AgostinhoMSS From Portugal, joined Mar 2001, 22 posts, RR: 0 Posted (12 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 1699 times:
I´m thinking about buying a Tokina ATX AF PRO 80-200 / 2,8 and a 2X teleconverter.
I would like to ear what you think about the lens and converter.
Will I get good quality photos with the converter from 200 to 400mm?
Thanks for your attention.
Mikephotos From United States of America, joined Oct 2000, 2923 posts, RR: 55 Reply 1, posted (12 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 1621 times:
You didn't mention which brand body you have but if it's Nikon I would suggest saving another $170 and going with the Nikon/Nikkor 80-200/f2.8 ED-IF (non AF-S). While the Tokina is a good lens and have received some good reviews, I'd pay the extra $170 for the Nikon. It's an excellent piece of glass.
Da fwog From United Kingdom, joined Aug 1999, 867 posts, RR: 9 Reply 4, posted (12 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 1601 times:
Easy to say, Joe, but it depends on price. Nikon users have the (fairly) reasonably priced 80-200F2.8 non-AFS, but for those with a Canon system, their 70-200 F2.8 is significantly more expensive.
I would always advocate buying the best optics you can afford (and that will usually mean a Nikkor or Canon lens) - especially as a really good lens should last you years, and you shouldn't have to replace it. But it really does come down to what you can afford (like everything else). For some people, the best they can afford might be Sigma or Tokina, both of whose F2.8s have had good reviews (though not as good as the Canon or Nikon optics).
My advice would be the same as Joe's but with a proviso: buy the Nikon or Canon lens if you can stretch your budget. If you can't, the 3rd party lens is still a good piece of glass - not as good, but still respectable. Just bear in mind that if you ever need to sell it, it will probably fetch a lot less than the Nikon/Canon would.
Jwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 20 Reply 5, posted (12 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 1584 times:
On the subject of fast 3rd party lenses, what is the consensus about the Sigma 300mm F/2.8 EX APO HSM (Nikon mount)?. I might have a chance to get a heavily (like in 60%) discounted one brandnew (used to be a display item for a salesman, never used in anger).
Ckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 660 posts, RR: 17 Reply 6, posted (12 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 1579 times:
I used the Tokina 80-200 f2.8 in Canon manual focus mount and was very satisfied with it - also worked pretty well with the Canon 2x and 1.4x convertors, though some vignetting was apparent at large apertures. Recently traded it in against my EOS system with some misgivings - it was a very good lens for the money.
AgostinhoMSS From Portugal, joined Mar 2001, 22 posts, RR: 0 Reply 7, posted (12 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 1571 times:
Thanks for all the replays.
I use Nikon F90X with Sigma 75-300/4,5-5,6 DL Macro Super(cheap lens, with vignetting wide open).
I need focals from 80 or 100 to 400mm. So, Tokina 80-200 and Kenko Pro 300 2X was ok for me.
The Nikon 80-200 non AFS is above my budget. I also thought about Sigma 70-200 HSM + Sigma 2X TC but was told that Tokina had about the same glass quality and better built.
100-300/4 could be a good idea but Tokina´s not very good optically and Sigma´s very expensive.
In the end, I want a better lens that my 75-300, but one I can afford.
Da fwog From United Kingdom, joined Aug 1999, 867 posts, RR: 9 Reply 8, posted (12 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 1559 times:
If you are definately going to buy a 3rd party lens, bearing in mind that you have the F90X, the Sigma does offer the advantage of HSM focusing (which is the equivalent of Canon's USM & Nikon's AF-S silent motors). I don't know what the pricing is like, but if it is similar, I would definately choose this lens over the Tokina because of the superior focusing mechanism.
If you haven't used a USM/HSM/AF-S type lens before, I should say that the focusing is much more rapid with this type of lens, and once you've used one, you wouldn't want to go back to conventional focusing. It is especially beneficial with this type of lens (heavy and with a long focusing movement).
Sigma also offer matched 1.4x and 2x converters that can be used with this lens, both of which still allow the full use of the silent autofocus mechanism.
AirNikon From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 290 posts, RR: 38 Reply 9, posted (12 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 1557 times:
I bought the 'old' Nikkor AF80-200 2.8 several years ago and I will never sell it. Before that I bought (and experimented with) a Sigma 70-210 2.8 and it was crap, producing rather poor color. I sold it to a sucker at work that seems to enjoy it.
If you can get your hands on a Nikkor for a reasonable price, DO IT!
BTW, WHAT THE HELL IS A
LENS anyway? OK, Nikkor or Canon glass is OEM, and Tokina/Sigma/Tamron is referred-to as 'third-party' equipment. What would fill the spot as a 'second-party' lens?
This has always baffled me...
Don't get married, don't have kids, and you will have more money than you know what to do with...
Ckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 660 posts, RR: 17 Reply 10, posted (12 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 1543 times:
3rd party - I think this comes from contract speak - e.g the party of the first part selling to the party of the 2nd part (i.e YOU) - if another player enters the arena, they become the party of the 3rd part.
Da fwog From United Kingdom, joined Aug 1999, 867 posts, RR: 9 Reply 11, posted (12 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 1543 times:
Isn't "3rd Party" the one about to be led by either Kenneth Clarke or Iain Duncan Smith?
(UK political joke - to be ignored by our foreign cousins)
3rd party lenses have always had a bit of a poor reputation compared to Nikon/Canon's own lenses. This is not always fully justified, but it's kinda like saying "yes, well I know the new Skoda is built by Volkswagen, and is supposed to be really good, and costs 2 grand less than the alternatives, but I wouldn't want one on my drive".
For those considering *any* lens, you might like to check out www.photodo.com, where they have MTF test results for a whole bunch of lenses from Canon, Nikon, Minolta, Pentax, Sigma, Tamron, Tokina etc. These won't tell you the whole story (they don't tell you about flare, colour rendition, build quality etc.), but they will give you a good idea of the relative sharpness of different lenses.
Ckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 660 posts, RR: 17 Reply 12, posted (12 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 1535 times:
In the "good ol' days" a Nikon or Canon lens was pretty much an assurance of top quality, but since they have decided to market for the masses instead of mainly pros, there are good and bad lenses from both camps - similarly the 3rd party people have made a great effort to attract the pros as well as amatuers.
I would suggest that, for the most part, "top end" lenses from Sigma, Tamron or Tokina will outperform budget models from either Nikon or Canon.
Top end Nikon or Canon, however, is probably amongst the best glass you can get. The question is, how good do you need? For instance, Canon L series lenses feature the assurance that coatings ensure absolutely consistent colour characteristics across the range - important for professional photographers in some fields, but perhaps not vital to most people.
The 80/20 rule applies - to get a reasonable good lens is fairly affordable - relatively minor enhancements to the quality beyond that lead to an almost expotential increase in the price. A $1000 lens is not twice as good as a $500 dollar lens.
Incidentally, I try and use Canon L series where possible - but I drive a 7 year old Skoda. The reason being I am trying to sell photographs, but don't plan on taking up taxi driving!