Re: Tokina 50-135 f2.8 or tamron 70-200 f2.8
Hi Sheiky.. My lenses are Canon 50mm 1.8 II, Tamron 17-50 non vc,
Tamron 90mm Macro, Tokina 11-16 UWA. I'm lacking the telephoto reach
for a portrait shot or all purpose shot. I'm not into sports or action shots. More of occassions and events.. Do you thinks guys that tokina 50-135 can help grab shots of kids playing around? Is Tamron 70 200 too long for indoors? Don't have a budget yet for Canon L. But Canon 70-200 f4 non is, is tempting with speedlite 430ex II would it be a better combi for indoors too? thanks guys
Re: Tokina 50-135 f2.8 or tamron 70-200 f2.8
Thanks for replying.
Well to be honest, I don't really see the use of a Tokina 50-135 other than it's a zoom-capability.
For indoor portraits you could also use your 50mm or one of your Tamron lenses. Btw a macro-lens makes a great portrait lens! I use my canon 100mm a lot if I do portraits.
Better yet, I think you've got way better lenses for indoor portraiture than a 70-200 or 50-135 could be for you. At least...how big is your house haha [A]
And to be honest f2.8 for indoors is also tricky, especially when you have to get higher shutter-speeds to compensate for the focal-length. Assuming you don't use a tripod indoors [;)]
Re: Tokina 50-135 f2.8 or tamron 70-200 f2.8
hahaha I see [:D]. Better yet I'll stick with my lens though a primes aren't as flexible as zooms but most primes are sharper in terms of IQ. Canon 85mm f1.4L lens whooooaaaahhh $$$$ but nice nice hehehe ;)) thans jan
Re: Tokina 50-135 f2.8 or tamron 70-200 f2.8
Re: Tokina 50-135 f2.8 or tamron 70-200 f2.8
70mm is a little long for anything other than head and shoulder indoor shots in average sized rooms.
Using a little bounce flash can make a slower lens shine. If you get into lighting you'll find you want to add a little light here and there in just about all shots, even in full sun.
Re: Tokina 50-135 f2.8 or tamron 70-200 f2.8
Between those two lenses neither are as sharp as the canons but the Tokinas are MUCH better built, esp. compared to a tamron or sigma. However all Tokinas do experience some flare.
Re: Tokina 50-135 f2.8 or tamron 70-200 f2.8
Hmm Brendan...what do you say about this...both lenses wide open and you can also put the tamron to f4 if you want to make it really honest.
Try both the wide and long end.
Link to Bryans ISOchart
Anyway I would buy a Canon f4L over a Tamron or Tokina, but just because I had one and I liked it a lot... it rocked! But for my eyes the Tamron seems just as sharp and even a little sharper than the Canon...(or perhaps I don't get the charts)
And the Canon-AF makes this lens much more versatile and usable...at least to me.
Re: Tokina 50-135 f2.8 or tamron 70-200 f2.8
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheiky
Hmm Brendan...what do you say about this...both lenses wide open and you can also put the tamron to f4 if you want to make it really honest.
Try both the wide and long end.
Link to Bryans ISOchart
Anyway I would buy a Canon f4L over a Tamron or Tokina, but just because I had one and I liked it a lot... it rocked! But for my eyes the Tamron seems just as sharp and even a little sharper than the Canon...(or perhaps I don't get the charts)
And the Canon-AF makes this lens much more versatile and usable...at least to me.
Hmmm...the Tamron is definitely sharper at the wide end (even with both lenses wide open where the Tammy is a stop faster). At the long end, they aren't really different at f/4, and the Tamron @ 200mm f/2.8 is definitely softer than the Canon at 200mm f/4. Also, note that Bryan tested two copies of the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8, and copy 1 (which your link uses, Jan) is sharper than copy 2 across the range - except at 135mm, where both copies of the Tamron fall apart at f/2.8. (Of course, there are copy-specific variations in Canon lenses as well.)
Re: Tokina 50-135 f2.8 or tamron 70-200 f2.8
I'd stop looking at sharpness and note how much Bryan dumps on the Tamron's AF. The Tokina doesn't have the equivalent of USM either so IMO if the 2.8 aperture isn't vital one of the Canon lenses would be better. Here's why:
1. The tokina has the 2.8 aperture but doesn't have IS. Get the 70-200 f/4L IS and you'll still be able to take pictures in low(er) light.
2. If you're looking to use the tokina for sports, remember that its AF (and that of the Tamron) isn't as good as the Canon's.
3. I don't mean to say this in a radical way, but just avoid Sigma and Tamron. (yes, there are some exceptions) In my mind something that costs $1000 and then doesn't AF properly (a problem that Bryan has experienced with MANY of their lenses) is a waste.
If you aren't looking to shoot action and want the f/2.8 aperture, I'd pick the 50-135mm. For the added benefit of IS, weather sealing and fewer distortions, I suggest the 70-200mm f/4L IS.
my 2¢
Re: Tokina 50-135 f2.8 or tamron 70-200 f2.8
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brendan7
I'd stop looking at sharpness
I didn't bring that up [A] and don't get me wrong, I personally would also buy the canon 70-200 f4L if I had to make the choice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brendan7
1. The tokina has the 2.8 aperture but doesn't have IS. Get the 70-200 f/4L IS and you'll still be able to take pictures in low(er) light.
Yup, but you would be like 50%+ over budget... I think the canon 70-200 f4L is budget-wise the most logical lens to compare the other two lenses with. Personally I can't bend my budget like 1,5x that easy...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brendan7
2. If you're looking to use the tokina for sports, remember that its AF (and that of the Tamron) isn't as good as the Canon's.
Agreed, but the starter of this topic didn't mention sports.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brendan7
3. I don't mean to say this in a radical way, but just avoid Sigma and Tamron. (yes, there are some exceptions) In my mind something that costs $1000 and then doesn't AF properly (a problem that Bryan has experienced with MANY of their lenses) is a waste.
Alright...I still don't really get your opinion on this one. You're are a very convinced anti-3rd party-person, what experiences do you have with faulty Sigma's and Tamrons? I only had good experience so far, perhaps I'm a lucky guy or just a bad photographer. Better yet the only real problem I ever had was with a Canon lens [6]
Ok another approach: if you had the budget to buy the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 for your 7D as a general purpose lens and absolutely nothing more to spend for the entire years to come. It would be your only lens and you obviously don't want a Tamron, what would be your Canon choice? Would it even compete to the Tamron? I mean if your on a limited budget, I still think 3rd party lenses are definitely worth looking at if you want bang for bucks...
My idea
