Tokina 2.8 versus Sigma 2.8 sample

Fred Miranda · Feb 20, 2001

Hi all,

I've got a couple of emails asking me to post a sample picture between the Tokina 28-80 2.8 and Sigma 28-70 2.8EX at maximum focal length and wide open aperture (f/2.8)

Here is the Sigma at 70mm f/2.8:

Here is the Tokina at 80mm f/2.8:

Also, here a samples of f/5.6:

Sigma at 70mm f/5.6:

Tokina at 80mm f/5.6:

For me, the Sigma 28-70mm 2.8 is the clear winner wide open at maximum focal length.

When stopping down 2 f/stops, the sharpness is similar but I would give better contrast to the Sigma lens as well.

I thougth of getting the Canon 28-70 2.8L used for $850 but will pass is after seeing the quality and sharpness from the $289 Sigma.

The only complaint from the Sigma lens is AF noise. I'm used to using Canon USM and Sigma HSM lenses and with it would be a feature of this very well built lens.

FRED

Karl Guttag · Feb 20, 2001

Fred, Thanks for your very good and informative posts.

It certainly does not look the the Tokina is worth the extra money to get to a fuzzy 80mm (while good at F5.6, I already have the Canon 28-135 for that).

Does anybody have an idea how the Sigma Dual focus will compare optically (I guess that the answer may be wait and see)? Does it add something other than dual focus?

The Sigma 28-70F2.8 does sound like it has sand in the gears. Like Fred I am considering the Sigma due to its Value and because I'm not sure how much I will use a 28-70mm F2.8.

Karl

FRED said:
Hi all,
I've got a couple of emails asking me to post a sample picture
between the Tokina 28-80 2.8 and Sigma 28-70 2.8EX at maximum focal
length and wide open aperture (f/2.8)

Here is the Sigma at 70mm f/2.8:
http://members3.clubphoto.com/fred258996/MISC/photo5.jpg

Here is the Tokina at 80mm f/2.8:
http://members3.clubphoto.com/fred258996/MISC/photo6.jpg

Also, here a samples of f/5.6:

Sigma at 70mm f/5.6:

Tokina at 80mm f/5.6:

For me, the Sigma 28-70mm 2.8 is the clear winner wide open at
maximum focal length.
When stopping down 2 f/stops, the sharpness is similar but I would
give better contrast to the Sigma lens as well.

I thougth of getting the Canon 28-70 2.8L used for $850 but will
pass is after seeing the quality and sharpness from the $289 Sigma.

The only complaint from the Sigma lens is AF noise. I'm used to
using Canon USM and Sigma HSM lenses and with it would be a feature
of this very well built lens.

FRED

Thom35393 · Feb 20, 2001

Fred, you got me there, no comparison. Although I may have a better production edition than yours as I still find it subjectively better than your posts.

To be fair, what does backing the Tokina off to 70mm to match the Sigma focal length do to the comparison? No, it's not max avail. focal length, but let's consider both limiting factors, aperture and focal length.

Thanks,

Thom

karl said:
Fred, Thanks for your very good and informative posts.

It certainly does not look the the Tokina is worth the extra money
to get to a fuzzy 80mm (while good at F5.6, I already have the
Canon 28-135 for that).

Does anybody have an idea how the Sigma Dual focus will compare
optically (I guess that the answer may be wait and see)? Does it
add something other than dual focus?

The Sigma 28-70F2.8 does sound like it has sand in the gears. Like
Fred I am considering the Sigma due to its Value and because I'm
not sure how much I will use a 28-70mm F2.8.

Robert F. Tobler · Feb 20, 2001

Thanks for the nice comparison. I have one question,
though: are these crops from the center or corner of
the full image?

(Not knowing it, I'd guess its the upper right hand
corner, and would venture the guess that the Tokina
has quite a bit more pincushion distortion!)

Robert F. Tobler
http://ray.cg.tuwien.ac.at/rft/Photography/

Fred Miranda · Feb 20, 2001

These pictures ARE NOT crops.
They are the full original images downsampled to 600X400

The shutter speeds were about 1/500s and a monopod was used to ensure maximum sharpness from my part.
FRED

Robert F. Tobler said:
Thanks for the nice comparison. I have one question,
though: are these crops from the center or corner of
the full image?

(Not knowing it, I'd guess its the upper right hand
corner, and would venture the guess that the Tokina
has quite a bit more pincushion distortion!)

Robert F. Tobler
http://ray.cg.tuwien.ac.at/rft/Photography/

Fred Miranda · Feb 20, 2001

As far as I know the new Sigma DF will use the same optics from the "non DF" model.
Still no HSM, which means noisy AF.

At $289 the Sigma "non DF" is perfect for D30 because of the use of the central image (due to the 1.6x multiplier).

I wish the Tokina was as good as the Sigma optically. I didn't mind the ~$550 price because it had a less noisy AF than the Sigma and better built quality. But in terms of image quality it's definitely inferior.
FRED

karl said:
It certainly does not look the the Tokina is worth the extra money
to get to a fuzzy 80mm (while good at F5.6, I already have the
Canon 28-135 for that).

Does anybody have an idea how the Sigma Dual focus will compare
optically (I guess that the answer may be wait and see)? Does it
add something other than dual focus?

The Sigma 28-70F2.8 does sound like it has sand in the gears. Like
Fred I am considering the Sigma due to its Value and because I'm
not sure how much I will use a 28-70mm F2.8.

Karl

FRED said:

Hi all,
I've got a couple of emails asking me to post a sample picture
between the Tokina 28-80 2.8 and Sigma 28-70 2.8EX at maximum focal
length and wide open aperture (f/2.8)

Here is the Sigma at 70mm f/2.8:
http://members3.clubphoto.com/fred258996/MISC/photo5.jpg

Here is the Tokina at 80mm f/2.8:
http://members3.clubphoto.com/fred258996/MISC/photo6.jpg

Also, here a samples of f/5.6:

Sigma at 70mm f/5.6:

Tokina at 80mm f/5.6:

For me, the Sigma 28-70mm 2.8 is the clear winner wide open at
maximum focal length.
When stopping down 2 f/stops, the sharpness is similar but I would
give better contrast to the Sigma lens as well.

I thougth of getting the Canon 28-70 2.8L used for $850 but will
pass is after seeing the quality and sharpness from the $289 Sigma.

The only complaint from the Sigma lens is AF noise. I'm used to
using Canon USM and Sigma HSM lenses and with it would be a feature
of this very well built lens.

FRED

Click to expand...

Fred Miranda · Feb 20, 2001

Agreed!
Comparing the Tokina at 70mm 2.8 would be fair.
Unfortunately I don't have it anymore

Tokina is a good lens, especially at 28mm and 50mm. The build quality is superb. AF is very quiet and fast, but I wanted a lens to use open wide for low light shots. (I also have the 28-135IS). It definitely disappointed me in that respect.

I was almost getting the Canon "L" but decided to test drive the Sigma first (because I also own a Sigma 17-35mm and love it).
It was a real and "cheap" surprise.
FRED

Thom said:
To be fair, what does backing the Tokina off to 70mm to match the
Sigma focal length do to the comparison? No, it's not max avail.
focal length, but let's consider both limiting factors, aperture
and focal length.

Thanks,

Thom

karl said:

Fred, Thanks for your very good and informative posts.

It certainly does not look the the Tokina is worth the extra money
to get to a fuzzy 80mm (while good at F5.6, I already have the
Canon 28-135 for that).

Does anybody have an idea how the Sigma Dual focus will compare
optically (I guess that the answer may be wait and see)? Does it
add something other than dual focus?

The Sigma 28-70F2.8 does sound like it has sand in the gears. Like
Fred I am considering the Sigma due to its Value and because I'm
not sure how much I will use a 28-70mm F2.8.

Click to expand...

Ron Dawes · Feb 20, 2001

Fred,

As I posted in a different thread, I too evaluated the Tokina 28-80 2.8 head to head against the Canon and my 28-135 IS and the Tokina was noticibly softer as was the Tamron 28-105 2.8.

At a different store I tried the older Tokina 28-70 2.6-2.8 and it stacked up quite well to the Canon. On some shots it was even ever so slightly better in my perception. But the Canon was a rental so could have been banged around.

But at a third store I tried the Sigma and bought it. In my head to head tests against the Canon, it was right up there in sharpness and contrast. For the price/performance ratio, it can't be beat. It might have a little fall off at the edges in a full frame 35mm camera but until I upgrade to the pro Canon D-whatever in a year or 2, the Sigma will do quite well for me I'm sure and I know that I'll find another way to spend the difference in price. New tripod? New bag? Apply it to a 70-200 2.8 L? The possibilities are endless.

Ron

FRED said:
Thom said:

To be fair, what does backing the Tokina off to 70mm to match the
Sigma focal length do to the comparison? No, it's not max avail.
focal length, but let's consider both limiting factors, aperture
and focal length.

Thanks,

Thom

karl said:

Fred, Thanks for your very good and informative posts.

It certainly does not look the the Tokina is worth the extra money
to get to a fuzzy 80mm (while good at F5.6, I already have the
Canon 28-135 for that).

Does anybody have an idea how the Sigma Dual focus will compare
optically (I guess that the answer may be wait and see)? Does it
add something other than dual focus?

The Sigma 28-70F2.8 does sound like it has sand in the gears. Like
Fred I am considering the Sigma due to its Value and because I'm
not sure how much I will use a 28-70mm F2.8.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Fred Miranda · Feb 20, 2001

Contrary to the common belief, I'm quite happy with the Sigma lens.

I thought of just getting the 17-35mm 2.8/4. I was really impressed with the quality of the pictures, especially at 17mm f/2.8 wide open. (Better than the Canon from my tests and from photodo.com MFTs).

I own a quite number of Canon lens: The 100-400IS, 28-135IS, 50 f/1.4 and 100 f/2.8 USM Macro. After getting the Sigma 17-35mm, I decided to try the Sigma 28-70 2.8 for low light shots. It keeps surprising me...
Now I'm looking at the very affordable and excellent $700 Sigma 70-200 2.8EX

I'm not thinking of upgrading the D30 too fast, especially because the new full 35mm frame will be quite expensive (~$7000). So the Sigma lens proves to me to be equal or very close to the Canon lens on the D30.
FRED

Ron Dawes said:
As I posted in a different thread, I too evaluated the Tokina 28-80
2.8 head to head against the Canon and my 28-135 IS and the Tokina
was noticibly softer as was the Tamron 28-105 2.8.

At a different store I tried the older Tokina 28-70 2.6-2.8 and it
stacked up quite well to the Canon. On some shots it was even ever
so slightly better in my perception. But the Canon was a rental so
could have been banged around.

But at a third store I tried the Sigma and bought it. In my head
to head tests against the Canon, it was right up there in sharpness
and contrast. For the price/performance ratio, it can't be beat.
It might have a little fall off at the edges in a full frame 35mm
camera but until I upgrade to the pro Canon D-whatever in a year or
2, the Sigma will do quite well for me I'm sure and I know that
I'll find another way to spend the difference in price. New
tripod? New bag? Apply it to a 70-200 2.8 L? The possibilities
are endless.

Ron

FRED said:

Thom said:

To be fair, what does backing the Tokina off to 70mm to match the
Sigma focal length do to the comparison? No, it's not max avail.
focal length, but let's consider both limiting factors, aperture
and focal length.

Thanks,

Thom

karl said:

Fred, Thanks for your very good and informative posts.

It certainly does not look the the Tokina is worth the extra money
to get to a fuzzy 80mm (while good at F5.6, I already have the
Canon 28-135 for that).

Does anybody have an idea how the Sigma Dual focus will compare
optically (I guess that the answer may be wait and see)? Does it
add something other than dual focus?

The Sigma 28-70F2.8 does sound like it has sand in the gears. Like
Fred I am considering the Sigma due to its Value and because I'm
not sure how much I will use a 28-70mm F2.8.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Robert F. Tobler · Feb 20, 2001

FRED said:
These pictures ARE NOT crops.

Well, that IS a surprise! Could you then
please post crops of the original images
right from the D30?

On another note: you also mentioned
that you had the Canon 28-135 IS. It
would be great if you could put up
some comparison between the Sigma
and the Canon lens. For us out here
trying to figure out what lens to buy
this would be a great help!

Even if you don't have the time to
do the comparison between the
Sigma and the Canon, I want to
thank you for your effort so far!

Greetings,
Robert F. Tobler
http://ray.cg.tuwien.ac.at/rft/Photography/

Daniel Lauring · Feb 24, 2001

The 28-70 F2.8 Sigma is an amazingly good value isn't it. My only dissapointment with it is the slight barrel distortion at 28mm. I'm not sure if the Canon would be better.

Danny

FRED said:
Ron Dawes said:

As I posted in a different thread, I too evaluated the Tokina 28-80
2.8 head to head against the Canon and my 28-135 IS and the Tokina
was noticibly softer as was the Tamron 28-105 2.8.

At a different store I tried the older Tokina 28-70 2.6-2.8 and it
stacked up quite well to the Canon. On some shots it was even ever
so slightly better in my perception. But the Canon was a rental so
could have been banged around.

But at a third store I tried the Sigma and bought it. In my head
to head tests against the Canon, it was right up there in sharpness
and contrast. For the price/performance ratio, it can't be beat.
It might have a little fall off at the edges in a full frame 35mm
camera but until I upgrade to the pro Canon D-whatever in a year or
2, the Sigma will do quite well for me I'm sure and I know that
I'll find another way to spend the difference in price. New
tripod? New bag? Apply it to a 70-200 2.8 L? The possibilities
are endless.

Ron

FRED said:

Thom said:

To be fair, what does backing the Tokina off to 70mm to match the
Sigma focal length do to the comparison? No, it's not max avail.
focal length, but let's consider both limiting factors, aperture
and focal length.

Thanks,

Thom

karl said:

Fred, Thanks for your very good and informative posts.

It certainly does not look the the Tokina is worth the extra money
to get to a fuzzy 80mm (while good at F5.6, I already have the
Canon 28-135 for that).

Does anybody have an idea how the Sigma Dual focus will compare
optically (I guess that the answer may be wait and see)? Does it
add something other than dual focus?

The Sigma 28-70F2.8 does sound like it has sand in the gears. Like
Fred I am considering the Sigma due to its Value and because I'm
not sure how much I will use a 28-70mm F2.8.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

DW · Mar 14, 2001

FRED,

Thank you for your comparison. May I ask a question - what is the distance between the lens and the object? It is because that I heard from a user of the Tokina lens that it will be soft when shooting at around 0.5 m, the closest distance it can shoot.

Thank you again.

DW

Fred Miranda · Mar 14, 2001

You're welcome DW
I live on the second floor of my building.

I shot this from my balcony. The subject was about 3 meters from me in all the shots.
FRED

DW said:
FRED,

Thank you for your comparison. May I ask a question - what is the
distance between the lens and the object? It is because that I
heard from a user of the Tokina lens that it will be soft when
shooting at around 0.5 m, the closest distance it can shoot.

Thank you again.

DW

Ron Kramer · Mar 15, 2001

Member said:
I thougth of getting the Canon 28-70 2.8L used for $850 but will
pass is after seeing the quality and sharpness from the $289 Sigma.

Fred, just cuz the simga appears the sharpest of these two lenses doesn't mean it's sharp enough or anywhere near as good as the Canon.

You get what you pay for - especially in this case. I find the Sigma at 2.8 complete garbage. The fact that people thought these were crops proves that. (when you resize down as much as you did, these should have looked razor sharp) seeing them as fuzzy after this much of a down size shows that the originals had to be complete garbage. The Sigma is decent when closing it down. (but then didn't you pay for a 2.8 lens?) I expect my 2.8 lenses to perform at 2.8 AND F8.

Fred Miranda · Mar 15, 2001

I would not say “garbage”. But I do agree that this lens shows its best at f/4.5 or smaller apertures.
At f/2.8 it is still better than other third party lenses like Tamron or Tokina.
It is not comparable with the Canon "L" at f/2.8. But that is 4x the price.

FRED

Ron said:
Member said:

I thougth of getting the Canon 28-70 2.8L used for $850 but will
pass is after seeing the quality and sharpness from the $289 Sigma.

Click to expand...

Fred, just cuz the simga appears the sharpest of these two lenses
doesn't mean it's sharp enough or anywhere near as good as the
Canon.
You get what you pay for - especially in this case. I find the
Sigma at 2.8 complete garbage. The fact that people thought these
were crops proves that. (when you resize down as much as you did,
these should have looked razor sharp) seeing them as fuzzy after
this much of a down size shows that the originals had to be
complete garbage. The Sigma is decent when closing it down. (but
then didn't you pay for a 2.8 lens?) I expect my 2.8 lenses to
perform at 2.8 AND F8.

Search

Tokina 2.8 versus Sigma 2.8 sample

Fred Miranda

Guest

Karl Guttag

Senior Member

Thom35393

Member

Robert F. Tobler

Guest

Fred Miranda

Guest

Fred Miranda

Guest

Fred Miranda

Guest

Ron Dawes

Guest

Fred Miranda

Guest

Robert F. Tobler

Guest

Daniel Lauring

Guest

DW

Guest

Fred Miranda

Guest

Ron Kramer

Guest

Fred Miranda

Guest

Keyboard shortcuts