No, the AT-X picture quality does not compare to that of Canon's 70-200mm L lens at the long end, not even stopped down to aperture 11.0.  Even shot at 5.6 aperture (probably even at 2.8, but I did not test it), the Canon is better than the Tokina at 11.0.   At the wide range, however, I can see only little difference between my Canon 16-35mm and the AT-X.  Yes, that's hard to believe.  Maybe my Canon 16-35mm is a dud. 

So, nothing new here.  Top-of-the-line lenses outperform inexpensive superzooms, sometimes by a wide margin. And they are mechanically better as well. 

Here the good news!

The performance of the AT-X 242 is still good enough to produce appealing, high-quality (my opinion) shots.  But to get good results, it's best to stop down at least one stop. 

Now some photos to back up the claim.  BTW, all taken handheld with ASA 400 setting on my Canon 10D. All have been modified with Unsharpen mask, but no other modifications.  Focal lengths mentioned are without the 1.6x multiplier.

The first shot is an extreme crop of a yellow flower blossom, so extreme that I did not have to reduce the image size any after cropping.  (200mm setting)

The second shot shows the same, but less extremely cropped and then sized down to 40%. (200mm setting)

The third shot was taken inside a local shopping center, also cropped and downsized (24mm setting)

The fourth shot is outside of the same shopping center.  (24mm)

The fifth shot shows a cat in between brush. Shot at 1/60s and at 5.6 aperture.  This is not recommended, but in this case still acceptable. (200mm)

The last shot is of another flower, also at 5.6 aperture and at 1/125s.  Also not recommended. (200mm)

Back to previous page

© Christian Wagner, 2004