Tokina 50-135 f2.8 or tamron 70-200 f2.8

hi guys.. please help me decide which is better between the two lens..
Based on reviews both are quite slow in focus but IQ is tip top at par
with canon lenses. I love photography but on a tight budget. Sigma is
my other option because of HSM but IQ is just average and has lots of
issues f/b focus I'm afraid I might get one bad copy. Canon lens is
twice its price.. I will use Tokina 50-135 f2.8 or tamron 70-200 f2.8
for portrait indoors outdoors.. but not sports.. Anyone with these
lenses that can share with their experiences is much appreciated..
thanks guys ;)

I cannot comment on the quality of either lens. Assuming they've got similar IQ, and based on focal length, if you're using a 1.6x crop body you'll find the 50-135mm range more useful for portraits (especially indoors); on FF the 70-200mm range would be excellent.

Thanks neuroanatomist for the recommendations.. I'm using Canon 450d 1.6 crop . My first would be 50-135. Thanks again.

What lenses do you have now? And what type of portraits do you want to make? 200mm inside is pretty long, but outside it could make a great focal length.

The Tokina 50-135 f2.8 was intended to be the equivalent of a 70-200 on a crop camera. It works out to be ~80-216. I do not see it on B&H web-site or even on the Tokina web-site. Has this lens been discontinued?


Mark

It is there: http://www.tokinalens.com/products/t...35prodx-a.html (hope this works). In fact, I did not know of this lens before, in Norway, Sigma is the most sold third-party lens brand, but I occasionally see Sigmas for sale with focus problems. I have long been tempted to buy the 50-150 from Sigma, but this lens seems to be a tough competitor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clemmb

The Tokina 50-135 f2.8 was intended to be the equivalent of a 70-200 on a crop camera. It works out to be ~80-216. I do not see it on B&H web-site or even on the Tokina web-site. Has this lens been discontinued?

---

It's on the Tokina web site. B&H lists only the Nikon mount version, and calls that one discontinued. Amazon has one listingfor the Canon version of the Tokina 50-135mm f/2.8 - but at $800, I'm not sure that's going to be compatible with the OP's budget...


Raptor117 -hopefully I'm not making your choice more complex, but if you're willing to forego the zoom, the CanonEF 85mm f/1.8lens makes an excellent portrait lens. IQ is excellent, focus is very fast. The 85mm focal length is great for tight indoor portraits on a crop body (equivalent to 135mm, the 'classic' head and shoulders portrait length on FF). The wide f/1.8 aperture will give you great OOF blur. Plus, at less than $400 the price is right. If you go that route, you'll probably want to add an ND filter for outdoor portraits - with a 0.9/8x/3-stop ND you'll still be able to use a wide aperture (and since it uses 58mm filters, they don't cost that much).

I considered the Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8 II EX DC HSM(which would have been a nice complement for myTamron 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II), Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 Di Macro,Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 EX DG HSM II Macroand TokinaAT-X 535 PRO DXAF 50-135mm f/2.8. After tons of reading over the course of two years,it seemed like even longer,I decided I'd get the Canon EF 200mm f/2.8 L II USMinstead. When I got ready to make the purchase my wife pushed me to get a zoom, she doesn't care for primes. So, with her permision, I ended up blowing the budget by getting the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L USM. I'm very happy with it and glad I didn't settle for less. Don't tell my wife but I'd still like to get an IS version one dayalthough now it's very low on my priority list (behind a bunch of other expensive stuff).


If I were in your shoes I'd also consider primes in that range such as the Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM,Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USMor Canon EF 100mm f/2.0 USM. One of these (prob the 85mm f/1.8)will likely be my next lens purchase.


Beingit's portraiture you are interested in keep in mind that lighting will give you much more bang for your buck. For what you'd spend on a Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8 II EX DC HSM,Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 Di Macro,Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 EX DG HSM II Macroor TokinaAT-X 535 PRO DXAF 50-135mm f/2.8.you could have a prettydamn good strobist setup.

Thanks guys for your replies.. Tokina 50-135 is locally available here in the Philippines about $650 brand new. I'm more inclined to zoom lens especially during some occasions where you have the flexibility. But certainly I love to have 85mm prime or 135mm prime. Thanks guys for the inputs

What lenses do you already have? I mean if you already have like a 24-70 f2.8 it wouldn't make sense to buy a Tokina 50-135 over a Tamron 70-200...

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

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 [;)]

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

btw f1.2L ;)

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.

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.

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.

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.)

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¢

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neuroanatomist

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.)

---

Haven't seen the 2 copy-thing. Also haven't read the review so I don't know all specific details on it, but I was still amazed when I saw the initial ISO-chart [:D] I always thought my old 70-200 was super sharp at f4 [A] anyway I was always pleased with the sharpness it delivered. Great lens!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sheiky

Haven't seen the 2 copy-thing.

---

On the ISO 12233 charts, look for a pop-up menu next to the camera choice (or non-choice, if the lens was only tested on one body it's grayed out). In this example comparison (EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II vs. Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8), you'll see that the Canon lens has 3 tested copies, and the Tamron has 2 copies. I have to say - the Tamron does have impressive center sharpness!

wow.. great conversations guys.. from what I've researched tamron 70 200 competes well with canon 70 200 2.8.. it's a nice thing that 3rd party lenses give consumers on a tight budget like me ;) other options. But I'm quite impressed with tokina lenses. I've tried it yesterday.. AF is not that bad, well built, excellent IQ (after downloading and viewed full screen). Ideas keep 'em coming cheers!