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

[raptor117]

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

[neuroanatomist]

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.

[raptor117]

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

[Sheiky]

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.

[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?


Mark

[Lars]

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.

[neuroanatomist]

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).

[Brendan7]

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.

[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.

[neuroanatomist]

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.)