PDA

View Full Version : Tokina 24-200mm F3.5-5.6 Lens Test



speaklightly
03-18-2005, 11:06 AM
As promised here are five quick digital photos from this new lens. All are directly from my 20D. All were taken on a tripod with the exception of the huge rock (#5) which was hand held. Numbers 1 through 4 were taken at the 200mm position. *5 was taken at about 120mm (approx) I will be adding more photos during the day.

The photos are located at:

www.digicamlady.smugmug.com/gallery/440781

Sarah Joyce

GlennD
03-21-2005, 05:52 AM
Thanks for posting your photos, I think the Tokina 24-200 is just the lens Iím looking for. The Tamron 18-200 and the Sigma 18-125 were big disappointments to me, but after packing a 20lb packpack of lenses, cameras and a laptop through Europe last year, I knew I didnít want to do that again and it was a real hassle to unload to change lenses.

For this year, I was thinking about just taking a P&S camera but their high ISO performance is too poor so I think the Tokina on my 10D would be the best solution. I couldnít see any CA in your photos and the resolution and contrast are good.

Looking forward to more of your posts.

Glenn

speaklightly
03-21-2005, 06:00 AM
Glenn-

The Tokina 24-200mm was about $300 at B & H. I have been very please with the lens.

Sarah Joyce

Ray Schnoor
03-21-2005, 07:42 AM
Sarah,

I don't seem to understand the focal length conversions in your photo details.

In the 1st photo, when you go to the "more photo details" link you get "200mm (guess: 156mm in 35mm)" a 0.78 conversion factor, but in the 6th photo the "more photo details" link gives you "65mm (guess: 117mm in 35mm)" a 1.8 conversion factor.

Is this a mistake, or are there other factors that I am missing?

Ray.

D70FAN
03-21-2005, 07:46 AM
Thanks for posting your photos, I think the Tokina 24-200 is just the lens Iím looking for. The Tamron 18-200 and the Sigma 18-125 were big disappointments to me, but after packing a 20lb packpack of lenses, cameras and a laptop through Europe last year, I knew I didnít want to do that again and it was a real hassle to unload to change lenses.

For this year, I was thinking about just taking a P&S camera but their high ISO performance is too poor so I think the Tokina on my 10D would be the best solution. I couldnít see any CA in your photos and the resolution and contrast are good.

Looking forward to more of your posts.

Glenn

Glenn, just out of curiousity what was disappointing with the Sigma 18-125? I have been using one for about 6 months now with the D70 and it has performed very well within its capability.

Please don't take this as a challenge. I genuinly want your opinion, and comparison to other lenses you use. Since I recomment the 18-125 as a replacement for Canon and Nikon "kit" lenses it's always good to have multiple takes on performance.

Thanks.

speaklightly
03-21-2005, 08:48 AM
Ray-

That readout is directly from the exif data from the 20D

Sarah Joyce

GlennD
03-21-2005, 12:32 PM
George,

I had the Sigma for about a week and it was vignetting badly. I also found that the one I had was slightly soft in the corners and had some CA. I guess using 35mm lenses on a 1.6x camera reduces the chances of that happening more than one designed for APC size sensors. Anyway, I wasn't happy with the lens and returned it to B&H.

I'm not against third party lenses, I guess I'm just picky. I have the Tamron 28-75 and it performs very well and the best lens I have it the Tamron 180 Macro Di. That lens is perfect (except it's big and heavy).

Glenn






Glenn, just out of curiousity what was disappointing with the Sigma 18-125? I have been using one for about 6 months now with the D70 and it has performed very well within its capability.

Please don't take this as a challenge. I genuinly want your opinion, and comparison to other lenses you use. Since I recomment the 18-125 as a replacement for Canon and Nikon "kit" lenses it's always good to have multiple takes on performance.

Thanks.

scout_22
03-21-2005, 01:36 PM
As promised here are five quick digital photos from this new lens. All are directly from my 20D. All were taken on a tripod with the exception of the huge rock (#5) which was hand held. Numbers 1 through 4 were taken at the 200mm position. *5 was taken at about 120mm (approx) I will be adding more photos during the day.

The photos are located at:

www.digicamlady.smugmug.com/gallery/440781

Sarah Joyce


Where is that Rock..?? It looks so cool....

speaklightly
03-21-2005, 02:36 PM
Scout-

The rock is in the southwest corner of Oregon about 150 yards from the ocean. Interestingly enough it is over 80 feet tal and in the middle of an Easter lilly field.

Sarah Joyce

D70FAN
03-21-2005, 03:56 PM
George,

I had the Sigma for about a week and it was vignetting badly. I also found that the one I had was slightly soft in the corners and had some CA. I guess using 35mm lenses on a 1.6x camera reduces the chances of that happening more than one designed for APC size sensors. Anyway, I wasn't happy with the lens and returned it to B&H.

I'm not against third party lenses, I guess I'm just picky. I have the Tamron 28-75 and it performs very well and the best lens I have it the Tamron 180 Macro Di. That lens is perfect (except it's big and heavy).

Glenn

Thanks. I'm generally pretty picky as well (within my budget). Surprised to hear that you had all of those problems as mine has been pretty flawless. In fact my Nikkor 18-70 DX had more CA problems than the Sigma. Guess it depends on the camera and lens interface.

I'm looking forward to getting the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 as well to give me a little more versatility than my 50mm f1.8. Just goofing around with it around the camera store gave very nice results.

Thanks for the reply. Hope to see some of your work on these pages.

scout_22
03-21-2005, 04:37 PM
Scout-

The rock is in the southwest corner of Oregon about 150 yards from the ocean. Interestingly enough it is over 80 feet tal and in the middle of an Easter lilly field.

Sarah Joyce

It looks VERY cool with the fields around it!

D70FAN
03-23-2005, 03:30 PM
Scout-

The rock is in the southwest corner of Oregon about 150 yards from the ocean. Interestingly enough it is over 80 feet tal and in the middle of an Easter lilly field.

Sarah Joyce

Sarah,

Why did you shoot some of the outdoor shots at ISO1600? Until I looked at the data I was thinking that something was wrong with your 20D or the lens.

Still not real bad, but kinda freaked me out. ;)

speaklightly
03-23-2005, 03:38 PM
George-

I used ISO 1600 because it was almost dark on a very dark rainy day.

Sarah Joyce

D70FAN
03-23-2005, 03:50 PM
George-

I used ISO 1600 because it was almost dark on a very dark rainy day.

Sarah Joyce

That splains it.

Manwich
03-27-2005, 08:01 AM
I recomment the 18-125 as a replacement for Canon and Nikon "kit" lenses it's always good to have multiple takes on performance.

George -- do you have an exact part number for this lens, or a recommendation on a good place to buy?

Thanks,

-Marc

speaklightly
03-27-2005, 08:16 AM
Marc-

I purchased the Sigma 18-125mm that I returned at www.bhphotovideo.com. They are very good to deal with and they have a wide selection of lenses.

Sarah Joyce