On Tue, 04 Mar 2003 19:04:09 -0000, Bill Tuthill <ca_creekin@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Although I retain very little faith that Pop Photo SQF numbers

>bear any correlation to real-world performance, I thought I'd

>compare their ratings for the Tokina 28-80/2.8 against those for

>the 28-70/2.8 published in the March 2003 issue. At 20x24:

>

>Tokina 28mm 50mm 80mm

>2.8 C F C+

>4.0 B+ B C+

>5.6 A A A

>8 B+ A A

>11 B+ A A

>16 B B+ B+

>22 C+ C+ B

>

>Tokina 28mm 50mm 70mm

>2.8 C C C

>4.0 C C C

>5.6 C C+ C

>8 C C+ C+

>11 C C+ C+

>16 C C+ C+

>22 C C+ C+

>

>The 28-70/2.8 was able to produce B+ quality 11x14 enlargements

>stopped down, and C+ quality 16x20 enlargements at all apertures.

>

>Hmm, it looks like the design trades off excellent performance

>stopped down for more-even overall performance at all apertures.

>However a caveat: this compares old with new SQF.

I tried a 28-70mm f2.8 Tokina - it was not great

wider than f5.6 (so what's the point of owning it...?).

I tried a 28-80mm f2.8 Tokina - it was not bad near 28mm

but soft near 80mm wider than f5.6 (so what's the point

of owning it...?). In other words, unless the performance

at wide stops is good, I would prefer to own a lighter,

smaller, and cheaper zoom, or one with more range, or a

set of faster-yet and better non-zooms...