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

[Sheiky]

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 [] 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!

[neuroanatomist]

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!

[raptor117]

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!