Reading mode: Light Dark

Tokina vs. Sigma vs. Canon lens

Go to last post
A

Alex01Net

Member
Messages
12
Reaction score
0
Location
US
I am in the market for a walkaround standard zoom lens to replace the kit lens on my Rebel XT. I am not ready for the cost of Canon L glass, and am interested to see if Sigma and Tokina have solid / "better" products than Canon consumer glass. For telephoto lens I am going to get the Canon 70-300 DO IS.

The lenses I am looking at are:
1) Tokina AT-X 287 PROSV AF28-70mm f2.8
2) Sigma 24-60mm F2.8 EX DG
3) Sigma 24-70mm F2.8 EX DG MACRO

I am interested most of all in optical quality, sharpness and build quality. Has anybody experienced these lenses, any pics to show, any thought?

Thanks for the help, Alex
 
...you should only have listed Canon L glass and non-L primes...with just a few 3rd party exceptions. Most of the ones you listed are...ah....dogs ;-)

--
********************************************
It's not just the photographer...it's the equipment too that CAN matter.
 
I am interested in prosumer use. I love taking photographs, but I do not do it for a living.
Thanks, Alex
 
...especially the 50mm F1.4, and 85mm F1.8..oh, and the 100 F2.8 macro....the much wider primes are generally good too. All these are generally cheap as well. I can't recommend any non-L Canon zooms however.

--
********************************************
It's not just the photographer...it's the equipment too that CAN matter.
 
Peru_Photog said:
...you should only have listed Canon L glass and non-L
primes...with just a few 3rd party exceptions. Most of the ones
you listed are...ah....dogs ;-)
Click to expand...
There's a world beyond L-glass, you know? And a nice one, too.

From the list, I'd skip Tokina. The other two are good lenses if you can get a good copy. Possibly, the best 'prosumer' lens in this range is Tamron 28-75, though it's not as well built as Canon L or Sigma EX.
Peru_Photog said:
--
********************************************
It's not just the photographer...it's the equipment too that CAN
matter.
Click to expand...
Couldn't disagree more, sorry.

Best regards.

--
...oooOOO{X}OOOooo...

Pedro Claro
Marinha Grande - Portugal
 
So send some of yoru spare cash to us poor folks who'd like L zooms but can't justify the price ;)

It would be nice to only drive around in a Ferrari too.
Peru_Photog said:
...you should only have listed Canon L glass and non-L
primes...with just a few 3rd party exceptions. Most of the ones
you listed are...ah....dogs ;-)

--
********************************************
It's not just the photographer...it's the equipment too that CAN
matter.
Click to expand...
 
Alex01Net said:
I am not ready for the cost of Canon L glass.
For telephoto lens I am going to get the Canon 70-300 DO IS.
Click to expand...
Sorry but I can't understand that notion, going for a lens that costs as much as a similar performing L lens while it delivers only marginally better pictures than an average consumer lens...

--
regards
Karl Günter Wünsch
 
I like the 70-300 DO IS because it is not conspicuous, does not draw much attention for colour or lenght. But still it offers a significant zoom range and the quality I seek for my shots. The reason for mentioning that lens was simply to avoid getting advice on long range... I am interested in other people's experience at wide angle, range from 16-70mm and comment on the Tokina and Sigma lenses I have mentioned. Or if anybody has a Tamron-based suggestion

Thanks, Alex
 
if you can't recommend non-canon zooms and you recommend primes when he clearly said he wanted a zoom?

zooms have come a long way and most people don't want primes.

ed rader
 
I don't know how many times I shot a great composition and regretting using a so-so lens. The lack of lens quality took something from the composition. Or the lack of contrast and color forced me to photo-shop it to the point of causing pixel damage.

It must have happened a thousand times over the years. Even as I write this I look over at a large box above my desk filled with awesome compositions that show so-so focus because of the use of inferior lenses.

Sorry man, but you gotta know it takes both...a photog with a great eye or luck, and a very good lens...there is no other way.

--
********************************************
It's not just the photographer...it's the equipment too that CAN matter.
 
Maybe you need to pick and choose your battles better, and be more tolerant to other views. I know what he asked.

--
********************************************
It's not just the photographer...it's the equipment too that CAN matter.
 
All my spare cash is gone! Hey, I never said it would be easy.

Ferrari? Those cars are junk man...I like my Lexus better.
--
********************************************
It's not just the photographer...it's the equipment too that CAN matter.
 
and although I haven't had a lot of experience with it yet, I've been impressed with what I've seen. I'll know more after the Gettysburg trip in early July.

What I DO know is... this lens is big and heavy. I'm already wondering if the Sigma 18-50 2.8 EX wouldn't have been a bit easier to live (i.e. walk around), with.
 
but i like to butt heads with trolls from time to time :).

ed rader
 
Anybody? Any experience? Relative to the 18-55mm kit lens and the 17-40L Canon I just tried at the store... the 17-40L was very nice indeed...
 
Hi Alex,

I have the Sigma 28-70mm 2.8-4, sigma 70-300mm Super macro II Non APO version, The kit lens 18-55mm and a Tokina 28-210mm that is my walk round lens.

For a walk around lens you might consider either the Tamron or the Sigma 18-200mm lens. Both are good.

One thing to remember, It is the photographer that makes the picture Not the equpment that makes a photographer!

Good luck and enjoy what ever you choose!

bluwing
--
Remember, The choice is up to You...
U.P. of Michigan The 51st State
 
check out the tamron 28-75 Di 2.8. From what I have read, if you get a good copy it is supposed to have the image quality of the Canon 24-70L, at around $350-$400 it's a good deal if it delivers the same image quality and is a lot lighter. I am looking into this as an option. I primarily like to shoot primes, but sometimes it's just impractica to keep switching lensesl, like the reception shots at wedings or othger similar events. I don't shoot weddings often so I don't want to spend the big bucks on the 24-70 when the tamron may be as good (if it's a good copy).

I do have the 70-200 2.8 IS however and that is money well spent (although I got a really good deal on it).
 
Alex01Net said:
Anybody? Any experience? Relative to the 18-55mm kit lens and the
17-40L Canon I just tried at the store... the 17-40L was very nice
indeed...
Click to expand...
Many people rave about the 18-50/2.8 here, and for good reason. It is nicely fast, the optical quality is generally excellent, and it's a very solidly built lens. There are (as always) a question about quality control, but this lens doesn't seem to be particularily badly affected or anything.

The only dawback I find with it is that being solid and with a large front element, it is also fairly heavy, and with the included hood it can become a little intimidating to stick into peoples faces.

--
http://lucs.lu.se/people/jan.moren/log/current.html
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top