Tokina 28-80 vs. Canon 24-70L

[Arsonist lolol]

Yeah, another vs. thread.

Tokina AF 28-80mm f/2.8 AT-X 280AF Pro Autofocus Lens
Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM Autofocus Lens

My main drive for buying one of these lenses is hardcore / hard rock concert photography (to be used with the 300D....and I mention the genre of music because hard rock band members move around A LOT more / faster than other genres.). The kit lens just doesn't have enough reach, and it's a tad too slow in the low light.

The 28-80 is half the price of the 24-70.....and it's received decent ratings on FM, even though some say it's a bit soft at 2.8....what do you guys think.



I'm having such a hard time finding a decent priced fast lens for shooting at shows....Hoping to find something with good reach (65mm+) and something that's fast (quicker than f/3.5) And I was kinda hoping for something that's image stabilized....but jeez, I'm obviously asking too much :( :(

I'd be completely satisfied if Canon made something like a.....16-100mm f/2.0L IS USM

[T_O_M]

Purchased a Tokina AF 28-80mm f2.8AT-X 280 AF PRO secondhand form a camera shop and returned it. Lens was built like a tank, loved the clutch focus ring but was not sharp until f5.6. AF was out of focus at f2.8 but was able to MF and get sharp images. Took lens for repair and when it came back I was told it was within specifications. Returned this lens and bought the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 XR Di. This was my second copy of this lens as my first one had a back focus problem this one is sharp at all apertures and focal ranges.

[kram]

Any reason why you dont want to look at the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 for the option. Some copies are sharp even at 2.8. Almost all reviews rate the sharpness as great from f/4.

I have not used the Tokina or the Canon. But there are enough posts in the forums of people who've tested these three.

[Arsonist lolol]

Oh very cool.....I never stumbled accross that one. The 28-75 might be the way to go....

[Arsonist lolol]

Well I've brought my two options down to the

Tamron Zoom Wide Angle-Telephoto AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical (IF)
and the
Sigma Zoom Wide Angle-Telephoto 24-135mm f/2.8-4.5 Aspherical IF

also came upon the Sigma 28-70mm f2.8 EX Aspherical DF when looking for reviews of the 24-135 on FredMiranda.....but I found a lot of negative responses about that one, and B&H isn't carrying it

I was going to go with the Tamron until I found that 24-135 Sigma.....anyone have anything to say about it? They're the same price.....

[Persian-Rice]

Canon's 24-70 is the best by far in its zoom range, it's also a lot more expensive. You can't really compare the lenses to one another because Canons lens is that much better. Compared side by side? It will put any of the lenses you mentioned to shame. But the price of the "others" is what makes them attractive. Tamron, inconsistent build, but the problems have cooled off for a while, seems like the kinks have been worked for the most part, the worst focuser of all of them, your 50mm is even quite a lot better. That's something people don't like to discuss about the Tamron, the focusing is outright unacceptable IMO. Sigma has a lack of recognition in the market. Which can be down to an inferior design, I don't know. Like the Tamron, I have read of issues with defects. Also hear the focus isn't all that great, but image quality is a touch better then the Tamron, and honestly, I doubt the AF can be any worse then its Tamron counterpart. I can't speak for the 24-135.

Where you gain with the Canon is colour contrast and saturation. The overall colour temp and superior focusing. That is a major importance to me, focusing ability, and unfortunately, even if the others are pretty sharp, they seem and suck at focusing. So keep that in mind.

[Andy_T]

Tamron, inconsistent build, but the problems have cooled off for a while, seems like the kinks have been worked for the most part, the worst focuser of all of them, your 50mm is even quite a lot better. That's something people don't like to discuss about the Tamron, the focusing is outright unacceptable IMO.

Well, you are certainly entitled to your opinion.

Of course, so are other users. This is an older contribution regarding the Tamron 28-75/2.8:

As for focus speed... it doesn't have a USM, that is true, but I used it on Saturday at Brands Hatch to shoot some race cars at very close range travelling at well over 100mph and it managed to focus correctly and give me the shots without problems. If it can do that, then I would suggest that it's focus speed is adequate for most purposes.

I am not in a position to tell which opinion to trust more ... as I yet have to see one of your images :p
(Cadwell's I've seen :wink: )

For my applications the AF of the Tamron is fast enough as well (and definitely faster than my 50/1.8 :wink: )

Best regards,
Andy

[DavidEB]

The Tamron autofocus is quirky because it's really loud, and the focus ring turns as it focuses, and it doesn't have full-time manual override. But these quirks don't translate into slow focus. The Tamron is FAST. It is equally fast as the canon 28-135 USM (I had them serially on my camera in the store when I was browsing last year), it is only a very little slower as the canon 70-200 non-IS f2-8 (not a sametime comparison, but I did try that lens in the store at another time). At 70mm it is equally as fast as my sigma 70-200 HSM.

I agree with Persian Rice that the Canon lens has some superb qualities lacking in all competitors. Optical quality is not one of those however, as the Tamron qualitiy is comparable, according to web reviews. However, the positives for the canon lens may be outweighed by negatives -- in addition to being really expensive, it's also large and heavy. The lens obstructs the coverage of the built-in flash, which to me is a serious design flaw for a walk-around lens (no easy fill flash shots with that one). The size and weight of the Tamron are a joy on a long day hike. And did I say it's expensive? For the price of the 24-70L you could buy my entire lens lineup listed below.


just my opinion,

[Arsonist lolol]

Thanks Persian, a harsh, but most likely very true opinion.

Thanks for your input as well David.....I'm thinking I'm gonna go with the Tamrom...I just can't fork out the money for Canon L right now.