Moose Peterson raves about using the Tokina 400mm f/5.6 lens with his F5 (and now with an F100) to shoot flying birds. He claims that it is about as fast and good as an EOS1 with the USM 400mm f/5.6 lens.

Has anybody else tried this combination? Can you confirm or deny or clarify Moose's claim.

-- Stanley McManus (Stanshooter@yahoo.com), February 03, 1999

Answers

I hate to be a cynic, but could it have something to do with his heavy investment in Nikon gear, his sponsorship by Nikon and Tokina, and the fact that Nikon does not make (and, from the looks of it, will not make any time soon) a 400/5.6 AF?

-- John Kuraoka (kuraoka@home.com), February 03, 1999.

I have also my doubts on Moose claim, I have tried the Tokina in a shop with the F90X (I am not interested in the performance with the F5). And from this short test, I found that it did not work very well, o.k. later I thought that it was probably too dark for a 5.6 lens, i.e. I would be interested in other inputs.

-- siegfried boes (boes@first.gmd.de), February 04, 1999.

I question the objectivity of anyone that writes articles for the lens manufacturer in various photo magazines in which I doubt he did it for free.

-- Gary Wilson (gwilson@ffca.com), February 04, 1999.

Hi Stanley!

I have tried the combination. AF speed was OK, slightly better that with my Nikkor 300 f4 AF. BUT the Tokina is weak. I dropped my F5 and the Tokina - suddenly I had two lenses :) If you think of nature photography then I recommend Nikkor lenses and not toys as Tokina. Jukka

-- Jukka Heikkila (jts.heikkila@kolumbus.fi), February 04, 1999.

Uh, folks. I hope it occured to some of you that one reason for asking people if they can confirm Moose's opinion it that I know that he promotes both Tokina and Nikon gear. That's why I want to find out if any of you impartial types out there have tried these combinations. One just has to read the comments of any of these pros to realize that they all have their commercial prejudices.

I expect the Tokina to be somewhat slow on the N90s since that is not the most modern autofocus system Nikon offers.

-- STanley Mcmanus (Stanshooter@yahoo.com), February 04, 1999.

Sigfried: I owned this lens, and used it on my N90s. It was usably fast for birds in flight, which means it's a lot faster than the Nikkor 300/4 or 300/4 + Tamron 1.4x AF-D. My point is, that if you shoot Nikon, and you want a 400/5.6 with AF, there is no Nikkor option. Moose's saying that the third-party lens is comparable to top-line Canon glass sounds like wishful thinking and helpful plugging of a hole in Nikon's line by a long-time loyal user and influential writer.

The Tokina 400/5.6 AT-X is respectable glass, and its reasonably priced, and it works well. I eventually sold mine because I decided that as long as I'm lugging a tripod, the extra pound or two of weight for the Nikkor 300 + TC made for better images.

-- John Kuraoka (kuraoka@home.com), February 04, 1999.

I've used the Tokina 400/5.6 on an F5 and it focuses about as quickly as the 80-200/2.8 D. Not having used an EOS-1 I can't provide a qualified opinion on comparable speed between the EOS-1 and F5. The AF system in the F5 is the key to the speed. The other Nikon AF bodies are notoriously slow compared to Canon, and won't be improved by any lens, Nikon or aftermarket.

It's important to note that Moose's comparison of the Tokina 400/5.6 & F5 to Canon system is both focusing speed and ergonomics. An aftermarket 400/5.6 is the only available lens for Nikon AF that offers the size, speed, and sharpness of a 400/5.6 design. The 300mm lenses are too short, or too big with a TC (300/2.8 w/ 1.4x TC). The F5 and the Tokina 400/5.6 is very hand-holdable. Aftermarket zooms covering the 400mm focal length are questionable in image and build quality. Also note that Moose doesn't compare sharpness and contrast using images of Air Force resolution charts enlarged to 16x20. If two slides looks the same under a 4x loupe, they're the same to Moose. If a lens can produce images that sell, it's a good lens.

So, knowing how Moose evaluates equipment, I agree with him that the Tokina 400/5.6 on an F5 comes is a workable system for bird-flight images. And it's alot cheaper and less baggage than buying a dedicated EOS body and lens for bird-flight shots. Hopefully, Moose is lobbying Nikon for a 400/4.0 AF-S in the frame of the 80-200.

-- Joe Boyd (boydjw@traveller.com), March 18, 1999.

< If a lens can produce images that sell, it's a good lens.

I have to agree with that point of view. If a lens serves its purpose (which for Moose is producing pictures that sell) then it is a good lens. I believe that Ansel Adams used a similar approach to testing lenses. If he like the pictures, he kept the lens. No, that's much to simple!

I also hope that Nikon is getting on the stick and doing something about the 400mm f/5.6 gap in their lineup. I can't believe that Sigma has not created a Nikon mount version of their HSM 400mm lens. They would sell a zillion of them.

-- Stanley McManus (stanshooter@yahoo.com), March 18, 1999.