Tokina 24-40mm F/2.8 ATX - opinions?

It's two touch, thankfully. I have both a 21-35:3.5-4.2
and this 24-40:2.8. I think both are optimistic about
their long end FL. I have just about made up my mind to
keep the 24-40 and sell the 21-35. It's a utility issue,
not any quality problem.

Your idea of matching it with a 70-150 hits home. I have
a 28-70 paired with a 70-150, both constant f:4.0 and this
is an excellewnt match. For speed needs, the 24-40:2.8 is
paired with a 60-120:2.8, another ATX, which has replaced
my 70-150:3.5E. Even when I had the 24-40 along with the
70-150E, it was a good match. I have a 24-48:3.8 Series 1
that is good for outdoors, but I find the viewing and
focusing a bit dim for indoors. If you don't have this
problem, you might want a 24-50 like the Nikkor, Series-1,
etc. Closing the gap between 40 or 50mm and the 70-150 is
*NOT* worth the trouble of using a Tamron or Vivitar 24-70
vari-speed slow klunker.

This lens benefits from stopping down, has noticeable
distortion, and can flare at wide apertures. If you
don't need the 2.8, you mght want to pass. by middle
apertures it is as crisp as most zooms, flare gone, etc
but the distrotion remains. A 2.8 zoom means more on
a Nikon than on Canon or Minolta. It's not the maximum
speed but the constant speed. Most 2.8s are constant
speed while slower lenses are vari-speed. The 24-50
and 28-50 Nikkor AIS are exceptions, the 24-50 AF is a
vari-speed. Canon and Minolta AF cameras fix most of
the vari-speed problem via internal control, so that
only the max aperture varies instead of the whole range.

I hear very good things about the 2 Nikkors also. I agree
with anything good about the 28-50:3.5, as this is a great
lens in my experience. The 24-50:4.0 I only hear about, but
always good news. Funny thing is I never think of the 28-50
as a zoom. To me, it's a 28:3.5 that has a great focusing
aid in its ability to focus at 50 and zoom back to 28. This
is a very snappy almost distortionless lens, but the zoom
ratio is so small and the included FLs so modest that I just
keep using it as a 28.

My guess is that the MF is no longer made. In many examples
a 3rd party lens available as both AF and MF [same optics]
will cost the same or slightly more for MF. If the MF is all
remainder stock, then it may be cheaper. The MF version has
a massive front cel to focus. The AF may have solved this by
internal fosuc, but the 28-70:2.8 ATX has an equally massive
front, and it just spins the whole thing for AF. I have never
seen the AF version of the 24-40.

Regards, David Rosen