Tokina lenses.. and other lens questions..

[JeffRho]

Hello all,

I'm about to purchase an S2, but a little unsure of what I want to purchase as my first lense. I'm thinking along the lines of a 28 - 80 and possibly a larger tele-zoom (80 - 200). It's been a LONG time since I took my first photo class (back in high school), and I do remember a few things about f stop, shutter speed, etc. My previous experience with SLR's has been with a Minolta X-700, and a little play time with my brothers Maxxum 7. I've had a few point and shoot digitals (both Sony), and am now interested in moving up to a Digital SLR. I've been lurking through the site, particularly the lens and lens test forums.

First question: I haven't seen any one mention Tokina lenses. Nikon, yes. Tamron, yes. Sigma, yes. Why no Tokina? Do they make a lousy lense? Does anyone have an opionion on this brand of lense?

Second question: How important is apature? Price wise, the 3.5+ lenses are often (always?) much cheaper. Is there really that much difference between a lense with an apature of 2.8 vs. 3.5-4.5?

Last question: What about my lense choice? I like to take photos of flowers, people, animals, and landscapes. For starters, will how well would these two lenses satisfy my needs? Am I missing something painfully obvious?

I'm realy excited to get started with Digital, I just want to make sure I make the right decision up front. :)

Jeff.

[Swampy]

I was completely happy with my choice of Sigma 24-70mm 2.8 and Nikon 70-200 VR. They cover everything I really need to do except macro, which I bought a Nikon 60mm micro for that. The rest of my lenses are just play extras. :)

Fast Aperture is important if you're shooting low light or indoors. My 70-200 VR does me no good outside when I'm taking animals since it's always bright daylight and I'm shooting f5.6 ~f16.

Hope this helps.

[pauly99]

Jeff, I own a Tokina 80-200 2.8 (about 5 years old) and was initially happy with the lens until I started to compare it with some of the Nikon lenses. It tends to be a tad soft. Having said that though, it beats what any point and shoot can do and the price (picked one up on Ebay for about $300) makes it more affordable than some of the Nikon models. Personally I'm longing for the Nikon 70-200 VR because of the sharpness and the fast ability to focus on what you are pointing at. My Tokina tends to hunt a little whereas in the same situation (store setting) the Nikon lens quickly focuses.

The wide aperture lenses (ie 2.8) allows you to bring in that much more light which in turn can allow for a faster shutter speed. It can often-times make the difference between getting and not getting a shot. Today while taking indoor hockey pics, I could use the Tokina 80-200 2.8 at ISO 1600, 1/250, and F2.8... whereas my Nikon 28-105 3.5-4.5 would not allow me to even capture an image without being way underexposed.

[Tom Nolle]

When I got my S2, I found that most of my film-days lenses weren't sharp enough. The only exception was my Sigma 500mm f4.5 HSM, the long glass I use for wildlife. Because I was so happy with it, I decided to stay with the well-reviewed Sigmas. I got the 24-70 and 70-210 f2.8 EX lenses and the 180mm macro. My reason for the f2.8 wasn't as much low light (though it obviously helps, the depth of field is pretty poor), as the fact that if I needed to attach a teleconverter I'd still have enough aperture to shoot at a usable shutter speed, and autofocus would still (at least with the 1.4x) work. So far, its worked out that way.

The Sigma 70-210 f2.8 is a very sharp lens, probably my favorite, and it works great as a "drive along the wooded road and look for wildlife surprises" lens with the 1.4x attached.

Tom