I've stumbled over lens in title. 2nd hand good deal. Haven't bought it yet.

What do you think of this lens? Any good?

What's your experience using tokina lenses?

My camera is a canon 350D

Tokina was formed by a group of former Nikon employees.

Their lenses tend to be a bit larger and heavier than equivalent Sigma or Tamron lenses but they are also significantly more robust and better built, using metal lens barrels and optical glass elements for example.

Tokina has recently moved to an all-APS image circle line-up so their newer lenses will be severely restricted if used on cameras with full frame sensors. Tokina has also foregone any form of "silent" focusing technology but their lenses still focus quickly and quietly.

At one time Tokina had three "fast" 28-70/80 lenses; the first was the 28-70 AT-X Pro II 2.6-2.8 and was considered a worthy lens by professionals, photo-journalists in particular. The second lens was the ATX-Pro 2.8 which ranged from poor wide-open to great when stopped down. The third is the one that you mention, the AT-X SV, and was a budget "fast" lens that gave good build quality but only so-so image quality.

Whatever you choose be aware that the 28-80 would be the 35mm equivalent of a 45-110 on your 350D which for most people is not a very useful zoom range.

Thanks!

I currently have the 50 1.8, canon 28-105 3.5-4.5 USM II, an ooooold 50-200 3.5-4.5 ad mostly do concert photography.

I think that the zoom range is what I want. It's the image quality I'm after.

Thanks!

I currently have the 50 1.8, canon 28-105 3.5-4.5 USM II, an ooooold 50-200 3.5-4.5 ad mostly do concert photography.

I think that the zoom range is what I want. It's the image quality I'm after.

Well, it's all relative isn't it.

In my experience the SV gives good results when used in the f/4-f/11 range [less good from f/2.8-f/3.5 and of course all digital cameras do poorly after f/11 because of diffraction].

Of course if you are getting a really great deal on this lens [around $100-150 U.S. IMHO] then you can try it wide open and if it doesn't work for you then you haven't lost very much.

My opinion is that nothing can substitute for a well built and well designed lens [and the best is not always the most expensive, often, but not always].

What is better, spending $1000 on three mediocre lenses over several years, trying to get something that satisfies you or spending $1200 once for a great lens and not having to worry about it any more?

Actually I would look at Tokina's new 16-50 f/2.8 [24-75 on your camera]. The reviews I have seen on this lens are all good so far and at about $600 it is half the cost of the equivalent Canon 'L' lens.

Of course if you are getting a really great deal on this lens [around $100-150 U.S. IMHO] then you can try it wide open and if it doesn't work for you then you haven't lost very much.


OP location (as it says in the profile box) - BRS/BHX = UK
Currency - GBP or £
Lens location - DUB = IER
Currency - EUR or €

Unfortunately all needed doing is exchange $ to £ (lower end) or € (higher end) and that is pretty close to the actual cost of the lens.

You can spend thousands on an L lens only to find out it is soft.

Most if not all fast lenses are soft wide open, from what I've heard.

OP location (as it says in the profile box) - BRS/BHX = UK
Currency - GBP or £
Lens location - DUB = IER
Currency - EUR or €

Unfortunately all needed doing is exchange $ to £ (lower end) or € (higher end) and that is pretty close to the actual cost of the lens.

Right...That's why I put, "$100-150 U.S." [or 200 GBP or 165 Euros if you prefer].

You can spend thousands on an L lens only to find out it is soft.

Most if not all fast lenses are soft wide open, from what I've heard.

Yeah, well, there's soft and then there is soft...;)

You know, most of the general "softness" of using a fast lens wide open shows up in the corners and edges. One of the few advantages of using a lens designed with a 24mm x 36mm image circle is that, when used on a digital camera with an APS sized sensor, you are pretty much using just the sweet spot of the lens.

Hey, for $100-150 try it, see what happens.

Hey, for $100-150 try it, see what happens.

Well, is it worth replacing the canon 28-105 3.5-4.5 for the Tokina?

How soft would a Tokina be compared to soft?

I've seen images taken with 1.4 lenses and they have been tack sharp. Yes, DoF is shallow as paper thickness but still work for me when I look at them.

Personally I like it when an image isn't tack sharp corner to corner nor do I like deep DoF. I sometimes blur out backgrounds even more.

/E

How soft would a Tokina be compared to soft?

I've seen images taken with 1.4 lenses and they have been tack sharp. Yes, DoF is shallow as paper thickness but still work for me when I look at them./E

Well, it’s not the speed of the lens itself but how well the manufacture has designed it. Nikon like Canon has some really fast lenses that are sharp wide open. They also have a few that aren’t.

The Nikkor 85mm f/1.8 is great from about f/2.5 on but a little soft at f/1/8. The Nikkor 85mm f/1.4 however is tack sharp starting at f/1.4. It all depends on the specific design.

Well, is it worth replacing the canon 28-105 3.5-4.5 for the Tokina?

How soft would a Tokina be compared to soft?/E

Hmm, I guess I missed the part earlier about you already having the USM 28-105.

With that being the case I am not sure that you will get that much more out of the extra stop the Tokina gives you.

You say that you shoot a lot of concerts. Do you routinely drag your shutter? If so, and if you have pretty good technique, then I am not sure that the Tokina would help you all that much.

Then again, if you know from your own experience that you really need an f/2.8 lens then go for it, but keep the USM until you are fully satisfied with the Tokina.

Hmm, I guess I missed the part earlier about you already having the USM 28-105.

With that being the case I am not sure that you will get that much more out of the extra stop the Tokina gives you.

You say that you shoot a lot of concerts. Do you routinely drag your shutter? If so, and if you have pretty good technique, then I am not sure that the Tokina would help you all that much.

Then again, if you know from your own experience that you really need an f/2.8 lens then go for it, but keep the USM until you are fully satisfied with the Tokina.

Drag the shutter? I'm self taught so know effing all about techniques. I let the camera sort out the aperture while I set the speed and hope for the best. Every so often check results and vary ISO accordingly.

See the thread on lens changing life as I posted a couple of links there.

/E

Drag the shutter? I'm self taught so know effing all about techniques. I let the camera sort out the aperture while I set the speed and hope for the best. Every so often check results and vary ISO accordingly.

See the thread on lens changing life as I posted a couple of links there.

/E

Dragging the shutter refers to an available light shooting technique [no flash used] where one uses a slower shutter speed [1/15, 1/30, 1/60 depending on your ability to hold your camera still or use a monopod, etc.]

This brings out the detail in the background, such as on stage at a concert or the apse of a church during a wedding ceremony. It requires that the photographer time the shot so that the main subject isn't moving around too much but when done well can produce some stunning results that don't have that phony quality that flash can sometimes give.

Dragging the shutter refers to an available light shooting technique [no flash used] where one uses a slower shutter speed [1/15, 1/30, 1/60 depending on your ability to hold your camera still or use a monopod, etc.]


Aha!!! *that* is it. No, not really doing that much unless absolutely forcedto when lighting is so bad that the only way to get anything on film/card is to go down to 1/60 which I can hold. Not to tack sharp quality but at least good enough for details and then postprocess sharpening it up.

/E
Ps. Flash? What's that? .... Oh, that little popup thingy on top of the camera I've bumped so low in the menu settings it's almost turned off.

;)

Don't even own a flash gun. Never have.

Right...That's why I put, "$100-150 U.S." [or 200 GBP or 165 Euros if you prefer]...US $100-150 is £50-75, not 200, and €75-110, not 165. I think you reversed the conversion factors.

US $100-150 is £50-75, not 200, and €75-110, not 165. I think you reversed the conversion factors.

You’re right of course, but I reversed them in that post, not in my mind - if that makes any sense. :confused: