A Site for Photographers by Photographers

Community > Forums > Canon FD > Canon 28-50mm f/3.5 SSC vs...

Featured Equipment Deals

Factors to Consider when Choosing a Digital SLR Camera Read More

Factors to Consider when Choosing a Digital SLR Camera

Read about how to choose a DSLR camera from Photo.net. We take a look at everything from Format size, Image stabilization systems, metering, etc. Includes example images.

Latest Equipment Articles

4 Outdoor & Adventure Photo Packs Read More

4 Outdoor & Adventure Photo Packs

Photo packs have come a long way in the past decade, especially those that are targeted toward outdoor and adventure photographers. Alaska-based adventure photographer Dan Bailey takes a closer look...

Latest Learning Articles

A Brief History of Photography - Part II (Video Tutorial) Read More

A Brief History of Photography - Part II (Video Tutorial)

This video explores the second half of photography's history and development from the technological advances in the late 1800s through the beginnings of digital photography at the end of the 20th...


Canon 28-50mm f/3.5 SSC vs Tokina 28-85mm f/3.5-4.5 ATX

Jerome Sigua , Dec 17, 2011; 12:11 p.m.

I currently have the Tokina lens and have read that the Canon is a pretty sharp lens. I was wondering if anyone has used both and if it's worth getting the Canon. Is it a bit better or just a little? I know the lens doesn't go for that much money but if there isn't a significant difference, I'd rather spend the money on getting more film, especially the new Portra 400.

Responses


    1   |   2     Next    Last

Jeff Adler , Dec 17, 2011; 01:30 p.m.

I haven't used the Canon. 28-50 is not a very long range. I think I have a 28-50 Soligor in Canon mount. I don't use it much. The Tokina is an excellent lens. I have it for Konica, Canon and Nikon. The one in Canon mount has had the most use. On the long end it's pretty slow so using it with an F-1 with an L D screen brightens things up.

Philip Wilson , Dec 18, 2011; 06:03 p.m.

The Tokina is a very good lens as but I find the Canon 35-105 F3.5 is better. I cannot comment on the Canon 28-50 as I have never used it. If you are looking for a very compact zoom the Tamron AD2 35-70 F3.5 is also very good (and very cheap used)

Michael McBroom , Dec 19, 2011; 12:07 p.m.

I agree with Philip re: the Canon 35-105/3.5. It is a great lens. If you need the 28mm focal length, I can recommend my favorite zoom that includes it: the Vivitar Series 1 28-90mm f/2.8-3.5. They can often be found in Canon FD mount for cheap. I've used one since 1984 and I love it.

Jeff Adler , Dec 19, 2011; 02:16 p.m.

I have both versions of the 35-105 New FD lenses. The f/3.5 model does not focus close enough at the long end for a tight portrait and it focuses too close at the "macro" setting. The Tokina AT-X focuses to 3 feet before its close-up setting is used. Tamron used to advertise its CF (Continuous Focusing) feature for its zooms. They had no break between two close focusing ranges. The f/3.5-4.5 New FD focuses down to 4 feet at all focal lengths and down to about 3 feet from 70-105mm. It's a personal preference but I'd rather sacrifice close focusing at the short end than at the long end when using a zoom. Some favorite inexpensive but high quality 28s include the Canon f/2.8 FD SC, Vivitar f/2.5 Fixed Mount and Vivitar f/2.8 TX. From looking around on eBay I think there might be more than one version of the Tokina 28-85/3.5-4.5 AT-X but I'm not sure.

Mark Wahlster , Dec 19, 2011; 02:37 p.m.

I've owned the Tokina 28-85mm f3.5/4.5 ATX and found it to have a very flat contrast I didn't like so much. I picked up a Canon 28-85mm f4.0 nFD (the sister to the 35-105mm f3.5 nFD) and I liked that lens so much that on our once in a lifetme trip to Europe it was my walk around lens on my T-90.
I can't comment on the older S.S.C. 28-50mm as I don't remember ever owning one.

Jerome Sigua , Dec 19, 2011; 03:06 p.m.

I didn't think about the 35-105mm f/3.5. I'll have to check it out and see what's available. It would be an interesting test with both lenses, the Tokina ATX and the Canon. I wouldn't need a 28mm as I have the 35mm f/2.8 and the 24mm f/2.8 SSC.

Thomas Goehler , Dec 19, 2011; 03:29 p.m.

I seem to be the only one who both has and uses the 3,5/28-50. It IS a very sharp and convenient lens. During the last holidays in Tuscanny I used it for more or less 80% of all my shots. It is sometimes hard to get and I am very happy to have come by mine for a very cheap price. Comparing with the Tokina in question I'd always go for the Canon, if I didn't need the extra 35mm. Otherwise there is the Canon FD 28-85 (which sometimes gets a bad reputation in forums, but I never had one) or the afore mentioned 35-105.

Gerry Morgan , Dec 19, 2011; 06:38 p.m.

I thought it might be fun to take a quick "family portrait" of some of the mid-zoom Canon FD lenses mentioned in this particular thread lined up next to each other.

Left to right:

Canon nFD 28-50mm f/3.5
Canon nFD 35-70mm f/2.8-3.5
Canon nFD 35-105mm f/3.5
Canon nFD 35-105mm f/3.5-4.5
Canon nFD 28-85mm f/4
Canon nFD 50-135mm f/3.5

Couple of comments about some of these lenses from my perspective: The 28-50 is really a decent performer with good sharpness that can hold its own in this range. On this lens I find the two-touch convenient for precise framing. The 50-135 is an amazingly heavy lens. I find myself reaching for this "pool" of lenses when I want a quick travel lens – the 28-50 comes along if I know I might be in close quarters.


Some Canon FD mid-zooms

Thomas Goehler , Dec 20, 2011; 09:35 a.m.

Yeah, the combination 28-50 plus 50-135 is ideal for travelling. I only added the 1,2/50 and the 2,8/20 this summer. The last one only because I wanted to shoot some architecture, otherwise I could have done without it.


    1   |   2     Next    Last

Back to top

Notify me of Responses