Tokina AT-X 90mm f/2.5 Macro + a6000 Review

[1800daniel]

I purchased the AT-X 90/2.5 Macro after a lot of research. At the time, there were no short-tele Macro options for the Sony E-mount system. The Tokina seemed like the best option.

I recently sold it to replace it with modern optics but I did enjoy this lens very much while I owned it. I used this lens with the Fotodiox Canon FD- Sony E adapter.

Build Quality
One of the things I like most about this lens is it's construction. It does extend when focused at its minimum distance, however it is quite small focused at infinity which makes carrying and storing the lens convenient. It's made entirely of metal and the coating is durable. It's light, despite the metal construction but very dense. Focus is smooth, the aperture ring is clicky and has a good amount of resistance, and the bayonet mount is secure. All around it's a well engineered optic. Also, I think it looks cool. Much cooler than some other legacy lenses. It's a vintage lens with the right amount of contemporary aesthetic.
Looks are important to me.





Features
The macro capability is limited to 1:2 which is great for most wildlife, however it will be limiting if you intend to shoot very small insects or other tiny things. Still, the resolution of the a6000 is good enough that cropping to 3000x2000 px (50%) is not an issue - and gets essentially 1:1 magnification.

The manual focus ring is the best mechanical feature of this lens. The Canon 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM was what I used before I switched to Sony. The AF is quite good but for macro it's almost useless and the weakest feature of these modern AF macro lenses is their manual focus ring. They have a short throw and are very imprecise and just generally feel terrible. Focusing manually with the AT-X 90 isn't frustrating or tedious - it's lovely.


Image Quality

The color, resolution, contrast, and out-of-focus aesthetic is very good. Chromatic aberration is present at f/2.5 but is almost completely gone at f/4. Sharpness at f/2.5-4 is good; f/5.6-f/11 is very sharp. Diffraction is noticeable beyond f/11. I'll let the photos say the rest. *These photos were shot in RAW with Neutral picture style, processed in Lightroom for color and exposure correction only. Contrast and sharpness are set to default.

Pay attention to high contrast areas and the out-of-focus highlights here:


This image is strongly backlit. Note the retention of contrast:


This sample shows how details like spider's silk and the fibers on plant leaves are resolved:


I just like this photo:


Pay attention to the quality of background blur and subject sharpness:

 

This lens is not great for astrophotography. Note the chromatic aberration around stars:


With foresight and practice, this lens can work well for sports events, despite manual focus only. I think this image is at f/5.6:



Verdict
I like this lens. As far as legacy glass goes, this is by far the best I've used (among several). It holds up well compared to the Canon 100mm f/2.8 USM with the exception of wide-open chromatic aberration. If you like old-school lenses or also want a good macro lens for your 35mm SLR, I highly recommend this lens.
Pros:

• Compact 
• Good image quality
• Very sharp at 5.6
• Good build quality
• Good value on used market
• Precise and smooth manual focus
• High contrast

Cons:

• Chromatic aberration wide open
• Not so sharp beyond f/11
• Only 1:2 magnification (0.5x)
• Not quite as good resolution as modern macro lenses

Lastly, take a look at the attached image. It is backlit and has plenty of fine detail as well as some bokeh. It's a challenging scene for any lens and I think it does very well. Note that it is compressed to fit under the 1000kb attachment limit.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[VLReviews]

 

 

Thanks for your insghts, Daniel! I certainly agree with you on the astrophotography/CA critique. What bothers me most in many of my vintage lenses is the glow & purple fringing wide open. Unlike low contrast or lateral CA, it's really cumbersome to correct in PP. One remark on your list of Pros & Cons:

 

...

Cons:

• Chromatic aberration wide open
• Not so sharp beyond f/11
• ...

 

"Not so sharp beyond f/11" is not really fair to list as a con in my opinion, as this is a physical limitation caused by diffraction. It therefore applies to every lens ever made that uses an aperture

[1800daniel]

 

 

 

Thanks for your insghts, Daniel! I certainly agree with you on the astrophotography/CA critique. What bothers me most in many of my vintage lenses is the glow & purple fringing wide open. Unlike low contrast or lateral CA, it's really cumbersome to correct in PP. One remark on your list of Pros & Cons:

 

 

"Not so sharp beyond f/11" is not really fair to list as a con in my opinion, as this is a physical limitation caused by diffraction. It therefore applies to every lens ever made that uses an aperture

 

Yes, you're right. I should have specified that for a macro lens, it is often useful to have good image quality at narrow apertures in order to maximize depth of field for small subjects. Other macro lenses I've used (Canon 100mm, 60mm, and Samyang 100mm) are sharper at f/16 and beyond.