 |
|
|
megane2
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 22, 2005
Location: Singapore
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jun 15, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $340.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Fast and quiet focus, good torque zoom, solid build, very good colour, contrast and sharpness.
|
|
Cons:
|
Poor FT focus.
|
|
|
May be I have got a good copy, it simply works with my 20D.
It's cheaper than 85mm f1.8 but colour, contrast and sharpness is as good as L lens.
Lower the EV to reduce flare and CA.
|
|
 Jun 15, 2005
|
|
wpa5911
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 12, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jun 12, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $270.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
The quality of this lens is excellent. It is solid built. The quality of the lens is very close to Canon L lens except the price is much lower. If you have problem with Canon 20D, it is not your lens' problem. It is the way Canon design the Canon 20D to take "soft" pictures. You should try to reset the Custom Function 01 at Quality so that you can take better pictures. This is a very good every lens.
|
|
Cons:
|
The lens has focus problem at the high zoom end under low light condition.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2005
|
|
David Lozoya
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 9, 2002
Location: United States
Posts: 27
|
|
Review Date: May 28, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 5
|
|
Pros:
|
Built like a tank, easy to hold and well balanced.
|
|
Cons:
|
Optics are so-so
|
|
|
I tried this lens recently...hoping to match it up with a D60 for my son. No luck. Perhaps I received a bad copy.
My standard tests involve a brick wall, tripod mounted and check each f-stop and zoom range. Test was conducuted on a 20D. Second phase of my testing process is to test using everyday subjects.
The lens seems well built, just wished that the optics would have been up to the challenge. Optically, I was disappointed at the results. IMHO, the optics were OK...not great. The lens could achieve a satisfactory image if you worked at it. The images never poped out at me...no WOW factor. Please don't get me wrong...it can produce a sharp image at f8 but unfortunately only around the center of the frame, as you approached the edges (1.6 factor no less) the image became soft....always, regardless of f-stop used. The sweet spot (on my copy) was around 35-150. At 200mm the image iwas very soft even stopped down to f8.
I really wanted this lens to work as I thought it would have been a perfect walk-around for my son. Very easy to send this one back...
|
|
|
May 28, 2005
|
|
JohnLL
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 10, 2004
Location: Brazil
Posts: 752
|
|
Review Date: Apr 19, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Image quality, build, price
|
|
Cons:
|
|
|
|
AF is quiet and accurate. Fast enough for general use, but not for action (but not appreciably slower than the Canon 28-200 USM). I got this lens because I thought my Canon 28-200 was on the soft side, and I wanted the extra FOV at the wide end. I am getting sharper results from the Tokina. This is a nice lens to use.
|
|
|
Apr 19, 2005
|
|
walder
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 24, 2005
Location: United Arab Emirates
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Apr 15, 2005
|
Recommend? |
Price paid: Not Indicated
|
|
|
After having used this lens for eight months, it started giving "err99" on my Canon 300D, when stopped down. The problem continued when I upgraded to the Canon 20D - even locked up the camera when the camera was set on full manual mode.
|
|
|
Apr 15, 2005
|
|
GungaDin
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 24, 2005
Location: Germany
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Apr 13, 2005
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: $340.00
| Rating: 2
|
|
Pros:
|
Build quality, zoom range, AF quiet and fast
|
|
Cons:
|
Catastrophic optically.
|
|
|
Had received this lens today and taken over 100 test shots, the results thereof made me return it immediately. The were NO sharp shots whatsoever achievable at focus lengths below 50 mm, regardless of stopping down to f/11 or f/16. Above 50 mm, and with increasing focal length, the lens began to deliver results that were "acceptable", but only if stopped down to f/11 and beyond, and only so in the near-focus range. BTW it produced an "err99" message two times whereby it locked up the camera, and showed abnormal AF behaviour (hunting from end-to-end) twice. Contrast / brilliance were poor even under perfect daylight shooting conditions, flare-proneness was obvious. However, I couldn't notice any visible, obvious distortions and vignetting - most likely due to the fact that these tests were carried out with the Canon 20D DSLR, a 1,6x crop camera.
Build quality, "look and feel", handling, AF quietness and AF speed were very good, giving me the impression of a well-made, sturdy, "non-plastic" lens. Truly a pity that this lens isn't a performer even though it seems to look the business.
|
|
|
Apr 13, 2005
|
|
Sailaire
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 28, 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 361
|
|
Review Date: Mar 28, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Price to performance is the best out there. Walk around range (28-135) is close to "L" from my comparisons.. Sharp, Contrast, Quality build, Price. Easy to hold. Impressive looking on camera.
|
|
Cons:
|
No negatives for my use. Some may find it heavier that other "super zooms" but it's the same weight as a Canon 70-200 4L.
|
|
|
I took a long time to decide on this lens. I had a 24-85 USM and wanted more reach. I took shots with all the 70-200 contenders for an add on lens as well as the Tamron and Canon Super zooms. My most important criterial was sharpness and cost.
It came down to the Canon 70-200 4L as an add, the Canon 28-135 IS as a replacement and the Tokina 24-200 as a replacement.
The cost for the excellent Canon lens was 2X and 3X that of the Tokina.
The Tokina sharpness is closer to the 70-200 4l than the 28-135. The difference is most noticeable at 200, but hard to differentiate in the 70-140 range.
If you don't need IS, and want the best overall range and sharpness for a general purpose lens at an amazing price, you won't be dissappointed.
It's a winner!
|
|
|
Mar 28, 2005
|
|
jimyd
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 23, 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 7
|
|
Review Date: Mar 28, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
zoom range, build quality
|
|
Cons:
|
heavy,
|
|
|
slight vignetting at 24mm fully open.
|
|
|
Mar 28, 2005
|
|
akilorange
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 2, 2005
Location: Iceland
Posts: 25
|
|
Review Date: Feb 23, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, contrasty good colors, Lightweight compact and well built
|
|
Cons:
|
Focus somtimes hunts. I often have to move the zoom a tiny little bit back to get focus lock.
|
|
|
I bought this lens after reading about it here on Fredmiranda. I wanted one compact travel lense.
This lens has really surpriced me by being sharp, contrasty on all it´s focal lenghts, and very well built. I have to admit that most of my pictures taken with it are on F8.0. I still have to try it more on brighter settings. But so far I really like it for what I bought it for. NO REGRETTS.
I also have 17 40, 70 200 2.8 and the 100 400IS. This lense is not as fast focusing as these lenses but as a travel lens it does excellent job.
I´m thinking about subscribeng for FM gallery and then I will post some pictures.
|
|
|
Feb 23, 2005
|
|
walder
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 24, 2005
Location: United Arab Emirates
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Feb 22, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $350.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Optical quality, build, zoom range, price
|
|
Cons:
|
Bulky
|
|
|
An excellent walkaround lens with its 24-200 coverage. For a family man, this is a great lens to leave on the camera and to take on family outings without the hassle of changing lenses in the field. Images are sharp and contrasty, autofocus is reasonably fast.
In spite of its 8x zoom ratio, quality of images is comparable to a 3.5x zoom ratio lens.
A bit chunky with the Canon 300D, but with a larger camera, gives much better balance. Solid metal construction, gives a very good feel.
The only real complaint I have is that there seems to be some 'play' when fitted to my Canon 300D.
All in all, a very useful lens to have, and very good value for money. If you are looking for a good quality large zoom ratio lens, this is the one to have - within its category, this lens would rate as excellent.
|
|
|
Feb 22, 2005
|
|
1decmal8Tango
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 26, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 453
|
|
|
Feb 20, 2005
|
|
SethChernak
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 15, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 56
|
|
Review Date: Jan 31, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $85.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, heavy, well balanced, good contrast, excellent walk-around
|
|
Cons:
|
Occasional focus search, but still quick to rectify
|
|
|
I bought this lens used, for a simple walk-around, with a few light scratches on the front element, and as such, have had no problems at all with it.
Pictures are very sharp, and color and contrast is good as well. I've used many other lenses (Canon 70-200 f4L, Canon 85mm f1.8 & 1.2) and seen the results. While this lens will (obviously) not stack up against those, for the price paid, and the fact that it is a 3rd party lens, this beats the Canon 28-200 USM hands down.
The build quality is excellent, while some may complain about the weight of lenses, I prefer them to be heavy, as I know that a heavy lens means good build quality. I have never had a problem with flare, from either indoors (shooting basketball games with flash), or outdoors under bright sunlight, with or without the lens hood.
Others may complain about the sharpness, or the slow focus, but they're comparing it to high-end glass, and not realizing the differences in price-paid to product-received. I would suggest this for any photographer looking for good quality in a simple walk-around.
|
|
|
Jan 31, 2005
|
|
oriwo
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 7, 2004
Location: Germany
Posts: 1
|
|
Review Date: Jan 27, 2005
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 3
|
|
Pros:
|
Excellent build quality.
|
|
Cons:
|
Bad sharpness and contrast. "Ghost-Pictures"
|
|
|
I tested this zoom on my Pentax Ist Ds. The build quality of this zoom is superb. Picture quality is really bad on this DSLR. Poor sharpness and contrast and "Ghostpictures" if you photograph white figures on black ground with flash.
|
|
|
Jan 27, 2005
|
|
sino408
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 30, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 903
|
|
Review Date: Jan 20, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $269.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Price, zoom range, build
|
|
Cons:
|
weight
|
|
|
A heavy walk-around lens that will suit most of your routine shooting needs. 3.5 aperture left more to be desired but is enough for entry-level or amateur shooting (which I am). I'd think professional people that make money from their cameras or people with a larger budget can afford and definitely deserve more from this truly beginner's lens. It's girth will wow people that happen to be around you when you pull this monster out.
Dimensions:
7.5cm diameter
9.5cm length
comes with lens hood
|
|
|
Jan 20, 2005
|
|
seagrove01
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 16, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 119
|
|
Review Date: Dec 29, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $400.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Good fit and finish, decent sharpness/resolution/contrast
|
|
Cons:
|
|
|
|
Wanted a lens that covered wide angle to telephoto when I went to the UK in 2003 with an Nikon F100. Shot nothing but Kodak Tri-X and had a ball. Went back to the UK in Nov 2004 using the Tokina w/Nikon D2H. Because of the lens factor (1.5x) I also took my Nikkor 18-35. Still used my Tokina about 85% of the time. Still very satisfied with the lens. Looking to buy the Tokina 12-24mm f4 when it hits the streets in Jan 2005.
|
|
|
Dec 29, 2004
|
|
ijshusky
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 13, 2004
Location: Japan
Posts: 2
|
|
Review Date: Dec 13, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Build quality, zoom range, sharp most of time, fast AF
|
|
Cons:
|
None noticed
|
|
|
Just got this lens a couple of days ago. I have already taken almost 700 pictures with this lens. I am totaly happy with it.
It is the best suitable for out door usages, but I have managed to use it indoors with some good results as well.
|
|
|
Dec 13, 2004
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
38
|
126441
|
Mar 20, 2007
|
|
|
Recommended By
|
Average Price
|
|
76% of reviewers
|
$275.96
|
|
|
Build Quality Rating
|
Price Rating
|
Overall Rating
|
|
9.37
|
8.41
|
7.6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
