Tokina Lenses on 20D

Discussion in 'Digital SLR' started by Tim S., Feb 11, 2005.

  1. Tim S.

    Tim S. Guest

    Anyone used the tokina lenses on a 20D?

    The one I have in mind is the Tokina AF 24-200mm F3.5-5.6 AT-X, Zoom LENS.

    Your thoughts on quality would be appreciated.

    Tim S., Feb 11, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  2. Tim S.

    dylan Guest

    dylan, Feb 11, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  3. Tim S.

    Chuck Guest

    why do you want to use a crappy lens like that on a 20D ? Next time, just
    get a 10X zoom point and shoot.
    Chuck, Feb 11, 2005
  4. Tim S.

    Ryadia Guest

    Just be aware that any lens with such a huge zoom will have areas of the
    zoom stages where it you can expect anything from terrible to pretty bad
    performance. Tokina lenses in general are soft. Although I have no
    recent experience with the brand after dumping the 2 I had when their
    performance fell well short of cheap (as in 18~55) Canon lenses.

    Ryadia, Feb 11, 2005
  5. Tim S.

    Tumbleweed Guest

    Just be aware that any lens with such a huge zoom will have areas of the
    There are plenty of reviews if you Google - most of which suggest that the
    lens performs much better than you might expect considering both the zoom
    and price ranges.
    Tumbleweed, Feb 11, 2005
  6. Tim S.

    Skip M Guest

    I have the Tokina 28-70 f2.6-2.8 ATX Pro, and, while its softness is not an
    issue to you, the idea that it consistently gives me Err99 messages on my
    20D may be.
    Skip M, Feb 12, 2005
  7. Tim S.

    DM Guest


    No offence intended - but I cannot for the life of me imagine why you'd
    spend $1500 on a 20D body only to couple it with a $300 lens???


    DM, Feb 14, 2005
  8. Tim S.

    Skip M Guest

    There's a lot of us out there with $300-400 lenses on our cameras, like the
    28-135 IS, the 50mm f1.8 and f1.4, 50mm f2.5 macro, 100 f2 and many, many
    others. There's no stigma (that's not "Sigma!<G>) to a $300 lens. The
    problem here is the image quality of a zoom with a nearly 10x zoom ratio, or
    lack thereof.
    Skip M, Feb 14, 2005
  9. Tim S.

    Tim S. Guest

    Thank you all for the input. I have decided that I probably will hold off
    and use Canon "L" glass for most of my lenses. I went to a local dealer and
    shot different glass and at that point realized there is no substitute for
    good lenses.

    Tim S., Feb 14, 2005
  10. Tim S.

    DM Guest

    Absolutely! Side by side (whilst a wince when first buying them) once you
    try the Canon L lenses you don't want to go back...


    DM, Feb 14, 2005
  11. Tim S.

    Skip M Guest

    There are other alternatives, it's just that a lens with the zoom range of
    the Tokina you mention has too many compromises, optically speaking, to be
    completely satisfactory. "L" glass is the best, of course, but you might
    miss some shots, waiting to save up enough to buy a full quiver of lenses.
    A 28-135 f3.5-5.6 IS USM and 100-400 f4.5-5.6L IS USM might be a good place
    to start, moving on to a 17-40 f4L, or, if you can afford it, a 16-35 f2.8L,
    I have the first two lenses, and am getting the funds together for the
    Skip M, Feb 15, 2005
  12. Tim S.

    Tim S. Guest

    Thanks Skip,

    This is becoming an expensive habit, looks like I might have to sell a few
    toys to pay for it....

    Tim S., Feb 15, 2005
  13. Tim S.

    JPS Guest

    In message <w%WPd.94076$>,
    The problem is not "a $300 lens". There are plenty of lenses that offer
    more than the camera can capture at $300. The problem is with $300 9x
    zooms. You can get a fine 50mm lens for $300.
    JPS, Feb 15, 2005
  14. Tim S.

    Skip M Guest

    Yes, it is. And I feel your pain, a few years ago, I sold a model train
    collection I had accumulated over many years to buy new AF bodies and
    lenses, so the toys change. At least now that we've started a photo
    business, the equipment becomes a write off...
    One reason I mentioned the 28-135, even though it is not quite of the
    quality of the 24-70 L, it does have image stabilization, which the "L" lens
    lacks, and it is still optically excellent. IS will save some shots,
    believe me!
    Skip M, Feb 15, 2005
  15. Tim S.

    DM Guest


    There might be a lot of users out there with $300 lenses on ' our cameras' however, the point was as to the wisdom of spending 5x as much on the body as one was prepared to pay on the lens. Personally, having started photography 17 years ago with a Canon 650 body and 70-210 zoom I have to say that 17 years later I feel lens quality is paramount.

    I'd be the first to say that bodies do matter & affect what we can capture (I've bought both a 10D & 20D within the last 9 months - & if I could have afforded, and been able to justify it, I'd much have preferred an EOS-1D Mark II!!).

    However, the quality of images able to be captured by the likes of the 20D deserve the best quality glass you can combine with them.

    Several years ago I bit the bullet & bought a Canon 80-200 L f2.8 zoom lens and coupled with an EOS-1 body (using chemical film) found such a huge difference that compared to the other lenses I owned it hardly ever came off the camera.

    When I finally went digital I sold all the chemical gear on eBay (inc. the 80-200L) and replaced it with a brand new set of up to date, in guarantee, and matching gear (rather than try to mix & match & find old stuff going wrong)...

    Along with the original 10D a put together I put together a working kit comprising of...

    a.. Canon EOS 10D SLR
    b.. Canon EF 70-200mm F2.8L IS USM
    c.. Canon EF 24-70mm F2.8L USM
    d.. Canon EF 17-40mm F4L USM
    e.. Canon EF 2x II Extender
    f.. Canon EF 1.4x II Extender
    g.. Canon Speedlite 550 EX

    Along with spare batteries, 2x Sandisk 1GB Extreme memory cards, etc. the camera body was a 'mere' 21% of the budget (in fact of the camera versus lens balance it was still only 26% of budget).

    Once in use I found the 10D frustratingly poor with it's speed (& accuracy) of autofocus with sports photography & have bitten the further bullet of upgrading to a 20D (much, much improved!).

    However, no matter how much the digital technology changes over the next couple of years, no matter how many times I change a 10D for a 20, 30, etc. (if there are real benefits) or, finally, bite the real bullet & by one of the EOS-1D bodies (once you've had them - even if only of the chemical variety - you know your really sacrificing what you really want for $$$$) the lenses will still be working strong & capturing superb image quality no matter what they're coupled to.

    Trust me, once you've owned an L quality lens - you'll never want to shoot with anything less!


    DM, Feb 16, 2005
  16. Tim S.

    bj286 Guest

    200/2.8 and 100/2 are optically better.
    20/2.8 and 50/1.8 are optically better.

    And one of the lenses is only $60. If the 80mm equivalent works well
    for the user as a portrait lens, he can spend only 1/10 or 1/20 of the
    camera price on the lens and still get better optical quality.
    bj286, Feb 17, 2005
  17. Tim S.

    Stacey Guest

    And some people like me aren't interested in carrying a -sack full- of
    primes around to save a few $$ or get 2 lpmm better resolution.
    Stacey, Feb 17, 2005
  18. Tim S.

    Stacey Guest

    But then waste money on cheapo glass and never be able to afford anything

    Why buy a camera with this high sensor pixel density and then use low
    resolution lenses on it? Makes ZERO sense.
    Stacey, Feb 17, 2005
  19. Tim S.

    Skip M Guest

    Thanks for editing out the pertinent part, Stacey! Geeez, in the rest of my
    post, I was specific about which lenses I was talking about, and not a one
    of them would fall under the heading of "el cheapo glass."
    What is this, you can't find something to criticize, so you edit enough so
    you can create something??
    Skip M, Feb 17, 2005
  20. Tim S.

    Brian Baird Guest

    But not THAT much better.

    Additionally, no IS.

    But then again, you can own the 200 f/2.8 and the 100 f/2 for about $500
    less than the 70-200 f/2.8 IS L.
    Yeah, but zooms are convenient. Also, the 20mm f/2.8 is nice, but it
    does suffer from some chromatic aberrations and flaring the 17-40 f/4L
    is less prone to.
    Brian Baird, Feb 17, 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.