Boris the Pentax 12-24mm is an tokina design as is the 50-135. They had an partnership in the passed. Not much love left though.

Johh,
Who makes this lens in Canikon mounts? As maksa said, the Sigma has been discontinued. So are you aware of another lens?

Sigma makes it, it's an Art lens. Seriously.

The exixitng sigma 50-150 is for crop sensors I believe.

http://www.sigmaphoto.com/product/apo-50-150mm-f28-ex-dc-os-hsm

Mike - you mean the same 50-150 for crop sensors that the OP said was discontinued?
John - Sigma does not make this as an art lens.

You're right, it's still an EX only:

http://www.sigmaphoto.com/product/apo-50-150mm-f28-ex-dc-os-hsm

It is, however, incredibly sharp.

@ Brownie-

The OP is talking about Pentax, which implies APS-C.

John,
Hey! Welcome to the party. Yes we have been talking about aps-c all along. Refer back to phrases such as "crop sensor". Also, a 50-150 lens doesn't really fit well in the scheme of focal lengths on full frame.

I hope you are right because at that price point, I don't know how anybody could be interested. The Nikon is the reference and it can be had for less. At around 1K it could become interesting if it can equal the Nikon version in IQ. Doubtful.

John that would depend on the fx camera.
D3 or an d700 would.be possible to rival especially at the lower iso's. Same goes for all fullframe canon's. Unless you looking for depth of field of course. But then people would buy the f2.8 anyway.
The d610 or d800(e) not an chance. No way that it will get close.

True,

Since it's lacking I am considering to switch.
I already have an GX7 for video and portability.

However sometimes I need something more sensitive.
I like the fullframe files but not the bulk. The A7 comes to mind but those lens prices. So as it stands it will probably be an XE-2 or XT-1. But those require an change of my shooting habits in terms of controls.

Well choices are good.

Hard to imagine that the 6D or D610 are significantly bulkier than the K-3/5 :).

Well body wise not so much.
the lenses on the other hand show an diffent picture
http://j.mp/1vkYoQY

Most get mediocre passed 250mm.
Which this lens can't do anyway. Besides the Tammie 70-300 vc is rather good as well. The 70-300 macro on the other hand.......
That lens is an milestone in optical misery.

It would make perfect sense if the lens is under $1000. Highly useful lens for either FF or APS-C.

or sigma 50-150 f2.8 (2011 version) ??

JackM - it makes MORE sense if it is under $1k. Maybe still not perfect.
Yes, the long end is useful on aps-c - but 70mm is slightly too long for me to keep this focal length on my body as a more general purpose use lens. 50mm makes much more sense for me for aps-c.

I'm wondering about Pentax, with whom they have cross-developed before. Pentax does not have such a lens (no FF - yet) but one is on their roadmap page. Perhaps it will become available as an FA-II series with a Pentax badge..?

Until about 1.5 years ago, only Canon offered a 70-200 mm f/4 lens (since then Nikon added their version after many, many years of Nikon users asking for it, maybe mainly because Canon had one).

noirdesir,
Yes, I am aware of this too. I am pretty sure development of this lens started BEFORE Nikon announced the 70-200 f/4. It must have, since the Tokina 70-200 f/4 showed up at trade shows at least 2 years ago. I think, had they known Nikon was doing this lens, they probably would have focused their efforts elsewhere. Just a guess.

brownie314 - It would make perfect sense for any Nikon shooter who wants this focal length but doesn't want to shell out $1400 for the Nikon version. Or for Canon shooters, $1350 for the Canon version, assuming they want IS.

JackM,
So it makes perfect sense if you want it. Yes I agree.
I think aps-c shooters have gotten so used to the idea that if they want a long zoom they just have to live with what is available for FF shooters, or drop way down in quality and shoot something consumerish like a 55-300 aps-c lens.
Call me crazy, but I think there is a market for a 50-150 f/4 high quality aps-c zoom. I could be compact, and well built - Tokina would be a good candidate to make this. Sure it won't have the 200mm end, but it would start at a much friendlier (for aps-c) 50mm on the short end.

This lens can be expected to sell for a lot less than the Nikon/Canon equivalents, the MSRP is just there to make it look like its "worth" as much as the brand name versions so you go "wow" when you see it on "sale" for $800 and run out and pick it up.

Okay, maybe I'm totally wrong and Nikon actually gets Tokina to OEM their 70-200/4 making this off-brand version optically/functionally identical and a great value. I'd want to make very sure of that before investing though.

Richard - yes $800 would be a steal if the optics are in the same league as the Nikon version.

Reach is king. 200mm is highly useful on APS-C for field sports and countless other applications. If you want a 50-150, get the Sigma, or switch to Pentax for their 50-135.

Jack,
I would not say reach is king. I would say the right focal length for the right occasion is king. For me, 50mm is very usable on aps-c. I have had stretches where I have used exclusively 50mm primes on aps-c. I have briefly tried 85m primes - way too long to keep on the body as a general purpose lens. I have also tried the 70-200 f/2.8 lenes. Again - spectacular images - but 70mm starts a little bit too long for me to keep the lens on my body as a more general purpose lens - it is a specialty lens I use for long reach - which isn't all the time. I also have used the older Sigma (non-OS) 50-150 f/2.8. Great lens. I loved the focal range. I could keep it on my camera much longer than a 70-200. I would get the Sigma 50-150 f/2.8 if it wasn't so big - it is as big as the 70-200 f/2.8's. I am waiting for something smaller. As I said before - a compact 50-150 f/4 (aps-c only) with brilliant optics would make my heart skip a beat.

Well, you're talking about your own preferences, and I'd wager you're in the minority, hence the non-existence of a 50-150/4. People buy 70-200s for sports, portraits, candids, kids, pets, and lots of other things where they want reach. I can tell you 70-200 on APS-C is ideal for youth soccer. If 70mm is too long, mount your 18-55. That 15mm gap is not significant.

Depth of view will be the same when you are at the same distance from your subject, but then your field of view will be wider on full frame, making the depth of field relatively thinner compared to the overall image. When you move backward to get the same frame as FF, absolute depth of field will be wider than the FF image.

And on average f/2.8 on DX delivers the same SNR (for a given scene and shutter speed) as f/4 on FX. So, if you want to achieve a given SNR, f/2.8 on DX gives you the same (shutter) speed as f/4 on FX.

f/4 at a given ISO will meter the same shutter speed on FF or APS-C. Yes, the APS-C shot will have more noise, but at low to mid ISO it's insignificant.

And if you double the ISO, f/4 will meter the same shutter speed as f/2.8 on any format. And as you say, at low to mid ISO, the additional noise of doubling the ISO is insignificant. Thus, the difference in terms of 'speed' between f/4 and f/2.8 is insignificant there as well.

Noise difference will not be insignificant once you go up and can get 6400 (barely acceptable) to 12800 (not acceptable anymore).

Whatever, you said f/4 on APS-C will be slow, and that's incorrect. Shutter speed will be the same. Whether the noise is acceptable is another matter.

The same shutter speed but less quality. That's why it is slow. When it was 2.8 it could use a slower iso that would provide better iq.

That is not the meaning of the word slow. Wow.

You can set any shutter speed you want at any f-stop for any sensor format. If 'speed' only means shutter speed with no other limiting criteria every lens has the same 'speed' because every lens can be used with every shutter speed.

Fast always meant: Allowing for a fast shutter speed for a given scene at a desired quality level.

With electronic sensors, ISO is the conversion factor from the number of electrons per area collected in the photodiodes to a brightness level. If images from different sensor sizes are viewed with the same magnification factor (from sensor do display size), then the same ISO means the same number of electrons per display area.

@noirdesir actually it's f2.5 on APS-C will provide the same SNR as f4 on FF (or f2.8 on APS-C will provide the same SNR as F4.5 on FF).

Agreed, 70-200 is more of a full frame focal length anyway. Pentax already has the 50-135mm f/2.8 to cover the 70-200mm f/4 on full frame equivalent. I would see absolutely no reason to buy this lens in K mount since the 60-250mm f/4 is notably better range and is already very good, and no more expensive than this lens.

Aware they have it. Its expensive. Canon's 70-200 f/4 is very affordable and one of the most popular lenses for full frame or APS-C in their lineup. IM talking about an equivalent of that for Pentax, affordable wise. Sony doesn't have an affordable 70-200mm f/4 anymore which is why the beercan is still so popular made from 1985.

Again we're talking full-frame here; Pentax are all aps-c, and if/when they jump in the FF ring an updated Tokina cross-development deal would get lenses out sooner. Of course they could just push MF and let full frame go, but optimists read their hints as though FF were an inevitable outcome..

Sony camp also has the excellent Tamron 70-300 (on sale for $350 now) and the Minolta 100-300 APO, which for it's weight is really quite good (I have one). So even if Tokina makes an A-mount version of this lens, I'm not so sure it makes a whole lot of sense to pay over $1K for it.

Tokina don't make K-Mount lenses, they get rebadged as Pentax lenses like the 50-135mm.

Aikiman, neither of those lenses are constant f/4 apertures. A-Mount's only 70-200mm class constant f/4 lens option is the 70-210mmf/4 Minolta Beercan from 1985.

You can pick up a 70-210mm f/4.5 Tokina in Pentax mount for less than $100. Otherwise SMC Pentax F 70-210mm is probably good enough even if variable aperture. The Canon 70-200mm f/4 L is hardly affordable. Agree, the Canon 70-200mm f/4 non IS is great deal, but hardly anyone even considers it since lack of IS.