Tokina lenses for Canon body?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by rugbyphoto, Feb 17, 2006.

  1. rugbyphoto

    rugbyphoto Guest

    I use Canon and Sigma lenses for my rugby images and had cause to
    consider a Tokina lens today. Having not used this brand at all I am
    curious to hear what experience others have had.

    I note that pbase shows some decent reviews of these as a whole.

    garry


    www.rubgyphoto.com
    rugbyphoto, Feb 17, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. rugbyphoto

    Pete D Guest

    They are somewhat lile the Sigma lenses, some good, some not so good, one or
    two, very ordinary.

    "rugbyphoto" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >I use Canon and Sigma lenses for my rugby images and had cause to
    > consider a Tokina lens today. Having not used this brand at all I am
    > curious to hear what experience others have had.
    >
    > I note that pbase shows some decent reviews of these as a whole.
    >
    > garry
    >
    >
    > www.rubgyphoto.com
    >
    Pete D, Feb 17, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. "rugbyphoto" <> writes:

    > I use Canon and Sigma lenses for my rugby images and had cause to
    > consider a Tokina lens today. Having not used this brand at all I am
    > curious to hear what experience others have had.
    >
    > I note that pbase shows some decent reviews of these as a whole.


    I believe the general impression is that, on the average, Tokina is
    considerably better than Sigma. It's one of the premier 3rd-party
    lensmakers.

    (Everybody makes some cheap in the bad sense lenses, including Nikon
    and Canon. Nearly everybody, certainly including Sigma and Tokina and
    Tamron, makes some outstanding lenses. Looking up impressions on the
    *particular* lens you're interested in is far more valuable than
    checking the general reputation of the maker.)
    --
    David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
    RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
    Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
    Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>
    David Dyer-Bennet, Feb 17, 2006
    #3
  4. rugbyphoto

    DaveJ Guest

    "David Dyer-Bennet" <> wrote in message
    news:-b.net...
    > "rugbyphoto" <> writes:
    >
    > > I use Canon and Sigma lenses for my rugby images and had cause to
    > > consider a Tokina lens today. Having not used this brand at all I am
    > > curious to hear what experience others have had.
    > >
    > > I note that pbase shows some decent reviews of these as a whole.

    >
    > I believe the general impression is that, on the average, Tokina is
    > considerably better than Sigma. It's one of the premier 3rd-party
    > lensmakers.
    >
    > (Everybody makes some cheap in the bad sense lenses, including Nikon
    > and Canon. Nearly everybody, certainly including Sigma and Tokina and
    > Tamron, makes some outstanding lenses. Looking up impressions on the
    > *particular* lens you're interested in is far more valuable than
    > checking the general reputation of the maker.)
    > --
    > David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
    > RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
    > Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/>

    <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
    > Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>


    Things seem to move between Tokina and Sigma with the decades, but excellent
    advice to research the specific lens - I've had good and average examples of
    all 3 (never had a "grrrr this is going back" one though).
    DaveJ, Feb 17, 2006
    #4
  5. "David Dyer-Bennet" <> wrote in message
    news:-b.net...
    > "rugbyphoto" <> writes:
    >
    >> I use Canon and Sigma lenses for my rugby images and had cause to
    >> consider a Tokina lens today. Having not used this brand at all I am
    >> curious to hear what experience others have had.
    >>
    >> I note that pbase shows some decent reviews of these as a whole.

    >
    > I believe the general impression is that, on the average, Tokina is
    > considerably better than Sigma. It's one of the premier 3rd-party
    > lensmakers.
    >
    > (Everybody makes some cheap in the bad sense lenses, including Nikon
    > and Canon. Nearly everybody, certainly including Sigma and Tokina and
    > Tamron, makes some outstanding lenses. Looking up impressions on the
    > *particular* lens you're interested in is far more valuable than
    > checking the general reputation of the maker.)


    I do not use a Canon. I have a Sigma DSLR and Sigma lenses. I also have a
    Nikon D50 and a Tokina 28-70mm f2.8 AT-X lens. I wanted to get a Sigma
    24-70mm EX for the Nikon but the cost was more than I could spend. I opted
    for the Tokina once I laid my hands on it - it's built like a tank and was
    much less than the Sigma. I really like the Sigma 24-70mm EX on my Sigma
    camera but I have to say that the Tokina is a great choice for my Nikon,
    especially at the price.
    Peter A. Stavrakoglou, Feb 17, 2006
    #5
  6. rugbyphoto

    Tom2000 Guest

    On 17 Feb 2006 11:39:24 -0600, David Dyer-Bennet <>
    wrote:
    >
    >I believe the general impression is that, on the average, Tokina is
    >considerably better than Sigma. It's one of the premier 3rd-party
    >lensmakers.
    >

    Years ago, when I was serious about film photography, I bought a
    Tokina 35-70 f/2.8 (constant), mainly based upon stellar reviews.
    The lens performance was nothing short of spectacular.

    I know it was a while ago, and that represents only a sample of 1,
    but, FWIW, that was the only zoom lens that ever lived in my camera
    bag. It was a real performer.

    Tom
    Tom2000, Feb 17, 2006
    #6
  7. rugbyphoto

    Scott Wuerch Guest

    Tom2000 wrote:
    > On 17 Feb 2006 11:39:24 -0600, David Dyer-Bennet <>
    > wrote:
    >> I believe the general impression is that, on the average, Tokina is
    >> considerably better than Sigma. It's one of the premier 3rd-party
    >> lensmakers.
    >>

    > Years ago, when I was serious about film photography, I bought a
    > Tokina 35-70 f/2.8 (constant), mainly based upon stellar reviews.
    > The lens performance was nothing short of spectacular.
    >
    > I know it was a while ago, and that represents only a sample of 1,
    > but, FWIW, that was the only zoom lens that ever lived in my camera
    > bag. It was a real performer.
    >
    > Tom
    >
    >


    I run Canon bodies with Tokina optics. I love them. I did A/B the
    28-70 2.8 ATX pro with a 28-70 2.8 L Canon. I am a pro and shoot
    seniors, events, sports and an occasional wedding to pay the bills. In
    real life photography (not shooting walls and perfectly flat line
    resolution charts) I had a difficult time telling which lens shot which
    picture. Okay, in most cases I couldn't tell which took the picture.
    Wide open at 28mm the Tokina softened ever so slightly on the edges when
    louped at 4x on an 8x12 print. The ATX series are built like tanks and
    function well with the camera bodies.

    Scott Wuerch
    Scott Wuerch, Feb 19, 2006
    #7
  8. rugbyphoto

    Tom2000 Guest

    On Sun, 19 Feb 2006 06:16:48 -0600, Scott Wuerch <>
    wrote:

    >Tom2000 wrote:


    >> Years ago, when I was serious about film photography, I bought a
    >> Tokina 35-70 f/2.8 (constant), mainly based upon stellar reviews.
    >> The lens performance was nothing short of spectacular.
    >>
    >> I know it was a while ago, and that represents only a sample of 1,
    >> but, FWIW, that was the only zoom lens that ever lived in my camera
    >> bag. It was a real performer.
    >>

    >
    >I run Canon bodies with Tokina optics. I love them. I did A/B the
    >28-70 2.8 ATX pro with a 28-70 2.8 L Canon. I am a pro and shoot
    >seniors, events, sports and an occasional wedding to pay the bills. In
    >real life photography (not shooting walls and perfectly flat line
    >resolution charts) I had a difficult time telling which lens shot which
    >picture. Okay, in most cases I couldn't tell which took the picture.
    >Wide open at 28mm the Tokina softened ever so slightly on the edges when
    >louped at 4x on an 8x12 print. The ATX series are built like tanks and
    >function well with the camera bodies.
    >


    Thank you, Scott. It's nice to know that Tokina is still building
    good lenses. More power to them.

    I was shooting Canons, too. In my case, A-1 bodies with all Canon
    FD fixed focal length lenses, save for the Tokina. Its performance
    across the zoom range was very close to the fixed FL lenses, even wide
    open. As you said, close enough that I never went "Gawk!" when I saw
    any of its results. I didn't notice any particular softening, even
    wide open. It performed far better than any zoom I tested, way back
    when.

    Also, the constant f/2.8 mated well with the A-1. (On the A-1, a
    lens would only report its maximum aperture. If you were shooting
    something like a f/2.8-3.5 lens, it would only meter properly at its
    widest setting.)

    Fun to reminisce sometimes...

    Best Regards,

    Tom



    >Scott Wuerch
    Tom2000, Feb 19, 2006
    #8
  9. rugbyphoto

    Skip M Guest

    "Scott Wuerch" <> wrote in message
    news:XiZJf.68$...

    >>

    >
    > I run Canon bodies with Tokina optics. I love them. I did A/B the 28-70
    > 2.8 ATX pro with a 28-70 2.8 L Canon. I am a pro and shoot seniors,
    > events, sports and an occasional wedding to pay the bills. In real life
    > photography (not shooting walls and perfectly flat line resolution charts)
    > I had a difficult time telling which lens shot which picture. Okay, in
    > most cases I couldn't tell which took the picture. Wide open at 28mm the
    > Tokina softened ever so slightly on the edges when louped at 4x on an 8x12
    > print. The ATX series are built like tanks and function well with the
    > camera bodies.
    >
    > Scott Wuerch


    Boy, I could tell the difference between my Tokina 28-70 f2.6-2.8 ATX Pro
    and my Canon 24-70 f2.8L! Which is why I'm selling the Tokina. But,
    indeed, it is well built, and the zoom and focus movements are jewel like.
    Mechanically it is one of the best lenses I've ever owned, but optically, it
    is just good, while the Canon is excellent.

    --
    Skip Middleton
    http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
    Skip M, Feb 19, 2006
    #9
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Paul

    Tokina lenses

    Paul, Oct 19, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    631
  2. Wapenga

    Canon EOS300D - just get body and use film lenses?

    Wapenga, Oct 24, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    621
  3. A
    Replies:
    24
    Views:
    627
    Mr Jessop
    Nov 16, 2004
  4. Giuen
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    831
    Giuen
    Sep 12, 2008
  5. David J Taylor
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    416
    Bruce
    Jul 15, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page