Tokina RMC 80-200/4 vs. Zuiko 65-200/4

Discussion in 'Olympus' started by ondrejp_spyderman, Feb 8, 2007.

  1. Hi,
    I have a chance to buy one of those lenses. Please help me decide... I'd like to
    hear comparissons of these two lenses: size + weight, optical performance
    (sharpness, contrast, flare), handling...

    I already own Zuiko 135/3.5 and 200/4, but I'd like to have a zoom in this range
    instead of primes. My 135 has terribly low contrast so I can't use it for slides
    (it looks odd in the slideshow of nice contrasty images), and I don't carry the
    200 because I rarely use it. I'd like to use the tele-zoom instead of the 135,
    with an added bonus of the long end at 200 without more weight. If the zoom will
    be good enough, I might also leave Zuiko 85/2 at home...

    The Zuiko obviously will be more expensive at about 130 USD while I can have the
    Tokina for 70 USD.

    So what do you have to say about these two lenses?
     
  2. Hello Ondrej

    I can't talk about the Tokina, but my sample of the Zuiko 65-200mm is rather average, especially at 200mm i need to close it two stops to f8 to get sharp results. My Zuiko 85-250mm is sharper wide open at f5, even the cheap 75-150mm is better in imaging performance. As it comes to handling, i like the 65-200mm much better than the latter mentioned two ring zooms.

    Regards, Patrik

    Regards, Patrik
     
  3. I'm surprised that your 135/3.5 isn't acceptable. The lenses I've owned over the years were very good. I like my 135/2.8 much better, but something is wrong with your f/3.5 lens if it's unusable.

    Regarding the 65-200, it's usually described as nice, but nothing special. One thing, those lenses are prone to damage of some of the rear elements; I think it's from degradation of the cement between the rear-most group. It's unrepairable, so make sure you get a good one if you buy off the 'Bay.

    I'd expect the Tokina, non-ATX lens to be approximately equal to the Zuiko or slightly inferior. Now the 70-200/2.8 Tokina ATX will be superior, but it's much harder to find and much larger/heavier. You should also consider a Tamron SP lens, which are generally very, very good.

    Skip
     
  4. > I'm surprised that your 135/3.5 isn't acceptable. The lenses I've
    > owned over the years were very good. I like my 135/2.8 much better,
    > but something is wrong with your f/3.5 lens if it's unusable.

    My 135 is fine sharpness-wise, but terrible low-contrast. Just today I realized that I had stuck on it a cheap non-coated filter, so that might be the reason for very low contrast... I'll have to take some test shots on slide film.

    BTW: this is what I found about the Tokina 80-200/4: http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=005nUo (scroll down to the last post). I just wonder if it's true...
     
  5. Hmmmm....That's an interesting post on the Tokina f/4 lens. I'd risk the $70 just to try it if I were you. You can always resell it.

    Skip
     
  6. I have both the 135/3.5 and 200/4 Zuikos. I don't find the 135 particularly low in contrast. Shine a flashlight through your lens with the aperture open all the way. You might find something unwelcome. We are all more aware of flare with wide angle lenses than with telephotos but flare can still be a problem with telephotos. I have two versions of the Canon 200mm f/4 FD. The earlier one is just marked FD and the second one FD SSC. If the sun is over your shoulder both lenses are good. If you are shootng against the sun the SSC is much better. I haven't used my 200/4 Zuiko very much yet but in general a fixed 200mm lens will be sharper that an 80-200 at the 200mm setting. Some of the very best 80-200 zooms will come close at the center but rarely at the edges. Several FD types in the Canon forum have stated that the Canon 80-200mm f/4L is sharper at 200 than the 200/f FD SSC. I would have to test that myself to believe it.

    What about the 80-200mm f/4 Tokina RMC? This is a surprisingly good lens. I only used the one marked Tokina once and I thought it was quite good. The Konica 80-200mm f/4 Hexanon two touch lens is the same as the Tokina RMC. Konica's very expensive 80-200mm f/4 UC lens came out in 1976. It was a good lens (I have 2 of them) but did not sell very well. Someone who was going to spend hundreds of dollars on an 80-200mm lens probably had a Canon or a Nikon. In the early 1980s Konica went to Tokina to have lenses made. The 80-200mm f/4 two touch was one of the first. As Konica started to fade out of the SLR business there was a later 80-200mm f/4.5 two touch lens which was also made by Tokina.

    For the most part I prefer fixed focal length lenses. If you use the RMC lens on a tripod or hand held at an adequate shutter speed it will perform quite well. If you use it hand held and wide open with slow film at 1/60 ro 1/125 then the results will not be so good. More telephoto sharpness can be gained by limiting camera shake than by going to more expensive glass.
     
  7. Thank you all for responses.

    I already bought the Tokina. Just to try if a zoom fits my style after long time with only primes... I was also afraid of the rear-group-problem of the Zuiko, and buying it from the Bay.

    I'll also try the 135/3.5 with a better filter.

    PS: the zoom is such a huge beast... even larger (longer) than Zuiko 200/4 !
     
  8. The problem with Zuiko 65-200 is not degradation of cement - there is no cemented pair in the rear group of the lens. It is simple fogging and can be easily cleaned. Actually I have just done that.
    It is somewhat difficult to get to the fogged element: need to remove mount, then the thick chrome part and aperture ring. Then it is possible to unscrew the tube containing the whole rear group of 5 elements. The foggy one is in the middle, accessible from the front. The second and middle elements are easy to put back in the wrong orientation so before disassembly always put a mark on the outside surface, later clean with alcohol.
     

Share This Page