Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 vs Tokina 28-80 f/2.8

Discuss all brands of lenses, such as Sigma, Tokina, Tamron, etc.

Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 vs Tokina 28-80 f/2.8

Postby Talvan » Nov Sat 20, 2004 12:18 pm

Was cruising a different chat board, and found this test page.

I couldnt believe the difference between the two.

Sigma vs Tokina
Sincerely,
John Talvan
Life, One Frame At A Time
User avatar
Talvan
Moderator
 
Posts: 2801
Joined: Nov Mon 17, 2003 12:06 pm
Location: In the very middle of Georgia.

Postby mattchase » Nov Sat 20, 2004 1:19 pm

These were the other two lenses I tried before settling on the Tamron, and was more impressed with the Tokina over the Sigma as well. The Sigma didn't do too bad all things considered, but Tokina has the edge, not to mention build quality. Tokina still tends to use metal on the body of the lens in place of plastic, which makes them bigger and heavier, but also a lot more durable. I have a manual focus Tokina on my Minolta 35mm camera that is a really sweet lens. Too bad it never gets used anymore!

On a sidenote, I clicked his link that goes to the Plastic Wonder test shots, and was surprised by two things. First is that the 50 1.8 is sharper at 1.8 than the other lenses were at f4, and that it peaked at about f4 for it's sharpest aperture edge to edge, with f5.6 not far behind. I would have expected f8 or so for it's peak sharpness.
User avatar
mattchase
Naked Forum Dancer
 
Posts: 2535
Joined: Oct Sun 05, 2003 10:17 am
Location: Seguin, Texas

Re: Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 vs Tokina 28-80 f/2.8

Postby Ballen Photo » Nov Sat 20, 2004 6:51 pm

Talvan Imaging wrote:Was cruising a different chat board, and found this test page.

I couldnt believe the difference between the two.

Sigma vs Tokina


Nice find John, Thanks! :D
I LOVE poking around these type of sites. (Time permitting) ;-)
-Bruce
You're gonna miss 100% of the shots you dont take. -Wayne Gretzky
User avatar
Ballen Photo
Moderator
 
Posts: 1717
Joined: Oct Sun 05, 2003 10:38 am
Location: Beyond the Yellow Brick Road

Postby Talvan » Nov Sat 20, 2004 7:53 pm

Yea, I was looking for a cheaper alternative to Nikons 28-70 f/2.8 for portraite work. Matt, you like the Tamron better than the Tokina?
Sincerely,
John Talvan
Life, One Frame At A Time
User avatar
Talvan
Moderator
 
Posts: 2801
Joined: Nov Mon 17, 2003 12:06 pm
Location: In the very middle of Georgia.

Postby mattchase » Nov Sat 20, 2004 9:28 pm

The only thing I liked better about the Tamron was the focus mechanism, which while it isn't a USM equivelant, it isn't a 2 step clutch either. And Tokina has taken that approach a step further than Sigma, and I mean that in a bad way. It is bad enough to have to pull the focus ring back AND switch the AF / MF switch to MF just to get there, but Tokina then made one more really big mistake. You have to re-engage the focus ring at the exact same point as you disengaged it. So if you were at 3 feet focus in AF, and pulled back the focus ring to manually focus to 12 feet, you would have to move the ring back to the 3 foot mark before you can re-engage the AF. Did I mention you still have to flip the AF / MF switch after all this too? ;)

Granted, this is how that lens (and some other Tokina's) worked over a year ago. Perhaps they have fixed it...but I haven't heard about it if they have. Until they and Sigma stop using the takes too many steps to get into MF from AF and back again focus clutch mechanism, I have no plans on buying a lens with that mechanism.
User avatar
mattchase
Naked Forum Dancer
 
Posts: 2535
Joined: Oct Sun 05, 2003 10:17 am
Location: Seguin, Texas

Postby JoePhoto » Nov Sat 20, 2004 11:44 pm

Have you looked at Tamron's 25-105mm f/2.8? Is this the lens Matt is talking about? I used this on an S2 and it was very nice.

In my experience, the Sigma is very soft at anything under f/7.1 :(
Joe H.
NAPP, PPA, WPPI

~ BBS Photography ~ DeviantArt ~ Model Mayhem ~


"I don't suffer from insanity... I enjoy every minute of it"
User avatar
JoePhoto
The Cap'n
 
Posts: 3294
Joined: Oct Mon 20, 2003 8:16 am
Location: Wilmington, DE ***I wish I knew what I was doing!***

Postby mattchase » Nov Mon 22, 2004 8:30 am

I have the 28-75 2.8, but have heard the 28-105 2.8 from Tamron is an awesome lens optically. If it weren't $800, I might have gotten it instead because that range is really nice. But if I were going to spend $800 on a 3rd party lens, I would have started thinking about spending $1100 on a nice Canon lens. And I didn't even want to go there when I was looking at these lenses!
User avatar
mattchase
Naked Forum Dancer
 
Posts: 2535
Joined: Oct Sun 05, 2003 10:17 am
Location: Seguin, Texas

Postby Talvan » Nov Mon 22, 2004 8:43 am

Wow, thnx for the good info guys.

Matt, I agree that range is excellent, but for the price I would rather have the nikon version. That is why I am looking at 3rd party. Seems the Tamron is the way to go then. I am only gonna use it for portraites in the studio, so the AF speed wont be a big deal. The Sigma looked absolutley horrible. With the focusing procedure on the Tokina it is out aswell.

Just out of curiousity, I heard that Tokina is made up of a bunch of old Nikon engineers. Urban Myth?
Sincerely,
John Talvan
Life, One Frame At A Time
User avatar
Talvan
Moderator
 
Posts: 2801
Joined: Nov Mon 17, 2003 12:06 pm
Location: In the very middle of Georgia.


Return to Lenses

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron