Overlapping focal lengths

[Rafterman]

I've already got a Tamron 70-300mm f/4-5.6 VC. It's my wildlife lens and I love it. Period. However...I'm considering jumping on a gently used Tokina AT-X Pro 50-135mm f/2.8 DX, which for those who don't know, is a discontinued lens whose range is the DX equivalent of the 70-200mm focal length on a full-frame sensor. Sigma makes a better-known 50-150mm f/2.8 that serves the same purpose. It's basically a "pro" DX lens, kind of like how the Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8 is a "pro" DX lens, with precision optics, fast aperture, high build quality, etc.

If I buy the Tokina, I'll be overlapping a focal range (70-135mm), but the trade-off will be owning a fast, pro-quality lens that won't cause my wallet to cry out in agony. Yes, I did briefly consider selling the Tamron and then saving up to buy a 300mm prime to get the reach I love so much. However, it would be a LONG wait, and in the meantime, I'd miss photographing my feathered friends. The 70-300 is staying put.

By the way, the purpose of buying the Tokina would be for portraits and sports shooting. Naturally, it would also accompany me to the fashion show I'm shooting next weekend along with the Nikon 17-55 f/2.8 I'm renting.

Am I making a mistake by considering this lens?

 

[Mach0]

What's the price tag and have you checked out the reviews?

 

[Overread]

I personally own a 70-200mm f2.8 and a 120-300mm f2.8. They both overlap each other through part of their focal range, however I wouldn't get rid of either.

You can have overlap within your setup so long as the lenses lend themselves to different situations and stand up well on their own. For yourself you've already identified that the new lens will be a higher quality though its focal range and also that it will suit you for specific situations where you don't need to go all the way out to 300 or even 200mm to get the shot you want. Given that information then I'd say go for it. The only downside is that its eating into your future potential budget for a dedicated and better quality long lens; but with events where you can use the new lens coming up very soon I don't think that you will regret it (so long as those events are enjoyable events that you're looking forward and eager to shoot of course )

 

[Rafterman]

What's the price tag and have you checked out the reviews?

Since it's discontinued, new copies from Japan or South Korea are running about $800-900, plus shipping, fees, etc. However, I've located a few VERY good used copies in the US for about $450-550. I got $300 from selling my D3100 kit, so it'd cost me very little out of pocket for a gem of a lens. As far as reviews go, they are raving anywhere you look. People LOVE this lens on both Nikon and Canon bodies. Sharp to the corners, even at 2.8, great color rendition, smooth bokeh. The ONLY drawbacks reviewers mention are the non-detachable tripod mount (big whoop) and the fact that it uses a screw-drive focus system, which is (typically) slower than a built-in motor. Most people say it focuses fast enough for sports, but a few don't. I know the camera body has an influence on screw-driven focus speed though, so the older, slower bodies might be causing the poor results for those individuals.

You can have overlap within your setup so long as the lenses lend themselves to different situations and stand up well on their own.

Good point. I'd definitely consider buying a 24-70 if it served a purpose, even if I already had a 16-35, 50-150 and a 70-300. Well, that's a bit of an extreme example, but still.

For yourself you've already identified that the new lens will be a higher quality though its focal range and also that it will suit you for specific situations where you don't need to go all the way out to 300 or even 200mm to get the shot you want. Given that information then I'd say go for it.

:thumbsup:

The only downside is that its eating into your future potential budget for a dedicated and better quality long lens;

Honestly, I'm OK with f/5.6 at 300mm for right now. Yes, I'd love a 300 f/4 or a 500 f/5.6 (who wouldn't?), but I'm not broken-hearted without one. Birds are the ONLY thing I photograph at 300mm and I shoot them exclusively during daylight hours. I'm fine with turning up the ISO a bit if I need to reach a faster shutter speed.

with events where you can use the new lens coming up very soon I don't think that you will regret it (so long as those events are enjoyable events that you're looking forward and eager to shoot of course )

Yes, I am VERY excited to shoot the fashion show next Friday night. Plus the next day, I'm taking portraits at a local park of my best friend's wife and daughter to frame and give him as a birthday gift in June. I'd much rather have the Tokina for those shots than my Tamron.

 

[Derrel]

I tell you what...the 50 to 70mm or 50-80mm zone is REALLY useful on a 1.5x camera. As in REALLY useful. I own a Nikkor 50-135 f/3.5, and used to use it quite a bit as a sort of prime lens substitute back in the D1-D1h-Fuji S2 Pro era. It might not seem like it, but even the difference between 50mm and 58mm is substantial in terms of angle of view.

I think the Tokina 50-135 f/2.8 would be a nice lens to own. Who cares about overlap? Some overlap is fine. I might be mistaking it for another lens, but I THINK Thom Hogan used to own the Tokina and it's a sharp lens, but it has one weakness: it flares terribly when shot toward the sun. His site has been down off and on as he updates the past few days, and it's down right now, or I'd look that URL up and paste it.

 

[Rafterman]

it has one weakness: it flares terribly when shot toward the sun

It comes with a huge tulip-shaped hood, so I'm not worried about flare too much. Plus, I can't think of a shot that would require me pointing it at the sun, except maybe a back-lit portrait.

If anyone was curious for more info, here's Tokina's page for the lens in their archive section: Tokina | Digital Eyes - Visionary technology makes a difference you can see

 

[bc_steve]

I wouldn't worry about the redundancy.

I have the Nikkor 70-300, but I use my Tokina 100mm f/2.8 whenever it is the appropriate focal length because it is sharper and faster than the 70-300. The 70-300 I have mostly for the long end of it's zoom, so I consider them to serve different purposes. The Tokina is actually a macro lens, but I have been using it for non-macro shots most of the time lately.

 

[slow231]

overlap means nothing to me. what i do is think about my shooting situations and think about lenses that will cover me in these situations. some situations are wide only, some are only tele only, some are a mix. what i like to get rid of is not length overlap, but having to switch lenses in any of these shooting situations that i regularly encounter. switching lenses it's annoying, it means i have to carry around multiple lenses (not always feasible for events, travel, etc.), it takes time, and bottom line it means i miss or don't make shots that i see in my mind. so i match my lenses to shooting situations and not focal ranges and it's ok for these to overlap.

 

[Derrel]

Here's his shot of how badly it ghosts with the lens hood ON:

tokina50-135mmflare.jpg

But that kind of condition doesn't always exist.

 

[Rafterman]

Here's his shot of how badly it ghosts with the lens hood ON

Just read his full review on the lens, and I gotta say, it knocked a LOT of the wind out of my sails. I mean, he does have valid points about the shortcomings of the lens: AWFUL flare, lack of built-in focus motor, no stabilization. Hey, it got discontinued for a reason, right? It's hard to deny all those other reviews from "Joe Photographer" who own the lens though and love every aspect of it. Ugh, decisions, decisions...*sigh*

Maybe I'll take a closer look at the Sigma 50-150. It's going for about $100 more than the Tokina, but does have some modern features in it. Hogan seems to like it better in his review as well.

 

[Derrel]

Here's his shot of how badly it ghosts with the lens hood ON

Just read his full review on the lens, and I gotta say, it knocked a LOT of the wind out of my sails. I mean, he does have valid points about the shortcomings of the lens: AWFUL flare, lack of built-in focus motor, no stabilization. Hey, it got discontinued for a reason, right? It's hard to deny all those other reviews from "Joe Photographer" who own the lens though and love every aspect of it. Ugh, decisions, decisions...*sigh*

Maybe I'll take a closer look at the Sigma 50-150. It's going for about $100 more than the Tokina, but does have some modern features in it. Hogan seems to like it better in his review as well.

I know, dude...that's why I actually took the time to go back, and dig up the photo and make a second reminder...his review scared me off of the lens too...PLUS, I still have the 50-135 f/3.5 Zoom~Nikkor, which is manual focus. I have to say, the smaller size, and lighter weight of the 50-135/3.5 or the older manual focus 80-200 f/4 Ai-S Nikkor, makes those kinds of lenses pretty handy for carrying. Same for the 75-150 f/3.5 Series E zoom.

I agree with the problem with the "Joe Photographer" web reviews; there are a LOT of people on the interwebz, and a load of "I LOVE this lens (that I just bought last week)!!!" kinda' reviews out there. For sports/action, I really think an AF-S Nikkor is *the ticket*. Screw drive is okay, but it's not as reliably on-the-money as AF-S, for various reasons. For portraits, a lot of lenses will work. I dunno...this is an area where the DX lineup from most makers is severely lacking. There are some areas where there just are NOT many lens options, and from Nikon there are NONE. As in NONE. Now, if you could handle a manual focus lens, the 80-200mm f/4 Ai-S is a SWEET lens, and is available for $75 to $125, all over. It's solidly made, and focuses pretty easily, and it is f/4 all the way. Ken Rockwell has a good review of it. But, it is manual focus, not AF, so...old school.

 

[Rafterman]

if you could handle a manual focus lens, the 80-200mm f/4 Ai-S is a SWEET lens, and is available for $75 to $125, all over. It's solidly made, and focuses pretty easily, and it is f/4 all the way. Ken Rockwell has a good review of it. But, it is manual focus, not AF, so...old school.

I'm spoiled by the modern conveniences of AF. I just can't bring myself to buy a manual-only lens. I tried it one time a couple years ago when I bought a Tokina 100mm f/2.8 macro lens for my D3100. I thought I could handle using it in MF all the time, but it got old REAL quick. I ended up returning it after just a couple weeks. It's a great lens though, and one I'd consider buying again now that I have a D7000 with the screw drive.

 

[TheLost]

Just buy a used Nikon 80-200 f/2.8 and skip the 50-150mm craziness

 

[Rafterman]

Just buy a used Nikon 80-200 f/2.8 and skip the 50-150mm craziness

Are you going to send me the extra $$$ to make up the difference?

I think I'll just end the "craziness" by getting an 85mm f/1.8D. Its reputation is unquestionable, I already own several 62mm filters, and it would complete my trifecta of prime lenses (35, 50, 85).

 

[bc_steve]

Just buy a used Nikon 80-200 f/2.8 and skip the 50-150mm craziness

Are you going to send me the extra $$$ to make up the difference?

I think I'll just end the "craziness" by getting an 85mm f/1.8D. Its reputation is unquestionable, I already own several 62mm filters, and it would complete my trifecta of prime lenses (35, 50, 85).

i've seen 'em used for around $500...