Upload & Sell: Off
| p.1 #3 · Tamron 70-200/2.8 vs. Tokina 50-135/2.8? |
Tokina 50-135mm is compact for a zoom of such range w/ a large aperture and can be easily used hand held. Focus accuracy is dead-on (for my D300) though never pushed it under low light conditions. Image quality is fantastic (excellent contrast/colors, sharp enough -- better at f/2.8 than my previous exp. with the Sigma EX 70-200mm DG macro). Build quality very good. My only perceived flaw of the lens was the non-removable tripod collar. The foot was a decent place to put the palm of one's hand but the option of removing it would have been preferred. The lens is so small that I don't think I would ever have put a D300 behind it and then place it on a tripod.
Never used the Tamron 70-200mm but based on specs it is 0.6lb heavier and 2.3" longer. But you gain focal length and a better zoom macro lens. Less discreet though. Better tripod collar/ring than the Tokina and removable.
For portraits and street/travel photography I'd much rather carry the lighter/compact Tokina 50-135mm and maybe for other things the Tamron 70-200 (sports, studio, zoom macro, etc.). Never really critically assessed OOF/bokeh with the Tokina but from what I remember nothing jumped out as looking bad. I'm sure you'll be happy with the Tokina for your listed needs. If you crave an extra 15mm at the long-end maybe the Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8 is a good compromise.