Teleconverters for Tokina 50-135

[mtmixon]

<p>I'm one of those people deliberating between the Tokina 50-135/2.8 and the Sigma 50-150/2.8. Based on the numerous reviews and posts I've read, the following seems to be the consensus:</p>

<ul>

<li>Both lenses have very good image quality. Some favor one slightly more than the other, but both are considered to be pro-level in their build and IQ.</li>

<li>The Sigma has a bit more reach and focuses faster, but tends to have more variation in sample quality, with the "bad" samples exhibiting issues with front and rear focus.</li>

<li>The Tokina tends to have better overall quality control (i.e. less chance of getting a bad copy), but focuses slower.</li>

</ul>

<p>One piece of comparative info that I can't seem to find is whether both work, and work equally well, with tele-converters. I know the Sigma works very well with the Sigma 1.4x EX DG APO converter, but I don't see any information on whether the Tokina will work well with any available tele-converter. I believe the only one that might possibly work with it is one of the Kenkos, but I don't know. I also don't know if, in general, lenses work better with tele-converters made by the same manufacturer that made the lens.<br>

The only reason I am curious about the tele-converter is that I'll be replacing the Nikon 18-200VR with either one of these lenses. If I could keep both, I would, but budget dictates that the only way I can afford the Tokina or Sigma is if I sell the Nikon. I've enjoyed the Nikon, but it really doesn't perform terribly well indoors, and definitely doesn't offer the nice bokeh that a faster lens would. And since I recently picked up the Tokina 12-24, I no longer use the Nikon for wide angle. So, by moving from the Nikon to either the Tokina or Sigma, the only bit I would lose is the long end. Now, I know that I can "sneaker zoom" the difference if space permits, but I know there are times when that won't be possible and so I'd like to see if I can successfully extend the Tokina and Sigma to make up for that missing reach. I know I can with the Sigma, but am still in the dark regarding the Tokina.<br>

Any advice on good tele-converters for the Tokina would be appreciated. <br>

Thanks,<br>

Mike</p>

[ramon_v__california_]

<p>the 12-24 will be slow with a teleconverter. unless your needs are what that lens was made for, you are probably better served by a different lens to complement the long zoom that starts at 50mm. to me the gap between 24mm and 50mm is a concern. but maybe not to you. of course that can be filled in by the 35mm f/1.8, or not, if you don't need that gap. </p>

<p>if you don't need a fast lens for live events and sports, i'd keep your 18-200mm. anyway, kenko makes the teleconverter for the tokina.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>ramon, the op was talking about using a 50-135 with a TC.</p>

<p>michael, i have the 12-24 and 50-150. the 25-49 range isnt missed as much as one might think, although this combo works better on two bodies.</p>

<p>havent seen anything to suggest the 50-135 wont work with a TC; i'd get a Kenko just to be sure.</p>

<p>also, the boost in IQ and being able to control DoF with either the 50-135 or 50-150 over the 18-200 will be considerable.</p>

[mtmixon]

<p>Thanks guys. Yeah, my sanity would need to be checked if I was thinking of using a TC on a 12-24 lens. :-)</p>

<p>Regarding the 25-49 range, I do already have a 35mm/1.8 to cover it. Yes, it means putting on another lens, but in my shooting experience, the times when I use that range the most is indoors, and for that the 1.8 is unbeatable.</p>

<p>Eric, do you find the AF speed of the Tokina to be good? That's the only negative I ever hear about that lens. I only worry about that because I will be using it, in part, to chase around a young son and photograph outdoor soccer games.</p>

[ramon_v__california_]

<p>sorry, michael and eric. must have been a pre-coffee read :-)<br>

good you have the 35mm already.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>michael, i have the 50-150, not the 50-135. it's actually my second copy--i had version I, which got stolen, and i couldnt live without it so i got version II. both versions had very similar performance, i couldnt tell the difference, and no QC issues with either on a D300. i consider it an essential DX lens, and if AF speed matters at all--which it will, for moving kids and soccer games--get the sigma. if anything the sigma/d300 combo focuses too quickly--i found the HSM jittery in AF-C, so i shoot in AF-S with AF-On button, which is still very fast to get focus confirmation.</p>

<p>oh, and the bokeh is absolutely lovely...</p><div></div>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Maybe just me, but 1.4 x 135mm is 'just' 190mm. Compare it on the 18-200 whether it really makes enough difference. To me, it does not sound it's worth the cost and performance hit of a TC.<br>

Another thing worth considering: TC's sound nice convenient, but they are at least equal to switching a lens, practically.<br>

Anyway, I would not bother at all with the TC. Put the saved money towards something like the 70-300VR for those occassions where you need the reach.</p>

[mtmixon]

<p><strong>Eric</strong> , thanks for the info. The bokeh on that photo is quite nice. :-) AF speed is definitely going to be a concern. But I'm now wondering if Tokina is about to come out with a Mark II version of their lens, since they've discontinued the Nikon mount of the current version. Adorama, B&H and Amazon all list it as discontinued. I haven't seen any mention that that is indeed their strategy (they may just be handing this market over to Sigma, which would be dumb), but if a faster AF version of the Tokina came out, I'd probably tip in the direction of that over the Sigma. That said, you and countless others say great things about the Sigma, so I guess it would come down to price.</p>

<p><strong>Wouter </strong> -- you're right. When I look through the 18-200 and go from 135 to 200, the difference really isn't that great, and so if I really wanted extra reach it would probably make more sense to get something like the 70-300. Thanks for your suggestion.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>maybe...tokina has yet to implement anything close to AF-S/SWM. they've even lagged behind Tamron, which has micromotors for its SP line now. interestingly, Tokina has SDM in their Pentax-badged version of the 50-135, which goes for about $2x the nikon mount, maybe they will put this on their new version. but if the new one is anywhere as expensive as the pentax version ($1100+) you're practically into 70-200 VR (used) territory at that point, certainly 80-200/2.8-land. and the whole point of the 50-135 and 50-150 is they are compact.</p>

<p>if it comes down to price then the (F-mount) Tokina is the clear winner. i would have no qualms about the optics or the build quality of anything in the Tokina AT-X series, though you can probably expect more flare and CA. for that price ($550) its an excellent bargain. it's just more of a landscape/portrait lens than a sports/action/concert lens but i could live with that if i had to.</p>

<div></div>

[mtmixon]

<p>Thanks for the insight, Eric. It is interesting that Tokina, which is a very well-regarded line, is lagging in this area.</p>

<p>I do agree that if a Mark II of the 50-135 comes out and it's priced > $1000, then it would be competing more with the 70/80-200 lenses than the 50-150.</p>

<p>I'll hold tight for a bit, but unless Tokina comes out with a 50-135 w/ AF-S for approx. $700-800, I'll be going with the Sigma. Since the lens will be used for portraits, landscapes and sports, there would be no other choice in that focal range.</p>

[mtmixon]

<p>Eric, I overlooked something obvious in my last response to you. You stated that Tokina has yet to implement anything close to AF-S, but their 12-24 II has a built-in AF drive (and only sells for $100 more than the older version). So, I wonder if it is reasonable to assume that Tokina could put the same built-in AF drive into a Mark II version of the 50-135 and still sell it for only a couple hundred more than the Mark I version (which would put them on par with Sigma's lens).</p>