Tokina 50-135 f/2.8 discontinued?!

jsherman999 · 10-29-2009, 11:49 AM

.

What are the implications of this, if true?

Could it mean that Pentax has canceled all orders for the lens due to the SDM issues, and that without the Pentax channel, it doesn't make sense for Tokina to continue the model?

Anyone hear if Pentax plans to discontinue the DA* 50-135 after current stock is sold?

link --> to possible FUD.

.

RBellavance · 10-29-2009, 11:59 AM

Originally Posted by jsherman999

What are the implications of this, if true?

Could it mean that Pentax has canceled all orders for the lens due to the SDM issues, and that without the Pentax channel, it doesn't make sense for Tokina to continue the model?

Do you have evidence that the DA* was/is assembled/build by Tokina ?

My understanding was that the lens (like the DA*16-50) is a joint design, but is built by each company independently.

Quicksand · 10-29-2009, 12:18 PM

I don't think the Tokina versions are SDM (or whatever they call it on those systems), are they?

Gee, I wonder what RH thinks.

*Wheatfield* · 10-29-2009, 12:29 PM

It more likely means that Tokina isn't selling enough of them to warrant continuing producing them.
USM issues aside, I don't think the 50-135 is going anywhere.
It wouldn't surprise me if they release a MkII that has an improved USM, or possibly a USM only that will address the reliability issues with that lens.

*arpaagent* · 10-29-2009, 12:43 PM

Originally Posted by Wheatfield

It more likely means that Tokina isn't selling enough of them to warrant continuing producing them.
USM issues aside, I don't think the 50-135 is going anywhere.
It wouldn't surprise me if they release a MkII that has an improved USM, or possibly a USM only that will address the reliability issues with that lens.

Although I have the current version and it's a great lens, a MkII with a true ring type USM would rock.

aybee · 10-29-2009, 01:33 PM

One of the UK magazines reviewed a MK2 version this month - no major changes from the mk1 I think it said.

EricT · 10-29-2009, 01:41 PM

Originally Posted by Wheatfield

It more likely means that Tokina isn't selling enough of them to warrant continuing producing them.
USM issues aside, I don't think the 50-135 is going anywhere.
It wouldn't surprise me if they release a MkII that has an improved USM, or possibly a USM only that will address the reliability issues with that lens.

I agree with this. For some reason, this lens doesn't seem to generate much interest among the CaNikon crowd. I can't see why, though, a 70-200 equivalent with excellent IQ (and no SDM issues in the Tokina version) in a very compact form factor should be a very attractive lens, IMO.

10-29-2009, 01:50 PM

Originally Posted by aybee

One of the UK magazines reviewed a MK2 version this month - no major changes from the mk1 I think it said.

I think you're confuse it with the 12-24.

Radu

jsherman999 · 10-29-2009, 01:50 PM

Originally Posted by EricT

I agree with this. For some reason, this lens doesn't seem to generate much interest among the CaNikon crowd. I can't see why, though, a 70-200 equivalent with excellent IQ (and no SDM issues in the Tokina version) in a very compact form factor should be a very attractive lens, IMO.

.

Part of the reason for that may be that the Sigma 50-150 2.8 HSM II is out there.

Here's a quickie shootout I did - I like the 50-135 slightly more for it's close-focus AF
accuracy and slight edge in rendering overall, but the speed of that Sigma HSM on the
D90 was something to behold --> Shootout link.

Tokina may have just had a hard time competing with that lens, and decided to either
shelve it or come out with a ring-motor version, as speculated.

.

Jodokast96 · 10-29-2009, 02:58 PM

I think people would just rather have a 70-200, not a 70-200 equivilent, especially for about the same amount of cash. It's one reason why I've never bothered, it's just not a focal range I can really justify. It just doesn't seem quite wide enough for much, nor long enough for much else. 28-105 (if possible for f/2.8 throughout) may have been a better choice. Of course, that would have competed with the 16-50. Combined, they make a great duo, but seperately, the 50-150 just seems like a lost child.

Huh, how about that post #1000.

aybee · 10-29-2009, 04:03 PM

Originally Posted by RaduA

I think you're confuse it with the 12-24.

Radu

Yep maybe, I cannot find any evidence for what I posted. Is there a 12-24 mk2? If so it may have been a review of that.

EricT · 10-29-2009, 04:16 PM

Yes, but for some reason, the 100-300mm lenses were never really popular on full frame. That may be because they are f/4 instead of f/2.8, though. In fact, that may be another reason why the 50-135mm isn't that popular, people who are interested in such a "pro-grade" lens for Canon/Nikon mount may want their gear to be full-frame capable.

MikePerham · 10-29-2009, 04:47 PM

Originally Posted by EricT

Yes, but for some reason, the 100-300mm lenses were never really popular on full frame. That may be because they are f/4 instead of f/2.8, though. In fact, that may be another reason why the 50-135mm isn't that popular, people who are interested in such a "pro-grade" lens for Canon/Nikon mount may want their gear to be full-frame capable.

Actually, I think the reason the 70-200 were as popular was primarily because it is such a useful focal length and essentially replaced the 135mm primes in the market place. Certainly the f2.8 vs f4.0 and the smaller size had some bearing on that, but even 70-200 f4 lenses were more popular than 100-300 f4 lenses.

I find the 50-135 an excellent range and would prefer primes for anything longer. For that fact, I like primes for anything wider than the 16-50. That normal to mid tele range is very well covered by zooms.