I never really considered any Canyon glass for the 5D and based that
strictly on the price. I bought a new Tokina 28-80/2.8 AT-X Pro and a
used Tokina 80-200/2.8 AT-X Pro. I would have bought a new 80/200 if
Tokina still made it but they don't. Shortly after I bought the 28-80,
Tokina discontinued that one too but I don't know why. I couldn't be
happier with the 28-80. It has excellent image quality and it's a very
late model design which focuses quietly and very fast. The 80-200 (I'm
guessing) is probably a 5-10 year old design. It makes fine images but
is slower and noisier to focus. Not surprising, I guess, since it's
moving a lot more metal and glass inside. Even so, it's fast enough.
I've never thought that I've lost a shot because of its focusing speed
and, while the noise is noticeable while holding the camera, it's not
obtrusive.
At the wide end (which I don't use much) I continue to use my OM mount
Tokina 17/3.5 and my Zuiko 24/2.8. I also use my OM mount Vivitar
90/2.5 macro. I don't have any IS lenses but, for the most part, I'm
either shooting flash or else on a tripod and a few clicks of the ISO
dial can usually make up the difference. I've debated buying a Tokina
20-35/2.8 AT-X Pro (All AT-X Pro lenses share a common 77mm filter
size). It has also been discontinued but is still available from
new/old stocks. I think it performs well on film but I'm concerned
about how it might perform on a 5D at the wide end and don't know of any
such test. I could also use some slower, lighter autofocus lenses for
shooting outdoors in good light but don't know what to get. Maybe
Moose's beloved Tamron 28-300 although that strikes me as just too much
range in one piece of glass. Possibly a 28-135 with a 100-300/4.
Tokina made an AT-X version with 77mm filter but it's been discontinued
too. I think Tokina is just fading away or else trying to retool
everything for smaller sensors which is where the volume is.
Yeah, I know, the last two lenses aren't exactly light weights either.
Chuck Norcutt
Moose wrote:
> Jeff Keller wrote:
>> I think it is important to look at the lenses you've been using.
>>
>> The 5D has some very expensive and top rated long telephotos but their
>> affordable selection is limited. 200/2.8 at $660 seems to be a good but not
>> exciting choice. Probably the 70-200/2.8 at $1700 would get more use but
>> it's sure not pocket change and it is a heavy lens. The 300/4 is $1100 and
>> probably too slow to use with a TC and get good AF. The 400/5.6 is $1100 and
>> doesn't have IS. I can't see the AF making it significantly better than the
>> 400/4 MF Tamron. C*non came out with a new 16-35 which should do fine for
>> the wide end at $1600. So ... I still don't have a single AF lens for my 5D.
>>
> I don't disagree with any of this, but see an inconsistency. The old, MF
> Tamron is great, but for AF one may only consider Canon lenses? Tamron
> makes a 300/2.8 in AF mount, for example; more $ than the C 300/4 , but
> less than the C 300/2.8 IS.
>
> Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|