Zooms...Tokina 24-200 ATX vs. Canon 28-200 USM

Thanks to everyone who replied to my former post about street

photography zooms. I've actually pretty much got it narrowed down to

either the Tokina 24-200 ATX or the Canon 28-200 USM. Tamron's two XR

zoom lenses do sound nice, but according to reviews and the optics

rating on photozone.de, the Tokina and Canon are just better, and I

think I'm willing to give up the nice 62mm filter size and lighter

weight of the Tamron XRs for the build and optics quality on the

Tokina or Canon.

 

My question about USM in the street photography setting still

remains, but the 28-200 has the micro drive so there's no full-time

manual. So the only possible advantage of the USM over the ATX (which

is supposed to have really good AF for a third-party lens) would be

the speed and accuracy. Anyone out there used a USM (either ring or

micro drive type) for street photography as well as a normal AF lens?

Maybe I can still be convinced to go with one of Canon's ring-type

USMs!

 

The Tokina ATX is looking real nice. Just about every review on

photographyreview.com (except the last three, kind of weird) raves

about this lens. The 24mm wide end would be good to have, and the

build quality sounds right up there, if not better, than the Canon.

It's a hair below the Canon in optics on photozone.de, and reviews

mention the the AF being as fast as USM. Anyone else used this lens?

Any warnings, opinions on it?

 

Thanks again for any help. Life was so much simpler when I was just

going to get the 28-135 USM IS. Oh well.

 

-Paul

At one point back when I was using only manual SLR's I considered buying a cheaper AF body and putting the Tokina 24-200 AF lens on it to have an AF option. The only thing that would have swayed me Canon's way would have been if it had the ring-type USM. Without that, I'd definitely go with the Tokina. I have not had the Canon lens in-hand, but I have played with the Tokina 24-200 ATX. It's made extremely well and I'm sure has matching performance. The optical performance of any zoom of that range of focal lengths in one lens will be a compromise in order to get them all in. Some people buy these lenses with different expectations as to their performance, hence the different opinions you'll see.

I used the Tokina (manual focus) with my Olympus bodies (OM-1 & OM-4). It is a good lens, but in my most humble opinion (and experience), it is not better that the XRs. Also, I'm not convinced that the Canon 28-200 is not a rebadged Tamron. Any opinions on that, people? Out of curiousity, when I bought the Tamron 28-300XR, I seem to remember laying the 28-200's next to each other and they looked and felt the same. As I recall, the specs are the same. I could be wrong but I'm not aware of a test being conducted between them. Again, I could be wrong.

Paul,

 

You might want to look at this thread:

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=005U0x

 

The short and sweet is that no one can tell you what lens is best. That's something that you have to decide for yourself by the shooting with the lenses. A good local dealer is generally your best bet for this.

 

In looking at Photozone the Canon 28-200 was actually lower than the two Tamron's. One thing about tests they are no the end all. While back the Tokina/Vivitar/Cosina 19-35 got good reviews. But in reality it is flairish as hell. So the lens maybe sharp, but flare limits its use, why bother.

 

Victor,

 

You have a point. For consumer lenses like the 28-80's and the 28-200's (among others) it is not always economically possible for camera manufactures to make these lenses on their own. So they may contract with third parties. Sometimes looking at elements/groups can give you an indication. Sometimes not depending on the version that you are trying to compare.

<P> Basically, <a href="http://photonotes.org/articles/beginner-faq/lenses.html#28200">neither</a>. However, if I were to choose only one lens and could only choose one of these two, I'd take the Canon because it has USM. That's a <I>really</I> nice thing to have.

</P>

 

<P> Happy shooting , <br>

Yakim. </P>

The Canon 28-200mm USM being better than the Tamron 28-200mm XR is news to me. Everything I have read (as well as my personal experience) tells me that the Tamron XR is sharper, contrastier, lighter and cheaper.

 

There are a lot of folks who give advice about 28-200mm zooms that have not tried the LATEST versions. They have been improved by LEAPS AND BOUNDS. The Tamron XR rocks, and someday even the most skeptical will know. : )

 

Todd

First of all, why do people respond to a post like this when they just don't like super-zooms and say something like "I wouldn't get either"? It's like butting in on a conversation about whether Coors is better than MGD with a "I don't drink either, I only drink microbrews," ok, that's nice, we don't really care though. Those of us who can't afford L-lenses, only want to carry one lens most of the time, and want that wide focal length range, super-zooms are the way to go. We all realize (after having it beaten into us time and time again) that we are compromising optical quality, but for the amateur photographer who isn't going to be making 20x30 inch prints, I think they are fine. When I want sharpness and aperture, I'll use my 50mm f/1.8. If I ever go "pro," whatever that means, then maybe I'll have the resources to have a bag of primes and a few L zooms.

 

Off the rant, photozone.de actually rates the 28-200USM and 28-200XR in two ways. In their general "lens test guide" both the XRs are higher than the USM, but in the "lens performance survey" the USM is higher than either XR, both in terms of optical quality. That said, the Tokina 24-200 AT-X rates higher, in both systems, than any of the super-zooms other than the Canon 35-350 USM L. That is the reason I'm so seriously thinking about this lens despite it's close focus being twice of the USM or either XRs.

 

Appreciate the feedback, especially the comparisons from people who have used, or even just seen and fiddled with, the AT-X and and other lenses. There really seems to be a great swell of support for the Tamron XRs, and they do have that 1.5 ft close focus, and the 62mm filter size, but the Tokina sounds just better built, plus it has the 24mm wide side.

 

Another thing, I've read that the 28-200 XR, while listed as a f/3.8-5.6, with an EOS will only go to f/4.0. Is this true?

 

Thanks again to everyone who responded, although maybe we need to set up two EOS forums, one for people who can afford L lenses and one for the rest of us!

 

-Paul

Paul,

 

You are correct, the Tokina does rate higher than the Tamron XR. I had forgotten that your original question was about the Tokina as well!

 

The Tokina is bigger and heavier than the Tamron XR, so consider that. I chose the Tamron for that reason (plus I already had a 24mm prime). My suggestion would be for you to at try out the Tamron XR and the Tokina in the shop. The build on the Tamron XR is really pretty nice.

 

Todd

I'll add that I was in the same boat as lens choices (though I wasn't really interested in the 24-200). I got a 10D and was looking for a lens to go with the 17-40L. I decided that the 28-135IS was the best choice for me. Sharp in the testing I did, and that leaves me to buy the 70-330IS or the 100-400IS for when I really need something longer.

If you really intend to buy a wide range zoom, I would really consider the new Sigma 24-135/2.8-4

Since it's a brand new lens, you'll have to wait another month or so before reading reviews about it, but there's a good chance that optical quality is better than any 28-200, with the major benefit of the aperture, you can't go wrong. If this new Sigma doesn't get good reviews, just buy the Tamron 24-135, it's definitely the best buy in terms of quality. Now, if you're worried about loosing the 135-200 range, please don't, I used a 28-70 and a 70-300 for years, and I almost never used focal higher than 135

Hope this helps!

Only you can decide.

Super xooms are a compromise. You will get a softening of the image and some distortion no matter which brand you use.

I have heard good things of the 24-200 ATX lens, whereas I've not heard any good words said about the Canon super zoom. I suspect Tokina are playing a different game from Canon on this one.

The Tokina is a bit of a beast though, but very well built.

Having said all that I've never used either, nor would I, but forced to I'd grab the Tokina. (I use a Tokina 28-80 ATX and Canon 70-200L for zooms)

Are there any dealers with a 30 day return if not happy service? That might put your mind at rest, as only you can decide if such a lens is up to the job.

Al,

 

Your comment on the 200mm upper end versus the 135mm upper end is something I've thought a great deal about. Canon's 28-135 has IS and FTM, and Sigma's 24-135 starts at f/2.8 plus just sounds like a great lens. I really don't know whether the extra 65mm of the 200mm zooms will be worth it, it would be really nice if I knew people who had both types of lenses, or could afford to rent both for a week or so, but alas...

 

And more general,

 

I have a moral quandary over going to a local (actually, my only local) camera shop and trying different lenses, when I am going to buy from Adorama. Anyone out there have any thoughts on this? I don't like making the people take lenses out for me, watch me fiddle with them, and put them away so I can figure out how to spend my money elsewhere. Damn parents and their instilling of values!

 

Thanks again for everyone's thoughts.

 

-Paul

I don't know about your local shop, but mine met the mail order price and does as a policy. Plus, they gave me 25% off on filters. So, it was all good; I saved the shipping; got some local support and supported a local shop. Have you checked the price at your local shop? You might be surprised.

Paul,

 

Glad to hear that you have morals on this. Though even if they can't match mail-order pricing; the ability to touch & try is the cost that you as the consumer pays for peace of mind. Some seem to forget that price should not be the only deciding factor. Service and support should be first IMO.

 

Happy shooting...

<p>This is obviously a long time after this conversation was current, but in case anyone else checks it, please note that the Canon EF 28-135 IS USM is NOT 135mm. I noticed mine seemed short and compared it with a fixed focal length 135 and the difference in FOV was startling. I did additional tests and finally determined that the 135 setting correlated to 90mm in a fixed lens. This is apparently a characteristic of varifocal lenses that is especially noticeable when they cover a wide range -- in this case ~5x.</p>