Something better than Tokina ATX 4/100-300 ...?

[stevemark]

Via PM, a member of the forum has asked me about finding "something better than the Tokina AT-X 4/100-300mm, mainly fo sports (probably a prime)". He specifically asked me whether the Nikkor AiS 4.5/300mm IF-ED would be an improvement, or whether I would recommend something else.

Most 300mm primes are designed to be handheld. That means their tele ratio has to be small (=short lens). In addition, CAs start to bite. The combination of "short lens" and "long focal length" makes CA correction especially bothersome. This means that vintage 300mm lenses often are a bit a "weak spot" in the lens lineup of a manufacturer.

Let's go back to the original question. While I'm not a sports photogapher at all, I have quite a lot of expeience with vintage MF 300mm lenses, including several fast ones (f2.. To give you an idea about the practical experience behind this thread - in the "Canon department" alone, about a dozen lenses were tested and compared at f=300mm, among the them 5.6/300 Fluorite, the 2.8/300 Fluorite, the 2.8/300 L and the 4/300L, the 100-300L and the 50-300L. Altogether I probably have used >50 vintage lenses at f=300mm.

Best "value for money" in the 300mm range certainly is the Mamiya Sekor C 5.6/300mm. Officially not an UD lens, it performs identically to the Sekor C 5.6/300mm ULD. At a pice of <100 CHF/USD/EUR, it outperforms most of the expensive Canon Fluorite and L lenses given above. Of course it's f5.6, and not f4 or f2.8. And it's not an IF lens - manual focusing is precise, but slow, and MFD is 4 m (same as eg the Nkkor-H 4.5/300).

The Nikkor AiS 4.5/300mm IF-ED is sligtly faster than the Mamiya Sekor C, and its internal focusing (IF) is much quicker than that of the Mamiya. However, the lubes usually have dried up, as with most Nikkors from that time. Focusing therefore is not really precise. While its is a prestigious "IF-ED" lens, its perfomance is much inferior to the Mamiya Sekor C, even when stopped down to f8 and the Mamyia kept at f5.6! MFD is better (3 m).

The Tokina SD 4/100-300mm certainly was designed for good center performance (people / reportage), and NOT for landscapes. Performance at f=300mm is pretty poor unless you look at the very center: That is good for sure (same applies for the Tokina AT-X 2.8/80-200, BTW). The mechanics feel rugged and well made, and focusing is well dampened - not too loose, not too stiff. MFD is best (2 m), but I haven't testet the actual performance at MFD.


Images will follow.

[stevemark]

ALL IMAGES BELOW ARE 100% CROPS FROM THE SONY A7RII RAWS, DEVEOLPED USING PHOTOSHOP.
NO CA CORRECTION OR VIGNETTING CORRECTION APPLIED.
SHARPENING 40, RADUIS 1 PX, DETAIL 40. COLOR SATURATION TO 20, VIBRANCE TO 30

While doing this comparison (totally about 20 lenses) the light has slightly changed. More important however: It was one of the rare days without air turbulance, and with a rather clear air (just after hours of rain). Having 2-3 hours without air turbulance is crucial for showing the real performance of a 300mm lens on 43 MP FF - this clearly was outweighing the slightly changing light.


First, as a baseline, the Tokina AT-X 4/100-300mm.

At f4 / 300mm, the center performance certainly is quite good. No fringing, good detail, but a bit soft. Not much to complain about here (remember this is a crop from 43 MP FF):


The Nikkor has a slightly better contrast, but the difference isnt that big:


Now the Mamiya - even better contrast and excellent resolution!


S

[iangreenhalgh1]

Shooting sports... forget a manual lens, get something with very good AF performance.

Pro sports shooters care more about how fast their lens focusses and how accurate that focussing is than they do about sharpness and other IQ matters.

That's why cameras intended for sports shooting had less MP but more focus points, although that has dchanged a bit in recent years.

[Doc Sharptail]

Some interesting in-put here.

Personally, (and it's likely just me) once I get above 200mm, the need for a tripod becomes increasingly apparent~ which speaks volumes about lack of technique.

I've been through 3, 300mm's now, and have sold them all off. It is a focal length that I don't seem to get along well with at all.
It would be the focal length that would move me into A/F, if that were ever to happen.

I've seen enough "frozen" I/F Nikkors to know enough to stay away from them.

There's a cheap Korean made 60-300 zoom here for me to give an honest work-out. Hopefully I'm going to learn something...

-D.S.

[stevemark]

Now the corners. Tokina first, again, here at 300mm / f8 (at f4, it's pretty similar; just a bit less detail ...):



That's really quite bad, on par with the cheapest 3rd party 300mm f4 primes such as the Hanimex 4/300mm. Other like Ken Rockwell report the same, so I'm pretty sure this isn't an outlier. The Tokina AT-X 2.8/80-200mm at f=200mm has the same general image characteristics, BTW.

The Nikkor 4.5/300mm IF-ED is not among the best 300mm lenses, but certainly much better than the Tokina zoom. Much more details, much less CAs, and pretty good contrast. Be aware that stopping donw to f8 doesn't increas its performance: CAs get worse, and resolotion / contrast decrease slightly. Caused by inappropriate position of the aperture!




Now the Mamyia Sekor C 5.6/300mm, wide open (f5.6):


This is pretty remarkable indeed. Virtually no CAs, excellent resolution and very good contast. What else do we need ...?

A few clicks on photoshop result in the following (CAs removed, levels adjusted, slight de-saturation):

[stevemark]

During the same run I have tested the following as well.
If anyone is interested in the results of a specific lens, just PM me.

Canon FD 2.8/300mm Fluorite
Carl Zeiss Jena Sonnar 4/300mm (about 1955, version for 24x36)
Hanimex 4/300mm
Konica Hexanon AR 4.5/300mm
Mamiya Sekor C 5.6/300mm
Mamiya Sekor CS 4/300mm
Minolta SR 4.5/300mm
Minolta MC-X 4.5/300mm
Minolta MD-II 4.5/300mm IF
Mirage (Elicar) 4.5/300mm
Nikkor-H 4.5/300mm (2nd computation, same optics as later Ai/AiS 4.5/300)
Nikkor Ai 4.5/300mm ED
Nikkor Ai 4.5/300mm ED-IF
Olympus Zuiko OM 4.5/300mm
Pentax M* 4/300mm ED
Pentax F 4.5/300mm IF-ED


Zooms:
Canon nFD 5.6/100-300mm (2nd version)
Canon nFD 5.6/100-300mm L
Tamron SP 3.8-5-5/60-300mm
Tokina AT-X 4/100-300mm

Many others are available for testing, including rare stuff such as the Tair-33.

S

[iangreenhalgh1]

The Tair-33 isn't rare, well, it isn't in the UK at least, where we had a distributor of Soviet photo gear.

[stevemark]

[iangreenhalgh1]

There is no shortage of either, the 33 is usually seen in P6 mount though, rather than M42 like the 3.

[caspert79]

Hi Stephan, just curious what lenses you consider the top 3 of your list.

[blotafton]

Interesting test!

[stevemark]

[Phalbert]

This thread tells a different story for some aspects:

http://www.rokkorfiles.com/100-300mm.htm

My copy is also rather good (but haze is building up) and I wonder Stevemark if you may have a bad example... 🤔

[stevemark]

[Phalbert]

[iangreenhalgh1]

Almost nobody bothers about the corners, you can call people who do 'rare' and 'strange' imho.

[stevemark]

[lumens pixel]

The Canon FD or nfd 300 5,6 might be of interest. And they are quite common.