DS> Did you mean 28-80/2.8 in the last one or 28-70/2.8?
DS> The AT-X "Pro" lenses I've seen in this range are all 28-70.
DS> KEH lists the 28-70/2.8 72mm and the 28-70/2.8 Pro 77mm.
I meant (the lens I felt was weaker physically and optically,
but still quite better than any of your variable aperture consumer
zooms!) the AT-X 2.8/28-70 SV. The SV is important. You can tell it by
the smooth finish of the barrel, the AT-X PRO lenses have a "hammer"
paint finish.
The newest lens is the AT-X PRO 2.8/28-80 which is quite more costly
than the AT-X SV. No personal e xperience with it but from reports
it's good.
I wouldn't denigrate the AT-X SV also, it's a fine lens, especially
for the money, and most users won't complain. It's just not in the
(much hyped about, though) "pro" class. Still, I thing it's 100% better to
get the SV than a comparable focal length 3.5-5.6 or similar zoom.
The weakness is mostly at full aperture, and was apparent on digital
as veiling of the image, overall softness and muted colours. Still a
bit better than the totally consumer zooms though.
I just had concerns over the build quality, as it isn't up to other
Tokina's PRO lenses, like some users might think. But it's all a
question of price. 300 Euro lens like this is better built than a
100 Euro lens, and 1000-2000 Euro lens is still better built than the
300 Euro one (or at least, might be).
Good light!
fra
