f/2.8 or f/3.5 -- does that extra half-stop really matter?

[cooltouch]

I find myself with a little bit of extra money at the moment, and have decided that I would like to use it to buy a manual-focus lens. Specifically, I would like to buy a fast 80-200 or 70-210 zoom, one that is of good enough quality that, even at 200mm or 210mm the sharpness is still excellent.

My first choice is the Tamron SP 80-200mm f/2.8 LD. This has been a dream lens that I've wanted for years. But now that I have the funds, I find that nobody has one for sale anywhere that I can find. But even if they did, it would have to be priced reasonably or I wouldn't be able to afford it.

So anyway, it's frustrating not being able to find the lens I want. Sure, I can be patient and wait for a good deal to come along eventually, but I know what will happen from past experience: the money that I've set aside for the lens will get spent on other "necessary" things, and before I realize it, the funds will be gone. So I tend to get impatient at times like this.

I've seen some really outstanding shots taken with the old Vivitar Series 1 zooms posted here. So, I've been asking myself -- just how big of a deal is a half-stop anyway? Because the old S1s with the constant f/3.5 aperture are relatively plentiful, compared to the Tamron 80-200/2.8, and their asking prices tend to be much lower than the Tamron's.

Of the old Vivitar S1 70-210s, my own favorite has been the second generation -- the one made by Tokina with the 62mm front filter size. It doesn't have the close macro mode of the first generation made by Kiron, but it's also lighter. Back when I was a camera dealer, I had owned both and liked the size, layout, and heft of the 2nd gen one over the 1st gen one, but the 1st gen 70-210 was literally built like a tank (I've worked on one before and it was just as sturdy inside as out), and it appears to be very close optically to the 2nd gen one.

I'm aware of the Tamron 70-210/3.5 but it's almost as rare as the 80-200/2.8. Plus, according to what I've been able to determine, the resolution numbers I've seen for it and the Vivitars indicate that the Vivitars outperform it. However, the big advantage to the Tamron -- any MF Tamron -- is the adaptall-2 mount system.

So, if you were in my shoes, what would you do? Hold out for the Tamron (and hope to find one you can afford), or just settle for one of the Vivitars?

[eeyore_nl]

If the Tamron is your dream lens, then don't settle for second best.

[mo]

I am sure I saw a Tamron like you describe not so long ago on Oz ebay.Have you tried keh and some of the alternate buying sites? I would wait and be patient and put your money away somewhere safe!

[Excalibur]

***So, if you were in my shoes, what would you do? Hold out for the Tamron (and hope to find one you can afford), or just settle for one of the Vivitars?***

erm stop MTF peeping and use ordinary e.g. Tamron 46a or 03a and get out and enjoy your hobby of taking photos until your dream lens turns up.

[stingOM]

Have you tried KEH?
http://www.keh.com/

http://www.keh.com/search?store=camera&brand=Brand&category=Class&k=tamron-80-200mm&s=1&bcode=Brand&ccode=Class&grade=Grade&sprice=0&eprice=0&r=SE&e


They do turn up regularly in *BAY if you are patient enough. I have one myself but it is in very rough condition. I have not used it much yet.

[LucisPictor]

The difference between f/2.8 and f/3.5 is not that big, really.
But the price difference and the difference in size is surprisingly huge!

If you can find a good copy of the 3.5/70-210, go for it. It's a great lens. I used to have one but sold it because I also have the Soligor 3.5/70-220 (which I like even more).
But sometime I regret that, since the Soligor is way bigger than the Tamron and thus I hardly ever bring the Soligor...

The Tamron found its way into my bag pretty often.

But if you know your dream lens and if this is the 2.8/80-200, try to find it. You will surely love it.

[spleenone]

It worth considering manual Tokina AT-X 80-200/2.8 I think that AT-X range are very fine performers. Although will be as pricey as your dream Tamron SP. But bear in mind that those super fast lenses are really heavy. I bought recently Viv 1 series 70-210/3.5 Kiron made zoom and look that make fine shot even though I didn't develop firts film. I mean my exprience is based on aps-c digital cam and i-net findigs. Then slow tamrons like 46A or 103A are not best solution. They make pics but it is low end glass, imo. Similar slow Nikkor 80-200/4 even older 80-200/4.5 them easily put in shame. We are not talking about price differeces, indeed.

[rbelyell]

i can second the atx, it is awesome on my 5d and believe it or not at 2.8 ive taken some really great iq indoor photos between iso4-800. it is huge and heavy, but i got a cheap price for a cy mount model i use w an adapter. i really cannot imagine a zoom w better iq in this range for the price.

to the original qustion, i think the only real difference between 2.8&3.5 is if you plan to use it indoors, which most people besides me do not!

[cooltouch]

Thanks for the responses, guys. I can't believe I forgot about KEH. So I followed the link sting provided (thanks, sting!) and, yep, there they all are -- hiding out at KEH. With prices a bit higher than I want to pay. Guess I need to set aside the cash stash and keep saving my money.

I'm surprised, really, that not more people responded in favor of the Vivitars. Too early yet, I suspect.

Lens size has never been a big issue to me. Although I'll admit, now that I'm getting older and have a bad back that seems to be more easily aggravated, I do look for ways of off-loading my gear so that I'm not having to carry a heavy bag around for much of a distance. But my attitude toward quality over weight is such that, one of these days, when I can afford one again, I'll be buying a 300mm f/2.8, and I'll just put up with the weight.

Well, I don't own a 46a or 03a or 103a. They're all good lenses, I know, and can often be picked up for next to nothing these days. But since they're all in the f/4 speed range, I don't see the point, especially since I already own an 80-200mm f/4.5 Nikkor that's actually a very sharp zoom. Besides, I also have a 23a (SP 60-300), a lens I first bought some 25 years ago, and I've always liked it. It overlaps the other sufficiently where I've never felt the need for one of the above Tamrons, but it's in the f/4-5.6 range.

About the Tokina ATX 80-200, yeah, I thought about it. But adaptall-2.org shows a comparison between the Tamron and the Tokina -- the good old Modern Photography resolution and contrast tests -- and the Tamron outscores the Tokina across the board.

On a related note, and speaking of comparing Tokina ATX to a Tamron SP, I've just bought a Tokina ATX 100-300 f/4 SD lens. It hasn't arrived yet, but one of the first things I plan on doing is a comparison between it and my Tamron 29a. It has the advantage of a constant f/4 aperture over the Tamron, and I'm interested to see how this will affect sharpness, if at all.

Now that I've had a chance to think about this some, I guess what I should do is move the money to a separate account so that it isn't as easily available and add to it as I can until I have enough to buy one of the 30a's at KEH. So I guess to answer my own question, it isn't about the half-stop difference, it's about getting what I really want.

[rbelyell]

wow michael, if the tamron can so definitively beat the tokina wide open i would truly be very impressed!

ot, i recently compared the atx 20-35/2.8 vs canon L 17-40/4.0 and to be honest, at less than half the price, to my eye, the tokina was just as good at a stop faster. the only reason i even ventured the comparison was because of how imoressed i was with the 80-200, so if youve found better, have at it!

[cooltouch]

Well, I don't have first hand experience, just to be clear. I'm basing my decisions with respect to the Tamron vs. Tokina on the MP tests shown at adaptall-2.org:

http://adaptall-2.org/lenses/30A.html

The Tokina vs. Canon tests you mention -- this is for current gear, though. Yeah, I'm not surprised it hangs in there with the Canon. I think that, in order for an independent lens maker to expect its high-end products to survive in today's marketplace, they must be competitive with the camera manufacturers' products.

[rbelyell]

yeah, ' hang in there' tokina $250/canon L $750

[gaeger]

On the broader question of 2.8 vs. 3.5, I've never found it a problem. I have 3.5 versions of 135mm and 20mm lenses, along with 3.5/4 zoom Nikkors. Do you often shoot wide open? In low-light situations? If so, then it may be worthwhile to go for 2.8.

F3.5 image of Groove for Thought (Nikkor 135mm AI):

[cooltouch]

Thanks, gaeger, actually I do shoot wide open quite a bit. Not so much in low light, but when I'm shooting in low light without any lighting reinforcement, then I'm pulling out the f/1.4 and f/1.2 stuff. And often using it wide open.

[martinsmith99]

I hear of the low light abilities of fast lenses, but as shown in the pic above, DOF can pose a problem. I'd sooner spend the cash on the camera that does high iso well; it's one-off investment and all your lenses work.

[gillbod]

the half stop must surely matter at some point, because then things get out of hand.

e.g. if f/3.5 is ok, and half stops are ok, then f/4 is ok. if f/4 is ok, then f/4.8 is ok. if f/4.8 is ok, then f/5.6 is ok.

at some point, you just have to draw the line.

where is draw the line is not at speed, but at size. think about the balance between speed and size, and that will give you a trade off which will give you what you want. e.g. i'm happy for a slower telephoto at the 200mm mark because every stop adds a lot, and my camera will stabilise the lens anyway.

but i won't settle for a slow 50mm, since a 50/1.4 is pretty small.

it's up to you. the half stop does matter, but so does a lot of other stuff.