Forum AlphaDxD

rascal a écrit :à tempérer les avis utilisateurs... surtout en fonction du prix payer par le revieweur...

GONico a écrit :un avis n'est jamais complètement objectif mais ça donne une idée.

comment:


I owned a cheap Tokina 100-400 and was very disappointed in the picture quality (sharpness, flare). I was looking for a replacement and considering the new KM 100-300 D, but it was out of stock everywhere. I stumbled across this lens on KEH and read a few reviews which sounded positive, so I splurged the $200 for it. Wow! What a great lens.

I also have a Tokina 400 f/5.6 AT-X since I had read good reviews. This lens blows that lens away when it comes to sharpness and contrast.

Prior to this purchase, I had every intention of buying the KM 300 f/4 G as my main wildlife lens (I can't afford the big glass!). However, I am so happy with the sharpness of this lens at 300 that I don't really see the need to go out and buy another sharp 300 f/4.

It doesn't focus lighting fast, but it is fast enough for me and it doesn't hunt.

Sure, it is a big lens and the KM is smaller and lighter. But the constant f/4 and tripod collar make this lens a better choice for me.

Great lens. If you can find one, snatch it up!

EDIT - I have subsequently purchased the Minolta 300 f/4 G and the Sony 70-300 SSM G. The Minolta is clearly a superior lens to the Tokina, but not so much so that I put the Tokina away. It's closer focusing and ability to zoom means I still pull it out when I need the flexibility of a zoom.
The Sony SSM does focus faster and is lighter, but I think the image quality at the long end is superior in the Tokina lens. The Sony is a little bit softer at 300mm. It is really close, and the Sony is a nice lens, but it isn't twice as nice as the Tokina and yet it costs twice as much (or more!).