k._rivkin Posted July 13, 2004 Share Posted July 13, 2004 Thanks to all the people who replied to my previous post. I was determined to buy 28-135 Canon, but was feeling bad about it's f4-6.5 and the improved quality at f8... Now I see that Tokina 28-70/f2.8 is rated much higher in tests and performs at 2.8 - may be it's a better choise ? The problem is that despite tests most of the photographs that I saw were better with Canon 28-135 rather then with Tokina. Can anyone share his wisdom on this point with me ? What about Tokina 24-200 ? Is this a comparable quality lens vs. 28-135 Canon (I would guess it's not) ? Thank you for your time, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
k._rivkin Posted July 13, 2004 Author Share Posted July 13, 2004 Sorry - the camera is drebel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zensphoto Posted July 13, 2004 Share Posted July 13, 2004 I'll tell ya something, I have a Canon Rebel TI and a canon AE-1 Program and a new Canon EOS 1vhs. I have the canon 35-350 L lens, and a bunch of other lenses Canon, Tokina, Sigma, Tamron, Vivitar even Pheonix. I have learned that the L lenses look snazzy, but all those other makes and models work just as good as the L lens, and as a matter of fact, I uses all the other lens more then the 35-350mm L lens. The Canon lens 28-135 is nice I have used it before, but the Tokina is very good as well. Might be cheaper, but it works well. Why do all the Pros have the 1K and higher lenses? I would say they got some money they wanted the best so they got the best ! I have a Canon EOS 1v HS with the fancy GRIP, did I really need the camera? Not really, got it because it is the worlds fastest camera. But my Rebel TI is still a very good camera. Guess it is just preferance in some cases. Yes, Canon L lenses are said to be the best, but I have shot over 62,000 pictures with out an L lens. Have a good one ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markus_franke Posted July 13, 2004 Share Posted July 13, 2004 Have you considered the sigma 24-135 2.8-4.5 ASP IF? For the price (got mine used on eBay for 212 Euros), it is nice, though - surprise - not the paramount of sharpness wide open. Overall, it is a good lens for walking around, I even do a bit of macro work with it (with and without extension tubes). Plus the 4mm on the wide end are quite useful with the 1.6 crop factor... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
k._rivkin Posted July 13, 2004 Author Share Posted July 13, 2004 Thank you, I would tend to agree somewhat, but: there is an obvious differense in between of 70$ 35-300zoom and 1000$ 28-70 zoom, both in terms of money and performance. The question is to which side the prize of purchase will go - Tokina 28-70 , or 28-80 family vs. 28-135 Canon... I would really enjoy having f2.8, but does 28-70 really stand up against 28-135 ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
k._rivkin Posted July 13, 2004 Author Share Posted July 13, 2004 Thank you. Will it be better then Canon's one ? The problem is that what I saw in terms of Tokina was good sharpness at f2.8 - that's the point of my seduction. The question is : is it true, or there is some problem I don't see ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
k._rivkin Posted July 13, 2004 Author Share Posted July 13, 2004 Ok I reformulate my question - Tokina photos that I saw were extremely sharp. But they also had lesser contrast and less "punch" then Canon ones. Is it a true permanent phenomenon, or it's just some occasional flare that messed up things ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suman Posted July 13, 2004 Share Posted July 13, 2004 If you are using a Drebel, why bother with contrast and "PUNCH". Get them the punch from PS. BUT and it's big one, don't get fooled by f2.8 of Tokina, it's just usable, but surely things gets improved a lot over f4.0. On top of all, you will love the superlative build quality of Tokina and probally loose the superlative AF speed of Canon USM. Now the choice is yours. I would have go with 28-135 for the added IS function. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ryanjoseph Posted July 13, 2004 Share Posted July 13, 2004 I have NEVER been impressed by these Tokina and Sigma "proish" lenses. I decided to buy a Canon 24-85 F3.5-4.5 USM instead. I find it sharper at its widest apeture than the Tokina stopped down to 4. Just my 2 cents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bob_bell Posted July 13, 2004 Share Posted July 13, 2004 This is a bit of a crazy thread. There is no way to compare lenses unless you toss them on a tripod on the same body and test them immediately after each other on a static target. Plus, even if one tests higher on MTF scores, you need to find out if the areas that they test are the areas you need the lens for. If you take my Canon EF 28-70/2.8L and put it against the Tokina 28-70/2.8L, I bet the Canon takes better pictures more often than the Tokina does in static tests, but if you are not using a camera body that can maximize that advantage, then you are in essence costing yourself money without a performance gain. If you really want to test lenses or find out what is the best fit for you, renting the lenses in question and testing them for a day should let you make up your mind what is best for you. I will give you one bit of risk though, there are incompatibility issues out there with 3rd party companies and Canon EOS bodies. It might be a deal right now, but if you have to toss the lens in 3 years because it won't work with your new body and the manufacturer cannot re-chip the controller, was the lens really a good deal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hilander Posted July 16, 2004 Share Posted July 16, 2004 I had both the Canon 28-135 IS and the Tokina 28-70 2.8. The Tokina was surprizingly sharp wide open and worked great in low light situations. Bit of a yellow cast when used wide open though. The build quality of the Tokina is excellent. The Canon 28-135 was nice as well and the added focal length makes it a nicer "walk around" lens, but even with IS, it was not as good as the Tokina in low light. I just sold both of those last week and got a Canon 28-70 2.8L. Hope I made the right decision...Ask me in a couple of weeks : ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now