Tokina Lenses on 20D

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Anyone used the tokina lenses on a 20D?

The one I have in mind is the Tokina AF 24-200mm F3.5-5.6 AT-X, Zoom LENS.

Your thoughts on quality would be appreciated.

Thanks
Tim
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Tim S." <hjk@cox.com> wrote in message
news:wM5Pd.30498$xt.11491@fed1read07...
> Anyone used the tokina lenses on a 20D?
>
> The one I have in mind is the Tokina AF 24-200mm F3.5-5.6 AT-X, Zoom LENS.
>
> Your thoughts on quality would be appreciated.
>
> Thanks
> Tim
>
>
>
I have the Tokina 28-70 f2.6-2.8 ATX Pro, and, while its softness is not an
issue to you, the idea that it consistently gives me Err99 messages on my
20D may be.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Tim S. wrote:
> Anyone used the tokina lenses on a 20D?
>
> The one I have in mind is the Tokina AF 24-200mm F3.5-5.6 AT-X, Zoom LENS.
>
> Your thoughts on quality would be appreciated.
>
> Thanks
> Tim
>
>
>
Just be aware that any lens with such a huge zoom will have areas of the
zoom stages where it you can expect anything from terrible to pretty bad
performance. Tokina lenses in general are soft. Although I have no
recent experience with the brand after dumping the 2 I had when their
performance fell well short of cheap (as in 18~55) Canon lenses.

Doug
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

> Just be aware that any lens with such a huge zoom will have areas of the
> zoom stages where it you can expect anything from terrible to pretty bad
> performance. Tokina lenses in general are soft. Although I have no recent
> experience with the brand after dumping the 2 I had when their performance
> fell well short of cheap (as in 18~55) Canon lenses.
>
There are plenty of reviews if you Google - most of which suggest that the
lens performs much better than you might expect considering both the zoom
and price ranges.
 
D

dm

Distinguished
Apr 16, 2004
117
0
18,680
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Tim,

No offence intended - but I cannot for the life of me imagine why you'd
spend $1500 on a 20D body only to couple it with a $300 lens???

Regards

DM


"Tim S." <hjk@cox.com> wrote in message
news:wM5Pd.30498$xt.11491@fed1read07...
> Anyone used the tokina lenses on a 20D?
>
> The one I have in mind is the Tokina AF 24-200mm F3.5-5.6 AT-X, Zoom LENS.
>
> Your thoughts on quality would be appreciated.
>
> Thanks
> Tim
>
>
>
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

There's a lot of us out there with $300-400 lenses on our cameras, like the
28-135 IS, the 50mm f1.8 and f1.4, 50mm f2.5 macro, 100 f2 and many, many
others. There's no stigma (that's not "Sigma!<G>) to a $300 lens. The
problem here is the image quality of a zoom with a nearly 10x zoom ratio, or
lack thereof.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

"DM" <dungeon.master@nospam.blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:w%WPd.94076$B8.85036@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> Tim,
>
> No offence intended - but I cannot for the life of me imagine why you'd
> spend $1500 on a 20D body only to couple it with a $300 lens???
>
> Regards
>
> DM
>
>
> "Tim S." <hjk@cox.com> wrote in message
> news:wM5Pd.30498$xt.11491@fed1read07...
>> Anyone used the tokina lenses on a 20D?
>>
>> The one I have in mind is the Tokina AF 24-200mm F3.5-5.6 AT-X, Zoom
>> LENS.
>>
>> Your thoughts on quality would be appreciated.
>>
>> Thanks
>> Tim
>>
>>
>>
>
>
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Tim S." <hjk@cox.com> wrote in message
news:wM5Pd.30498$xt.11491@fed1read07...
> Anyone used the tokina lenses on a 20D?
>
> The one I have in mind is the Tokina AF 24-200mm F3.5-5.6 AT-X, Zoom LENS.
>
> Your thoughts on quality would be appreciated.
>
> Thanks
> Tim
>
>
>

Thank you all for the input. I have decided that I probably will hold off
and use Canon "L" glass for most of my lenses. I went to a local dealer and
shot different glass and at that point realized there is no substitute for
good lenses.

Thanks
Tim
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Tim S." <hjk@cox.com> wrote in message
news:vT4Qd.31106$xt.31021@fed1read07...
>
> "Tim S." <hjk@cox.com> wrote in message
> news:wM5Pd.30498$xt.11491@fed1read07...
>> Anyone used the tokina lenses on a 20D?
>>
>> The one I have in mind is the Tokina AF 24-200mm F3.5-5.6 AT-X, Zoom
>> LENS.
>>
>> Your thoughts on quality would be appreciated.
>>
>> Thanks
>> Tim
>>
>>
>>
>
> Thank you all for the input. I have decided that I probably will hold off
> and use Canon "L" glass for most of my lenses. I went to a local dealer
> and shot different glass and at that point realized there is no substitute
> for good lenses.
>
> Thanks
> Tim
>
There are other alternatives, it's just that a lens with the zoom range of
the Tokina you mention has too many compromises, optically speaking, to be
completely satisfactory. "L" glass is the best, of course, but you might
miss some shots, waiting to save up enough to buy a full quiver of lenses.
A 28-135 f3.5-5.6 IS USM and 100-400 f4.5-5.6L IS USM might be a good place
to start, moving on to a 17-40 f4L, or, if you can afford it, a 16-35 f2.8L,
I have the first two lenses, and am getting the funds together for the
latter.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote in message
news:XubQd.31461$xt.14538@fed1read07...
> "Tim S." <hjk@cox.com> wrote in message
> news:vT4Qd.31106$xt.31021@fed1read07...
>>
>> "Tim S." <hjk@cox.com> wrote in message
>> news:wM5Pd.30498$xt.11491@fed1read07...
>>> Anyone used the tokina lenses on a 20D?
>>>
>>> The one I have in mind is the Tokina AF 24-200mm F3.5-5.6 AT-X, Zoom
>>> LENS.
>>>
>>> Your thoughts on quality would be appreciated.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> Tim
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Thank you all for the input. I have decided that I probably will hold off
>> and use Canon "L" glass for most of my lenses. I went to a local dealer
>> and shot different glass and at that point realized there is no
>> substitute for good lenses.
>>
>> Thanks
>> Tim
>>
> There are other alternatives, it's just that a lens with the zoom range of
> the Tokina you mention has too many compromises, optically speaking, to be
> completely satisfactory. "L" glass is the best, of course, but you might
> miss some shots, waiting to save up enough to buy a full quiver of lenses.
> A 28-135 f3.5-5.6 IS USM and 100-400 f4.5-5.6L IS USM might be a good
> place to start, moving on to a 17-40 f4L, or, if you can afford it, a
> 16-35 f2.8L, I have the first two lenses, and am getting the funds
> together for the latter.
>
> --
> Skip Middleton
> http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
>

Thanks Skip,

This is becoming an expensive habit, looks like I might have to sell a few
toys to pay for it....

Tim
 
D

dm

Distinguished
Apr 16, 2004
117
0
18,680
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Absolutely! Side by side (whilst a wince when first buying them) once you
try the Canon L lenses you don't want to go back...

Regards

DM


"Tim S." <hjk@cox.com> wrote in message
news:vT4Qd.31106$xt.31021@fed1read07...
>
> "Tim S." <hjk@cox.com> wrote in message
> news:wM5Pd.30498$xt.11491@fed1read07...
>> Anyone used the tokina lenses on a 20D?
>>
>> The one I have in mind is the Tokina AF 24-200mm F3.5-5.6 AT-X, Zoom
>> LENS.
>>
>> Your thoughts on quality would be appreciated.
>>
>> Thanks
>> Tim
>>
>>
>>
>
> Thank you all for the input. I have decided that I probably will hold off
> and use Canon "L" glass for most of my lenses. I went to a local dealer
> and shot different glass and at that point realized there is no substitute
> for good lenses.
>
> Thanks
> Tim
>
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In message <w%WPd.94076$B8.85036@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
"DM" <dungeon.master@nospam.blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

>Tim,

>No offence intended - but I cannot for the life of me imagine why you'd
>spend $1500 on a 20D body only to couple it with a $300 lens???

The problem is not "a $300 lens". There are plenty of lenses that offer
more than the camera can capture at $300. The problem is with $300 9x
zooms. You can get a fine 50mm lens for $300.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Tim S." <hjk@cox.com> wrote in message
news:WZbQd.31464$xt.27127@fed1read07...
>
> "Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:XubQd.31461$xt.14538@fed1read07...
>> "Tim S." <hjk@cox.com> wrote in message
>> news:vT4Qd.31106$xt.31021@fed1read07...
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Thank you all for the input. I have decided that I probably will hold
>>> off and use Canon "L" glass for most of my lenses. I went to a local
>>> dealer and shot different glass and at that point realized there is no
>>> substitute for good lenses.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> Tim
>>>
>> There are other alternatives, it's just that a lens with the zoom range
>> of the Tokina you mention has too many compromises, optically speaking,
>> to be completely satisfactory. "L" glass is the best, of course, but you
>> might miss some shots, waiting to save up enough to buy a full quiver of
>> lenses. A 28-135 f3.5-5.6 IS USM and 100-400 f4.5-5.6L IS USM might be a
>> good place to start, moving on to a 17-40 f4L, or, if you can afford it,
>> a 16-35 f2.8L, I have the first two lenses, and am getting the funds
>> together for the latter.
>>
>> --
>> Skip Middleton
>> http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
>>
>
> Thanks Skip,
>
> This is becoming an expensive habit, looks like I might have to sell a few
> toys to pay for it....
>
> Tim
>
Yes, it is. And I feel your pain, a few years ago, I sold a model train
collection I had accumulated over many years to buy new AF bodies and
lenses, so the toys change. At least now that we've started a photo
business, the equipment becomes a write off...
One reason I mentioned the 28-135, even though it is not quite of the
quality of the 24-70 L, it does have image stabilization, which the "L" lens
lacks, and it is still optically excellent. IS will save some shots,
believe me!
--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

DM wrote:
> b.. Canon EF 70-200mm F2.8L IS USM

200/2.8 and 100/2 are optically better.

> d.. Canon EF 17-40mm F4L USM

20/2.8 and 50/1.8 are optically better.

And one of the lenses is only $60. If the 80mm equivalent works well
for the user as a portrait lens, he can spend only 1/10 or 1/20 of the
camera price on the lens and still get better optical quality.
 
S

Stacey

Distinguished
Apr 2, 2004
1,760
0
19,780
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

bj286@scn.org wrote:

> DM wrote:
>> b.. Canon EF 70-200mm F2.8L IS USM
>
> 200/2.8 and 100/2 are optically better.
>
>> d.. Canon EF 17-40mm F4L USM
>
> 20/2.8 and 50/1.8 are optically better.
>


And some people like me aren't interested in carrying a -sack full- of
primes around to save a few $$ or get 2 lpmm better resolution.
--

Stacey
 
S

Stacey

Distinguished
Apr 2, 2004
1,760
0
19,780
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Skip M wrote:

> "Tim S." <hjk@cox.com> wrote in message
> news:vT4Qd.31106$xt.31021@fed1read07...

>>>
>>>
>>
>> Thank you all for the input. I have decided that I probably will hold off
>> and use Canon "L" glass for most of my lenses. I went to a local dealer
>> and shot different glass and at that point realized there is no
>> substitute for good lenses.
>>
>> Thanks
>> Tim
>>
> There are other alternatives, it's just that a lens with the zoom range of
> the Tokina you mention has too many compromises, optically speaking, to be
> completely satisfactory. "L" glass is the best, of course, but you might
> miss some shots, waiting to save up enough to buy a full quiver of lenses.
>

But then waste money on cheapo glass and never be able to afford anything
good.

Why buy a camera with this high sensor pixel density and then use low
resolution lenses on it? Makes ZERO sense.

--

Stacey
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:37ich1F5cff80U2@individual.net...
> Skip M wrote:
>
>> "Tim S." <hjk@cox.com> wrote in message
>> news:vT4Qd.31106$xt.31021@fed1read07...
>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Thank you all for the input. I have decided that I probably will hold
>>> off
>>> and use Canon "L" glass for most of my lenses. I went to a local dealer
>>> and shot different glass and at that point realized there is no
>>> substitute for good lenses.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> Tim
>>>
>> There are other alternatives, it's just that a lens with the zoom range
>> of
>> the Tokina you mention has too many compromises, optically speaking, to
>> be
>> completely satisfactory. "L" glass is the best, of course, but you might
>> miss some shots, waiting to save up enough to buy a full quiver of
>> lenses.
>>
>
> But then waste money on cheapo glass and never be able to afford anything
> good.
>
> Why buy a camera with this high sensor pixel density and then use low
> resolution lenses on it? Makes ZERO sense.
>
> --
>
> Stacey

Thanks for editing out the pertinent part, Stacey! Geeez, in the rest of my
post, I was specific about which lenses I was talking about, and not a one
of them would fall under the heading of "el cheapo glass."
What is this, you can't find something to criticize, so you edit enough so
you can create something??

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <1108602739.502598.153100@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
bj286@scn.org says...
> > b.. Canon EF 70-200mm F2.8L IS USM
>
> 200/2.8 and 100/2 are optically better.

But not THAT much better.

Additionally, no IS.

But then again, you can own the 200 f/2.8 and the 100 f/2 for about $500
less than the 70-200 f/2.8 IS L.

> > d.. Canon EF 17-40mm F4L USM
>
> 20/2.8 and 50/1.8 are optically better.

Yeah, but zooms are convenient. Also, the 20mm f/2.8 is nice, but it
does suffer from some chromatic aberrations and flaring the 17-40 f/4L
is less prone to.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

But the total weight of the primes are still lighter than a single
zoom, so they are easier to carry than zooms.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Brian Baird wrote:
> In article <1108661118.509112.173460@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
> bj286@scn.org says...
> > But the total weight of the primes are still lighter than a single
> > zoom, so they are easier to carry than zooms.
>
> I don't know about that. The 20mm f/2.8 is a clunker.

16-35/2.8 600g
17-40/4 500g

20/2.8 405g
50/1.8 130g
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <1108661118.509112.173460@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
bj286@scn.org says...
> But the total weight of the primes are still lighter than a single
> zoom, so they are easier to carry than zooms.

I don't know about that. The 20mm f/2.8 is a clunker.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom