Tokina 80-200 f/2.8 - so tempting... Any comments?

[Lisard]

Did anyone have experience with this? For $560 looks like it is a gift. The same lens by Canon cost $1200. I have read some reviews and just can't decide.
Please help!

[DaveG]

Did anyone have experience with this? For $560 looks like it is a gift. The same lens by Canon cost $1200. I have read some reviews and just can't decide.
Please help!

Optically I think that the Tokina would be fine. But I just don't know what kind of shape it would be in in just a couple of years. Canon charges a lot for their L lenses and it's either a) a fraud, and they aren't worth that much; or alternatively, b) "You get what you pay for." I own the Canon non IS 80-200 f2.8 L, it's built extremely well and since I expect it to last for years, I guess that I believe in the b) view of things.

My only experience with a non brand lens was a Vivitar Series One 200 f3 (yup, f3). Optically it was very nice and had almost a macro focusing distance. But after a couple of years of limited use the diaphram started to malfuntion. I replaced it with a Nikkor 180 f2.8 ED lens which got daily photojournalistic use - for eight years - with no problems at all. My point it that it's easy to test for lens sharpness TODAY, but it's very difficult to test for durability and lens sharpness TOMORROW.

[CyberDyneSystems]

You may also want to consider the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 EX HSM

@ Delta International it sells for about $620.00
It will have faster focus,. and is very well built.

[sp00g3]

You may also want to consider the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 EX HSM

@ Delta International it sells for about $620.00
It will have faster focus,. and is very well built.

OK.. It's between that lens and the 70-200 F4L Canon.. I wish I could have a vote... I'm tending to lean towards the Canon... mainly because It looks sweet.. just kidding... I have heard it is optically superior and I won't really need the extra fstop.

[Malaxos1]

I was at the same place a few weeks ago. I was thinking about the Sigma becaise it is roughly the same price as the Canon 70-200mm f4L. I got the Canon. One thing that I have read over and over, and that is that the Sigma is real nice at f8. It seems to be soft at f2.8 and since I would only get it becuse of the f2.8 I passed. I also did a search on the two lense at www.photosig.com and searched for photos taken by the lenses and have found the Canon photos to be more pro. I understand that it is photographers and not the equipment that defines the photo. If that's the case, then more pros must be using the Canon. I don't think it's that at all except that the glass is superior...Dean

[kahfluie]

OK.. It's between that lens and the 70-200 F4L Canon.. I wish I could have a vote... I'm tending to lean towards the Canon... mainly because It looks sweet.. just kidding... I have heard it is optically superior and I won't really need the extra fstop.

Just to give you a visual to consider... I was at a concert last week and used the Sigma 70-200 that CDS mentions. I love the lens. Anyway - here is a link to it... I did not use flash and most of those shots are, I believe, at f2.8

BTW - Delta International (where I got mine from) raised the price up to $656 - still a great bargain!

http://debbielou.com/photography/concerts/avalon_030504/index.htm

Cheers,

[CyberDyneSystems]

Wow,. those pics came out GREAT!

[kahfluie]

Thanks, CDS (and thanks for recommending this lens a month or so ago) :)

Cheers,

[karusel]

How can one possibly know that he would not need the extra f stop? Doesn't it get dark or cloudy sometimes? What if there's plenty of light, and you need some extra shutter speed, whatcha gonna do, knock ISO up another notch?

The Tokina (http://www.photographyreview.com/35mm%20Zoom/Tokina/PRD_84296_3128crx.aspx#reviews) got a good rating, but Sigma (http://www.photographyreview.com/35mm%20Zoom/Sigma/PRD_83598_3128crx.aspx) got a better one. If I had to choose between Tokina 80-200 and Canon 70-200 f/4 L I wouldn't think twice to take the Canon. But I prefer Sigma 70-200 APO EX HSM to those two.. I've read all of the reviews on that site + many other, seen the test photos, etc. It's not creamy white, for starters, it's 2.8, it's got HSM and it's sharp. If it needs to be rechipped sometime in the future it shall be done so at no charge, so say people.

[psk4363]

Hi,

I had that Tokina lens for about 4 months. It's built like a tank and produced very sharp, contrasty images.

BUT......

On large sized prints (i.e. 12" x 16" and over) you can visibly see the softening at the edges - especially compared to a 'L' lens.

So, you pay your money and ............

Cheers,
Barry