Which one and why?

[Sailare]

CANON 24-85mm USM --- vs ------ Tokina ATX 24-200mm
(on a Canon 20D)

I realize these may be the "Cream of the Crap" in walk around lens, so please no comments on "L" lens or Primes or Tamron or Sigma alternatives. If you have any hands on experience or have owned either of these particular lens please give me some of your impressions one against the other only.

In order of importance to me:

Which lens is the sharpest betwen the two overall?

Does USM and ETTl-II give Canon the edge when using a 420EX flash?

Does the extra zoom range of the Tokina have any offsetting disadvantage over the shorter range Canon?

if these were the only two lens in existence which would you select?
(Selling you camera and finding another hobby is not a choice in this question!)

Any lnks to lens reviews that use hard resolution chart numbers rather than terms like "good", or "excellent" would be appreciated!

Thanks

[CyberDyneSystems]

The "Superzooms" I have used leave a lot to be desired in the image quality dept...

You don't mention the price of these lenses,. but perhaps the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 isn't too much more?

[Sailare]

I found what I was looking for at http://www.photozone.de/2Equipment/easytxt.htm

Rated for Optical quality on a scale of 1 to 5 here is what they say.
Tokina 24-200 --- 3.2 -- average (About $ 300)
Canon 24-85 USM -- 2.73 -- sub average (About $ 310)

And here's a couple more that keep coming up:
Tamron 24-135 -- 3.51 -- Good (About $ 330)
Canon 28-135 IS USM -- 3.25 -- Good (About $ 400)

And be careful on E-bay when bidding for a Sigma 50MM Macro:
Sigma 50mm EX Macro -- 4.65 -- Outstanding (About $250)
(The highest rated prime 50mm of all)

Sigma 50mm Macro --2.69 --- Sub Average Used about $ 150)
(The lowest rated 50mm prime of all)

[roanjohn]

Go for Canon............

Ro1

[tim]

In my limited experience, it's better to pay more for a good quality canon USM lens than get a cheaper one. The Tamron 28-75's a great lens, but when I switch from the Canon 100mm macro (F2.8 USM) it seems quite slow to focus.

[DaveG]

CANON 24-85mm USM --- vs ------ Tokina ATX 24-200mm
(on a Canon 20D)

I realize these may be the "Cream of the Crap" in walk around lens, so please no comments on "L" lens or Primes or Tamron or Sigma alternatives. If you have any hands on experience or have owned either of these particular lens please give me some of your impressions one against the other only.

In order of importance to me:

Which lens is the sharpest betwen the two overall?

Does USM and ETTl-II give Canon the edge when using a 420EX flash?

Does the extra zoom range of the Tokina have any offsetting disadvantage over the shorter range Canon?

if these were the only two lens in existence which would you select?
(Selling you camera and finding another hobby is not a choice in this question!)

Any lnks to lens reviews that use hard resolution chart numbers rather than terms like "good", or "excellent" would be appreciated!

Thanks


I've got and use the 24-85. It compares well optically against two L series lenses that I have; I don't hesitate to use it, and I would consider it to be a "sharp" lens. Someone else will have to comment on the Tokina but I'd be hesitant about ANY lens that went that far in focal length.

I know what the Canon will do so it would be no contest as far as I'm concerned. I guess part of your decision is the 200mm focal length. I bought the 24-85 KNOWING that I would get a longer lens sooner rather than later, and that is how it worked out. If I thought that I would only have one lens then maybe the Tokina's focal length would be something that I'd need to factor in.

I don't know exactly what you mean with your USM/E-TTL II question. But the 24-85 does give the distance information to the 20D, so the lens and the camera are 100% E-TTL II complient. I also don't know if the Tokina does send along that distance information. From personal use I do know that E-TTL II is 1000% better than the original E-TTL and if the distance information makes up even 1% of E-TTL II's goodness, then I want all it has!

Don't be too concerned with lines-per-millemeter tests. That's only one part of the lens. How well built is it? Will you get the same performance in two years? I would be amazed if the Canon lens didn't win this battle - just because it has a more conventional focal length range; but don't put all of your eggs in that LPMM basket, there are other issues as well.

[Sailare]

Thanks Dave,
That was a good answer. Much appreciated.

The Ettl-II on the 20D really works remarkably well with a few of the USM lens that I have (tried, borrowed).
I know that the USM is what send the distance information , so I was just checking to see if it might be poor with the Tok, which doesn't have it. Probably is my conclusion on that one.

With the exception perhaps of a Sigma 50mm EX DG 1:1 macro lens I am now convinced sticking with Canon USM lens is the smart move.

[Andy_T]

Sailaire,

if I were in your place, I'd try out the Tamron 28-75/2.8 XR DI (300$)

I don't know if it transfers the distance information (and also don't know what this will really bring you with the 580 EX), but it is a very sharp, reasonably well built and fast lens.

On the downside ... it is highly addictive ;) ... after using it for about 1,100 shots now (bought my 20D 2 weeks ago), I don't really see myself buying another lens that is slower than f/4.0 (constant f/2.8, if I can somehow afford it, but most likely primes)

If you can live with the 4 mm lost on the wide end, you should give it a try.

Best regards,
Andy

[DaveG]

Thanks Dave,
That was a good answer. Much appreciated.

The Ettl-II on the 20D really works remarkably well with a few of the USM lens that I have (tried, borrowed).
I know that the USM is what send the distance information , so I was just checking to see if it might be poor with the Tok, which doesn't have it. Probably is my conclusion on that one.

With the exception perhaps of a Sigma 50mm EX DG 1:1 macro lens I am now convinced sticking with Canon USM lens is the smart move.

USM is NOT what sends the distance information. For example I have the Canon 50mm f1.4 USM which does NOT send it. There's a list of Canon lenses http://consumer.usa.canon.com/app/pdf/lens/EFLensChart.pdf that indicate which ones can use the distance information (two asteriks next to the lens name) so you should have a look.

[Jim_T]

The maximum focal lengths of these lenses are so different that one's shooting style should be a major factor in choosing between these lenses.

I'd go for the tokina 24-200 if these were the only lenses in existence.

To me, anything under 100mm is wide angle.. I don't shoot much wide angle :) so the 100-200 range the Tokina provides would be best for me
The 24-85 lens would wind up being an terrible choice if you ever had the though of trying a little wildlife or airshow photography. But as Dave G. says.. If you know you'll be buying a longer lens later, then the 24-85 would be the best choice.

I doubt you're going to find anyone that's actually used both.. I haven't.. But my gut feeling is that a third party 10X zoom lens is not going to be as sharp as a 3X Canon L lens...

[Leon van Batenburg]

I have owned both lenses, and I can tell you they are equal in optical quality. Both are well build. The Tokina is WAY better than Sigma or Tamron 28-200 lenses. It feels solid. The Canon has the faster AF, the Tokina a broader range. You won't regret whatever you choose!