Reading mode: Light Dark

Review of Tokina AT-X 535 Pro DX AF 50-135 mm f/2.8

Go to last post
Because Tokina does not want to go through the effort of designing a whole new lens just to sell a few hundred units. Millions of APS-C format DSLRs are sold per year...

The 70-200 f/2.8 gives similar FoV for full-frame users and there are already plenty of good 70-200 f/2.8 lenses out there.
camera eye said:
With the 5D so popular why not make 50-135 zoom full frame?

Tim

--
when photographs talk people listen
Click to expand...
--
http://www.pbase.com/macshark/birds
 
camera eye said:
With the 5D so popular why not make 50-135 zoom full frame?
Click to expand...
APS-C is a total misconception.

Sure, back in the days when DSLR's cost several months' of net income they had to cut expenses somewhere, but, with production up and running, manufacturers should now be able to offer full frame for less than the first APS-C models. Far less.

I have made several comparisons between lenses for full frame and APS-C, and for a given maximum aperture and field of view, full frame is usually smaller and lighter:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1035&message=21542346
 
Well, I'm hoping this will be the year for consumer-priced FF from Canon. The sooner the better, because I want to pick up a used 5D for peanuts in a year or two. FF "makes" so many lenses much more worthwhile than with aps-c it's not even funny. But then I'm not an extreme telephoto wildlife/birding kind of guy.
Klipsen said:
camera eye said:
With the 5D so popular why not make 50-135 zoom full frame?
Click to expand...
APS-C is a total misconception.
Sure, back in the days when DSLR's cost several months' of net
income they had to cut expenses somewhere, but, with production up
and running, manufacturers should now be able to offer full frame
for less than the first APS-C models. Far less.

I have made several comparisons between lenses for full frame and
APS-C, and for a given maximum aperture and field of view, full
frame is usually smaller and lighter:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1035&message=21542346
Click to expand...
 
There have been rumors in the Pentax camp that Tokina will no longer be introducing full frame lenses. This was even before the Hoya buyout. With no full frame cameras to support in the Pentax lineup, there is no purpose in further serving Canon users.

It's certainly hard to tell how the market feels about full frame cameras. If Nikon could release one and Canon could sell one for under $2k retail it would certainly help our cause.
 
Kuivaamo said:
Well, I'm hoping this will be the year for consumer-priced FF from
Canon. The sooner the better, because I want to pick up a used 5D
for peanuts in a year or two. FF "makes" so many lenses much more
worthwhile than with aps-c it's not even funny. But then I'm not an
extreme telephoto wildlife/birding kind of guy.
Click to expand...
Neither am I. Just your average amateur with a few lenses, mostly zooms.

The consumer priced full frame may be somewhere off in the future, but if Canon's MO is anything to go by, there's be a 6D soon enough, and that may "force" some owners to trade up.
 
Antonio_2 said:
I'd never travel with a lens like that, I'd stick with an aps-c cam
and a 50-135/2.8 just for this reason, unless there is another way
(i'm missing now) to achieve the same fov and pic quality with a
lighter ff lens
Click to expand...
If you only talk about fov and pic quality, then the 70-200 f4 on full frame will do the job.

--
Misha
 
misha said:
If you only talk about fov and pic quality, then the 70-200 f4 on
full frame will do the job.
Click to expand...
Well,maybe it's just me but I like much more the pics taken with the 70-200/2.8 (both canon and sigma vs the canon 4.0), they look razor sharp and with a beautiful contrast and color I can't see in the 70-200/4.0 pics. If pics from tokina 50-135 'pops' like the 70-200/2.8 my previous comment makes sense, otherwise I agree with others FF is the best way to go. But then there is also the peace of mind of AF accuracy with Canon FF lenses, so probably you are right, if no new good aps lenses come out FF is the way. Still not easy now to predict.

--
Antonio
http://www.pbase.com/antonio_2
 
camera eye said:
With the 5D so popular why not make 50-135 zoom full frame?
Click to expand...
Because 135mm is too short for full frame...

--

Austria - Bulgaria - Cuba - Czech Republic - Great Britain - Hong Kong - Iceland - Italy - Latvia - Phillipines - Slovakia - Spain
http://ryan.li/
 
Maybe it's just me, but the sample images do not seem to tally with the review? The review claims that the lens is decent wide open at the long end, but all the sample images like that are really soft. Perhaps it's the focussing issue that was described in the review, but if that's the best it can do at or near 135mm at f/2.8 then it's a pretty lousy lens under those conditions. The Sigma 50-150 I briefly owned was vastly sharper than those sample images, at 150mm f/2.8 (if I could get it to focus!).
 
Looks like the same old issues that plaque the 12-24.

Fully expect the 16-50 f/2.8 to demonstrate the same flaws.

Hmmm...

-------------------------------------------
See the colors of my world in:
thw.smugmug.com
 
Graeme Cogger said:
Maybe it's just me, but the sample images do not seem to tally with
the review? The review claims that the lens is decent wide open at
the long end, but all the sample images like that are really soft.
Perhaps it's the focussing issue that was described in the review,
but if that's the best it can do at or near 135mm at f/2.8 then
it's a pretty lousy lens under those conditions. The Sigma 50-150
I briefly owned was vastly sharper than those sample images, at
150mm f/2.8 (if I could get it to focus!).
Click to expand...
It is focusing issue. Also all sample pictures were taken using low sharpening settings in Canon 20D - if you use standard settings they would look better because of higher sharpening.

During lab test we take about 10 shots for each setting. eg. 10 shots at 50 mm F/2.8, 10 at 50 mm F/4 etc. Then we take best one and use it to measure sharpness. So MTF50 function charts will tell you what to expect if AF is right on target.

AF is real weakness of this lens. As stated in the review in lab tests it misses at 17% level. And it was in lab conditions so don't expect that in "field" conditions it will perform better.
 
Antonio_2 said:
I'd never travel with a lens like that, I'd stick with an aps-c cam
and a 50-135/2.8 just for this reason, unless there is another way
(i'm missing now) to achieve the same fov and pic quality with a
lighter ff lens
Click to expand...
If you look at the comparison between the Olympus (crop factor 2x) 35-200 mm and the Sony full frame, you'll notice that the latter is shorter, thinner and lighter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top