tokina 80-200 f/2.8

Discussion in 'Digital SLR' started by .::SuperBLUE::., Jan 24, 2005.

  1. What do You think about this lens?
    It would be my first and maybe only lens on a dslr. I am not sure which
    dslr: Canon 300d, 20d or Nikon d70?
    I am considering 300d because of money issues.
    .::SuperBLUE::., Jan 24, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  2. .::SuperBLUE::.

    Sheldon Guest

    Keep in mind that many dslr cameras have a 1.5 magnification ratio as the
    image sensor is smaller than a 35mm frame. So, your new lens could wind up
    as a 120-300 zoom. While an 80mm lens can be a great all around lens, I'm
    not so sure I could live with a minimum of 120mm (as transposed to 35mm).

    No comment on the Tokina brand.
    Sheldon, Jan 24, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  3. From the specs, I would not consider it as a first lens, since it is only a
    telephoto lens, and you wouldn't be able to shoot more normal subjects. Now,
    in conjunction with the kit lens on your cameras, it probably is a decent
    second lens (has high marks from reviews). Remember the focal length is before
    multiplying by the so-called crop factor (1.5 for Nikon, 1.6 for Canon), which
    means the field of view on Nikon would be 120-300mm.
    Michael Meissner, Jan 24, 2005
  4. .::SuperBLUE::.

    Chuck Guest


    it only gives you a smaller image. You dont get any zoom.
    Chuck, Jan 24, 2005
  5. .::SuperBLUE::.

    DoN. Nichols Guest

    Given that the lens in question started out life as a zoom
    (80-200mm), unless you are claiming that some magic will *disable* the
    optical zoom in the lens when on a DSLR, I don't see how your statement
    could be accurate. And if you *are* so claiming -- please explain the
    mechanism by which it accomplishes this.

    Granted -- the range of focal length is still 80-200mm -- but
    the field of view will be *equivalent* to a 120-300mm lens on a
    full-frame 35mm camera --either a real film camera, or a DSLR which has
    full frame sensor size. So -- for practical purposes, you will get the
    same photo coverage as with the secondary focal length range suggested.
    (Except that the lens will be *physically* smaller and lighter than one
    needed to accomplish the same coverage on a full-frame 35mm.)
    Note that he (in the web page) is talking about a fixed focal
    length lens, where there *is* no zoom.

    DoN. Nichols, Jan 24, 2005
  6. What are the typical photo applications below 80/128/120mm that this lens
    couldnt do?
    Second lens will be a 28-70 or similar.
    Also, later kenko 3x, 2x, 1,4x, 0,5x converters.
    50 mm normal fast original?

    If money issues resolve, :(((
    400mm f/2.8 and
    self built hi-end fast telephoto 2000mm+ f/5.6 or similar,...
    Should I go on?
    80 megapixel fairchild imaging ccd
    .::SuperBLUE::., Jan 24, 2005
  7. .::SuperBLUE::.

    Chuck Guest

    I was replying to the 1.5 X mag.

    Read again before waisting your time
    Chuck, Jan 25, 2005
  8. What do you shoot now? Just about any camera you buy will typically come with
    a lens that shoots at least equivalent to 30-70mm on a 35mm camera. This is
    typically considered the normal range for cameras. If you only buy a 80-200mm
    lens which gives a field of view equivalent to 120-300m on a Nikon system or a
    128-320mm on a Canon system. If you only shoot things far away, then you might
    be happy. I'm just suggesting making sure you have the standard ranges covered
    Again because of the multiplier this is more of a telephoto lens than it would
    be on a film camera (field of view 42-105 or 44-112). If telephoto floats your
    boat, then fine (my Olympus C-2100UZ starts at the equivalent of 38mm, which is
    usually fine), but if you want more wide angle then it isn't fine.
    Again remember the so-called crop factor.
    Dream on....
    Michael Meissner, Jan 25, 2005
  9. What is life for if not for living it the way you want?
    There is a cheap tokina 28-70mm f/2.8 lens.
    .::SuperBLUE::., Jan 25, 2005
  10. .::SuperBLUE::.

    Sheldon Guest

    I'm the one who started this mess. You are absolutely correct in your
    statement, but the fact is, as far as what you see through the viewfinder
    and how the final image will look, you can't buy any zoom lens for a DSL and
    assume it will be the equivalent to what you will see on a 35mm camera. As
    I said, if you "assume" that your DSL is full frame with a full size image
    sensor, and it is, an 80 to 200 lens is very handy indeed. However, if it's
    going to be your only lens, and you are working with a 1.5 or 1.6
    magnification ratio, due to the smaller image sensor, your minimum "usable"
    focal length on that lens will be around 120mm. Everything outside of that
    is wasted, even though it's there. And I, for one, would have trouble
    working with a minimum of 120mm (the reality of the usable portion of the
    image that lens produces).

    This is the problem with DSLR cameras with interchangeable lenses. You
    can't be thinking 35mm when you purchase a lens. You have to think in terms
    of the image sensor on "your" particular camera. And few cameras are 1:1,
    and those ain't cheap -- so far. :)
    Sheldon, Jan 30, 2005
  11. .::SuperBLUE::.

    maniac Guest


    A 50mm lens on a D70 gives the same 4x6 print as a 75mm lens on a Nikon film
    camera... so you do get 'zoom' when you put a lens from a film cam onto a DSLR
    with a crop factor. Going the other way, a 35mm lens on a D70 is no longer a
    wide angle, and a 50mm becomes a portrait lens.
    maniac, Jan 30, 2005
  12. .::SuperBLUE::.

    bj286 Guest

    bj286, Feb 19, 2005
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.