Home · Register · Search · View Winners · Software · Hosting · Software · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username   Password

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Nikon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

  

Archive 2009 · Tamron 70-200/2.8 vs. Tokina 50-135/2.8?
  
 
ZoranC
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · Tamron 70-200/2.8 vs. Tokina 50-135/2.8?


I am trying to decide between the two for my DX (D300). Here is the criteria:

1. Image quality wide open, sharpness and OOF area rendering is of ultimate importance.

2. Auto-focusing accuracy and consistency is of ultimate importance. Speed is in this case unimportant to me. I will not be using it for sports.

3. It will be mainly used for people (portraits and similar) in outdoor situations, which makes me wonder which foccal range would serve me better.

Any thoughts/experiences/etc?

Thank you in advance!



Mar 29, 2009 at 05:23 AM
BenV
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · Tamron 70-200/2.8 vs. Tokina 50-135/2.8?


check www.pixel-peeper.com for samples, also there have been a few threads about this. Check in the alternative lenses forum.


Mar 29, 2009 at 06:10 AM
Jack White
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #3 · 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.



Mar 29, 2009 at 06:51 AM
ZoranC
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · Tamron 70-200/2.8 vs. Tokina 50-135/2.8?


Thank you!


Mar 30, 2009 at 05:33 AM
walnutroof
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · Tamron 70-200/2.8 vs. Tokina 50-135/2.8?


I've owned tamron 70-200mm f2.8 and sold it after 6 months my only complaint was the noise sound and its very slow!!!!!! otherwise its tack sharp and rich in contrast. Never tried tokina 50-135


Mar 31, 2009 at 01:54 AM





FM Forums | Nikon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username   Password    Retrive password