bought an Urth one and I had to shim it by approx 0.7mm to get near-parfocality. Based on this Urth prolly got it wrong so idk if I would recommend them. If you'd ask about a speedbooster adapter, I had good luck adjusting the Viltrox Nikon F to MFT speedbooster to achieve near-parfocality with this lens. Very happy with it, as adjusting it is by design + easy, unlike shimming the Urth which is a DIY job.

[@iamchristianconcha]

@@satan5259 how tall is your urth adapter now?

[@satan5259]

@@iamchristianconcha It was around 26.2mm before shimming, the difference between Nikon F and MFT flange distance should be 27.25mm. I believe my shim was around 0.7mm tall, so it's approx 26.9-27.0mm tall now with the shimming, which seems "close enough" is prolly not perfect. I don't have a digital caliper so some error in measurement is possible.

[@iamchristianconcha]

@@satan5259 oh , in my case I've a Lumix S5, so full frame , i think then is ok

[@inkusaido]

Got it in EF, not having access to aperture on the barrel kinda sucs

[@0800filmez]

Any thoughts on the Tokina 24-200 f/3.5-5.6? thanks

[@cedartreefilms9135]

Got one of these and have been testing it on my bmpcc og and sigma FP. It seems to be parfocal stopped down at f5.6. Also internal zoom is super awesome for using on gimbal or with a matte box. The Japanese version I got isn't labeled as f2.6-2.8 and is just labeled as f2.8 but there's ways to confirm it's the same as the US version. Softest wide open and at 70mm. Like unusable if you want any sharpness. But I really love the image out of it. Will be posting some tests on my channel coming up

[@chinmay5708]

Hey! Love your videos man, they’re really made well and keep me hooked all the way to the end. Keep up the good work! Cheers!

[@FoxTailWhipz]

Thank you so much!!

[@galogonzales6143]

Hello! Would like to hear some thoughts on this. Planning on buying the Tokina 28-80mm f2.8 EF version for my Canon R7 for filmmaking. One question, would the IBIS work well on this lens? I have a Yongnuo 35mm f2 prime lens which I can't use with IBIS as it jerks the image sensor as if I'm shooting during an earthquake. Looking at how nice the vintage look this lens has, my main issue would be if I couldn't use it while having IBIS on (I can't use digital image stabilizer without enabling IBIS which would also give me the same effect) as I mostly shoot handheld. This would probably be the deciding factor whether or not I buy the Tokina lens. Thanks!

[@Someone_Else1]

Thank you for your video. Does the lens change size when zooming in or out?

[@jovandevijver9400]

The Tokina 28-70 is constructed in different versions over time. The very first version (with the screwmount hood, in stead of the later bayonet) is an identically licensed version of the angenieux. And it is the same optical quality. All other versions are different, and definitely not as good.

[@lilomopon7804]

Hi, would it work without adapter on Nikon d3400 dx ?

[@FoxTailWhipz]

Yes it will as long as it has the Nikon mount!

[@josejimenez-ul5ze]

I found that pentax version lens. can i use it on my canon c100 with any adapter without problems?

[@oliverticalstudios]

Great video. Been looking for a rehousing company to convert my copy for awhile now. Haven’t had any luck until I ran across your channel. Is Simmod the company that did your modification?

[@rosrosyam1530]

i have this lens store in my dry box.. haven`t used it for awhile.

[@miketemos2727]

Hey man love the video!!! I have had this lens for about 8 years and have used it on the Canon 60D, C100 Mii, and GH5. It is pretty soft compared to something like my sigma 18-35, but I use it for filming skateboarding during the day. So typically I film around f5.6 or f8 if it’s high noon since I don’t need shallow depth of field on some tricks, plus I manually focus as well so makes that easier to nail 👍🏻

[@unbroken1010]

Nothing like cute down lows skaters 😂🤷

[@MartinYernazian]

its soft because you have fungus.

[@unbroken1010]

So is the C/ Y version the same formula but cheaper materials?

[@blsureshbabu5159]

Super

[@Sup90210]

It probably needs a CLA. Did you shine a flashlight in both ends and check to see if there’s haze and/or fungus?

[@georgeorwell6066]

I have this lens

[@rutger9241]

Hiya, awesome video! Can anybody tell me if there is a difference between the nikon and the sony a mount versions?

[@moldo.cel.barbos]

got an at-x pro sv Nikon mount of this lens. i honestly don't like it. have no idea what the differences are but would happily trade it for a 20mm AFD lens

[@ryanpelligrinelli]

I have this same lens. I'd say at 2.8 the lens is still extremely soft.

[@lukastjepanovic8760]

What EF adapter mount did you use?

[@JayGreezy]

i am NOT READY for people to call stuff from the 90s "vintage" fuck

[@MartinYernazian]

if this lens is soft to you I have bad news, you got fungus inside. I spent almost 2 years finding the best possible copy. I tested almost 30 different copies of this lens and all of them had fungus at different levels. Yours has fungus for sure, You can see it in the glares. That vintage look is alive and well... and growing. Also, there is very little proof that this is an Angenieux has anything to do with this lens. Lots of KZbinrs make shit up and made the lure of the Tokina and the Angenieux... I think there is a relation but there is no proof out there aside from a few sites making the claim. I think is a great lens regardless. Do a flashlight test you will most likely see it.

[@school1865]

Did you ever fid one without fungus if so was it somewhat sharp wide open?

[@rezjrprod]

​@@school1865 I bought a cheap one and just paid to get it cleaned. 75 bucks

[@mr.frandy7692]

damn these are cheap as hell. they're practically giving them away. nuts. gonna have to get one.

[@rlgamerboy1]

I’m having the first version..

[@bear_bull]

Nice review! Please show tests: raw eosM+speedbooster+this lens.

[@FoxTailWhipz]

I don't have a speedbooster but I linked a video in the description that was fully recorded with the EOS M and this lens!

[@_suryo_]

i have this lens. the f2.8 version. it’s indeed not clinical sharp. but i love this lens. mine is the 1st gen with metal glosssy body and screw hood (not bajonett lens hood mount) i choose the nikon mount and adapted it to EF mount because this lens is old and electronic parts might be difficult to get. the nikon version has aperture ring. I need only the optics and mechanics of this lens. not the electronic.

[@itsCarlosSanchez]

Which EF adapter did you get for it?

[@_suryo_]

@@itsCarlosSanchez I stack 2 adapters for this lens with my Lumix S1. a cheap nikon F to Canon EF adapter. and then a Sigma MC-21 to the Lumix S1 body. The Nikon F to Canon EF adapter is so thin, it's also very snug and doesn't easily come off. I have so far no issue regarding the mounting stability of this combo (lens and stacked adapters) to my camera. And also no issue with infinity focus.

[@angeloregidor]

I have the f2.8 SV version. Apparently SV stands for Special Value, I'd love to hear if anybody can elaborate on what exactly that means

[@unbroken1010]

It means it was financed by All the stolen biilions from Zelinsky. 😳

[@lumixg7152]

I own one, it doesn't get clinical sharp But amazing imagine rendition tho

[@KurruptedDataYouT]

I can totally agree with you and the fact this lens is truly NEVER sharp. Even when stopped down it's almost like the sharpness is 80% of what you'd expect. I use this with my BMMCC and it does give a vintage look, tho I wish it was sharp because I paid like $200 for my copy and my Tokina 35-70 f3.5 is tac sharp and I paid like $30 for that 😭😭

[@tamibox8174]

This makes more sense now. I used this for family portraits and there is a bit of haze. I was so upset.

[@Sup90210]

Maybe you have a bad copy or it’s got haze/fungus in it

[@KurruptedDataYouT]

@@Sup90210 I thought so at first but then I saw other videos talking about it and they say the same thing, it's just not as sharp as you'd think.

[@kp-ti1xv]

Does anyone know of a tele-zoom (something like 70-200mm) that has similar characteristics to the AT-X Pro? I'm looking to buy a set of two zooms for travelling and the Tokina would be perfect if there is a tele-zoom that delivers a similar look to pair it with

[@robf648]

His bigger brother the Angenieux 70-210mm f3.5 same lens on which this one is based on, i mean theres a 28-70mm and a 70-210mm angenieux lens with same optical formula, i have it it's a great lens ,same optical characteristics... but not so cheap like the tokina version

[@JxhnNichxlls]

@@robf648I’d say the 70-210mm is just a little more contrasty and focus breathing is definitely rough for big focus pulls That being said it’s a damn good lens and the macro feature is really fun.

[@esd251]

I paid 75 euros at a local listing 9 years ago.

[@rezjrprod]

Have you figured out how to declick it?

[@RynaxAlien]

Sony E-mount?

[@rezjrprod]

Just picked one up for 110

[@nikinthemud]

what an awesome dog! is he a wheaten?

[@FoxTailWhipz]

Thank you! She’s a golden doodle 😁

[@mitjatofant4223]

I have tokina 28-70 atx pro 2.6-2.8 and i like to sell lens. Lens is almost like new.

[@shadowsnlights]

I had one. It was attached to a Sony A77. Wasn't happy with it. Too soft.

[@jordanwright5795]

As much as I love this lens it is NOT the same optical formula as the Angénieux. have a copy of this lens and its really great but there has been some research on this lens including a tear down and original lab reports comparing the two - even the number of lens / groups and coatings are different when the actual physical lenses are analyzed. Sadly this all started with one rumor and it took on a life of its own. 28 all day has a good breakdown and analysis of actual lab reports over at kzbin.info/www/bejne/ZqHYpZuEjrWpY9ksi=ef4qwmyMhhHP1z9A

[@petepictures]

The French lens has a different optical design

[@hayashimushroom]

the original angenieux lens has terrible built quality the tokina is way way better

[@ephemere82]

i doubt the quality of the lenses is the same. maybe they used the glass angenieux refused to use, common practice in industry.

[@JxhnNichxlls]

Angenieux is warmer in color, especially with skin tones. Also pretty sure Angenieux’s design was modeled at f2.6 to be similar to a T2.9 design with transmission of light much in line with their cinema zooms. Also coating isn’t as strong handling flare on the Angenieux. Just got my hands on recently and it flares pretty hard with any side harsh light. Gorgeous lens though and looking forward to using it for work.

[@Oakhousefilms]

This is false. Not the same design or glass. Another youtuber did tests and it's pretty obvious from the results. The two lenses don't even have the same number of elements, and the tokina doesn't have the signature angenieux pincushion bokeh

[@yusufronco]

I had that lens. It was terrible for stills. Bad distortion, bad contrast, not very sharp

[@silvermagic1]

So whats the expensive secret? From your video (extremely low contrast and not sharp as you say) I can only conlude that this lens is a complete waste of money, which in fact yes, makes that an expensive secret.

[@TheJ_G]

It’s a rebadged classic angenieux zoom lens. To get the angenieux version it can cost upwards to $2000 or more. That’s the expensive secret. So if you like the angenieux look it’s a steal at the average price of $150. His copy sounds likes it needs to be internally cleaned because I have the same lens and I wouldn’t call it a soft or hazy lens at all. It’s not modern hyper sharp, but it’s not soft either. There’s also several versions of this lens and only 1-2 are the angenieux rebadge. The others look almost identical and have significantly lesser overall image quality. I assume most people that have “tried” this lens and found it to be lacking have actually picked up one of the non-angenieux copies.

[@gwm-btdbattlesagar.ioandmo9988]

Is the zoom internal?