Tokina 50-135mm f/2.8: Wow!

<p>Since there were a number of threads asking about this lens, but very few

with useful feedback, I thought I'd post my observations after a week or so of

shooting. I took a chance on an EX+-rated sample from KEH.com last week, after

my much-beloved 85mm f/1.8 AF-D took a spill onto concrete and I found myself

without anything longer than a 50mm prime in my bag.</p>

 

<p>All I can say is, I'm pleasantly surprised on several counts. The

handling and finish are superb, and I have been absolutely floored by the bokeh

(actually a bit better than my 85, truth be told). Obviously, the focusing

speed isn't up to the level of an AF-S lens, and in extremely low light (wide

open @ 1/60th, or about EV 7-8) it hunts (and misses!) a bit, but it

absolutely <em>nails</em> the AF w/flash.</p>

 

<p>At about $550 with shipping, I have to say I'm quite happy I went for this

piece instead of the used 80-200 Nikkors I had been checking out. My back

and arms are happy, too -- it's not a lightweight lens, by any means, but it

balances pretty well on my D200, and I suspect it'll be a fine all-day event

lens with a light monopod.</p>

 

<p align="center"><a href="

title="DSC_0221 by rcoder, on Flickr"><img style="border: 2px solid black;

padding: 0px;"

src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3164/2579333424_5f6aea688f.jpg" width="500"

height="335" alt="DSC_0221" /></a></p>

 

<p align="center"><a href="

title="DSC_0161 by rcoder, on Flickr"><img style="border: 2px solid black;

padding: 0px;"

src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3028/2578490767_4df206db82.jpg" width="335"

height="500" alt="DSC_0161" /></a></p>

Nice, I am waiting for my Sigma 50-150 mm 2.8 II HSM, SHOULD ARRIVE TOMORROW!!! ::))))

I needed fast zoom, --2.8 will do it !!!! -raf

Lennon... thanks for your comment! I'm so indecisive too about the Tokina 50-135, Sigma 50-150 and of course the Nikon 70-200. Any time I would go for Nikon glass but the size is the problem.

 

Rafal... I'll be waiting for your comments too! Rene'

Just what I've been looking for. Need to fill in the gap between my 17-55 and 80-200. I used to have a 24-85 but my daughter "inherited" it! The Tokina appeals more than the Sigma because I've always felt it was better built. Also it has a tripod mount. I'd be interested in gearing more from s you play with yours. I'll be looking to buy this fall.

Cheers.

This is a link about both lenses,raf

http://portal.chester.sg/content/view/129/2/

I've been very interested in both the Tokina and Sigma versions of these lenses, and

the 16(18)-50 from both companies. I have a Tokina AT-X Pro 12-24mm f/4 DX and

find it to be a terrific lens, sharp clean and very well built. The one comparison shown

between the Tokina 50-135 and Sigma 50-150 is not enough for me to make a valid

decision. It is nice to see more reviews since lenses can very so much one to another

of the same make. I like the HMS of Sigma, and longer 150mm, but I also like the

build quality and 16mm of the Tokina.

Does anyone know a good comparrison of the sigma 50-150 and the tokina 50-135? That one link doesn't seem to be very good at all. The Bokeh does look very nice with the Tokina you have, i wonder how the Sigma looks... This is a lens that fits the digital range so well, it's essentially what an 80-200 was on film or FX, i've always found an 80-200 too long on DX..

"Does anyone know a good comparrison of the sigma 50-150 and the tokina 50-135?"

 

Last year I compared these two lenses for a German photomagazine (so I know the results of the lab tests too). In brief: the Sigma is a tad better. In practice the difference of the optical quality is quite small. While the metal mount of the Tokina with its fine tripod socket is more solid than the Sigma's mount made of polycarbonate, HSM focusing of the Sigma is quicker and more silent. When I used the Sigma 50-150/2.8 HSM (I) the quality of the pics at 50 mm and 100 mm was excellent at full aperture while at 150 mm stopping down the lens to 4 or 5.6 improved the quality near the edges significantly. Vignetting at full aperture of both lenses was low. In my judgment you can't go wrong with neither of them. Recently I decided to buy the Sigma 50-150/2.8 HSM II (comparable with version I, but with improved pic quality in the close-up range) to complement my Sigma 100-300/4.

I recently went through the same decision-making process (Tokina vs. Sigma) and I did find several comparisons online:

 

http://portal.chester.sg/content/view/129/2/ (link worked fine for me). It gave a slight edge to the Sigma

 

An article mostly in Polish (I can't locate it right now). It gave a slight edge to the Tokina.

 

There also are individual tests for each at http://www.photozone.de. There are individual tests of the Tokina and also the Sigma version 1 at Popular Photography's website.

 

What I remember overall: Tokina is very sharp but has some CA problems. Also has screw-drive focus and focus accuracy not always great. Sigma version I had optical problems close-up and wide open at f2.8. The newer version II seems improved in both areas.

 

Let's face it: these are both very good lenses and the performance characteristics are very close.

 

Despite having previous problems with Sigma lenses I bought the Sigma because of the slightly expanded zoom range and the silent autofocus. Whaddayaknow, my lens stopped autofocusing after two days. Sigma!!! Fortunately, Amazon.com has a terrific exchange/refund policy. I got a replacement in a few days and this second copy is terrific. The build quality is just fine, by the way, nice and solid. Oh, but the Tokina does have a built-in tripod collar--is that an advantage or not?

 

Based on performance factors only I do recommend the Sigma. But we all know by now that there are some QC issues with this company, so danger lurks.

Tokina:

 

http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/46-nikon--nikkor-aps-c/278-tokina-af-50-135mm-f28-at-x-pro-dx-nikon-lab-test-report--review

 

Sigma (but not newer, II version ):

 

http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/46-nikon--nikkor-aps-c/322-sigma-af-50-150mm-f28-ex-hsm-dc-nikon-mount-review--test-report

 

I have 2 Sigma lenses: 10-20mm, 105 macro, and I like a them alot.

The 50-150mm II HSM, I should get sometime today. I use also Tamron 28-75mm 2.8, never had a complaint, so I dont have problem with 3rd party lenses. Never use Tokinas, I know people like them -- in my opinion you cannot go wrong with either one--Personally, I like longer reach 150mm, HSM of Sigma, -rafal

Frank,

 

Do I understand you to say that the Sigma uses a polycarbonate lens mount while the Tokina's mount is metal?

The in-lens focus motor was definitely a consideration, but in the end, the decision for

me came down to my suspicion (based on the identical focal lengths, similar build, and

various online hints about tech-sharing agreements) that the Tokina 50-135mm and

Pentax DA* 50-135mm f/2.8 were optically very nearly identical. I have a friend who

shoots Pentax, and has had nothing but great things to say about that piece of glass.

 

Of course, the Pentax lens *does* have an internal focusing motor, so in some ways, you

could consider it the best of both worlds.

The Sigma 50-150mm was tested against the Tokina 50-135mm in a Japanese photo magazine a year or two ago and the Sigma came out on top in terms of contrast, avoidance to flare, and overall image quality. I prefer Tokina over Sigma but I can imagine that Sigma built a winner, and having f2.8 at full zoom would be wonderful.

Whether or not either performs better, the two lenses offer focal range, performance, and size that are perfect for my use.

I own the Sigma version I.

 

Btw, Richard, my version I definitely has a metal mount.

I were debating among Tokina 50-135, Sigma 50-150 and the beast Nikon 80-200 ( 2 rings). I can afford only for

the range of $600-700

Today, I made the order of an used Nikon 80-200 AF_D , E condition at Adorama.

I hope I made a right choice. Anyway, I like the size of above Tokina and Sigma.

"Do I understand you to say that the Sigma uses a polycarbonate lens mount while the Tokina's mount is metal?"

 

Richard,

 

Maybe I put it into wrong words. The outer parts of the Sigma are made of polycarbonate. It's bayonet mount is made of metal. In contrast the outer parts of the Tokina are metal made as well as the bayonet mount.

<p>Ugh... i cant decide.. i actually used the sigma and it was fast and great!.. the build felt good.. but not as good as my Tokina... i have a Tokina AT-X PRO II 28-70mm F/2.8 and i love it... amazing build (everyone says great build on tokina's... well there absolutely right... it feels solid as a rock!) it is fast and give me amazing bokeh. So.... with that said, im leaning towards the tokina instead. Especially after seeing the kinda bokeh it produces (like the pics you took up there).<br>

<strong>This review did it for me... thanks... TOKINA IT IS!</strong><br>

Now for buying it... ugh...</p><div></div>

<p>This is my Tokina AT-X PRO II 28-70mm F/2.8</p><div></div>