Comments on the Tamron AF28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di wanted

...

Er, the Angenieux design was sold to another lens company, who continued
making a slightly modified version for several years.

That company was Tokina, and the lens was the 28-70 f2.6-2.8

And that price is WAY over-inflated; the last one I saw on a UK site was
??500 in Ex++ condition.

To the OP, I say; go with the Tokina. It feels better than the Tamron, and
older (but in no way inferior) versions can be found for quite good prices,
and secondhand ones are a steal.

--
Martin Francis
- "Argh! My hard drive crashed and I lost everything!"

I can't, since I've never used the 28~135mm. Obviously the 28~7x's
cover a narrower range of focal lengths and don't have IS. The so-
called 'pro' zooms are also anywhere from a half to a full stop faster
than the 28~135.

I do own a similar lens, though, which is Nikon's older 24~120D. The
Nikon is lighter, not built as well, has more distortion at the wide
end, and delivers less 'snap' throughout. It's not a bad lens, just
one with a different purpose.

The 24~120, together with a 70~300, make up a "tourist kit."
Combined, they give lightweight coverage for almost any possible shot,
but at a cost in optical performance and DOF control. At any given
price point, the more you ask a lens to do, the less well it's going
to do it.

The 28~70 gets used when I'm willing to lug around more gear, but
still want some flexibility. It also sees use as a backup for primes.
Today, the Tokina's getting used for some cliche foilage shots,
perhaps a turkey group portrait or two.

--
Michael Benveniste --
Spam and UCE professionally evaluated for $250. Use this email
address only to submit mail for evaluation.

How would you rate the lenses when compared to a 28-135mm IS USM?

...

I can't comment on the Tamron, but I own this one (Pro II version) in
Nikon mount. The current version is the ATX Pro SV, which claims a
fixed f/2.8 aperture instead of f/2.6~f/2.8.

Mine is well built, though the AF/MF focus selector can be awkward to
use. As with most Tokina glass, the color rendition is a little on
the cool side. Optically, I have no complaints. I haven't had to use
it wide open yet, but at f/4 through f/11+ it's nice and sharp. AF is
fairly slow.

Flare can be a problem, especially since the "correct" petal style
lens hood is practically worthless. It you want to use a polarizer,
go with a good quality thin polarizer. Fortunately, the same filters
fit the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 and many wide angle zooms -- the filter
will cost a third to half as much as the 28~70!

With 3rd party lenses, compatability can be an issue. I've heard of
more problems with Canon than other brands, but that may just be due
to Canon's popularity. But as a not-so-random example, my copy of the
28-70 won't mount on my Pronea S (Nikon's APS SLR), but works fine on
"real" bodies.

Let's face facts, though. I like Tokina's products. I've owned 4
lenses of theirs, ranging from merely good (the 24~40 f/2.8) to
extraordinary (the 90mm f/2.5). But put a $300 Tokina up against a
$1000+ Canon L of the same generation and the Tokina comes up short.
I know of one third-party lens in this class that might challenge
Canon (or Nikon or anyone else.) Here it is, and that price is _not_
inflated:

#

In summary, compared to the Canon or Nikon, the Tokina is roughly 80%
of the lens at about 30% of the price. For an amateur like myself, it
was worth the compromise.

--
Michael Benveniste --
Spam and UCE professionally evaluated for $250. Use this email
address only to submit mail for evaluation.

Or what about the Tokina AT-X AF PRO 28-70mm f/2.6-2.8? Would it be a
better choice?

...