400mm Sigma APO Macro?

[nick_stevens]

I have been looking into buying a 400mm lens. I have narrowed my decision down to either the Sigma, or the Tokina 400mm. I have used the Tokina lens, and found it's AF speed to be satisfactory with an N90s body. Is the Sigma much slower? Would it be decent with an F100 body? Is the Sigma fast enough to track large birds in flight? I like the fact that the Sigma does 1:3 macro. Is it sharp at that magnification? Does the Sigma have significantly better contrast that the Tokina?

Any comments on either lens would be greatly appreciated.

-Thanks

[bliorg]

Haven't used the Sigma yet (though I'm interested, too), but the new

version <b>does</b> have the HSM AF drive...

[marcus_erne4]

I don't know these 2 lenses but according to MFT charts on photodo

Sigma gets the better rating. Check for yourself at:

 

<p>

 

http://www.photodo.com/

[m_mannion1]

I've used a Sigma 400 APO Macro for the last year with a minolta

system (700si and recently a Dynax 9). The AF is accectable and is

fast with the 9. Manual focusing is OK but switching between AF and

MF is a pain, switch on the camera and on the lens. Results are good

with little distortion. I have not tried the Tokina

 

<p>

 

Mike

[yuri_huta]

I have had this lens in a Canon mount for a few years. I have been

extremely happy with it. The sharpness at 1:3 is good wide open,

although keep in mind that the depth of field will be quite narrow (it

is a 400 after all) and gets much better stopped down. I just got back

several rolls shot at Ano Nuevo and parks in the Chico, CA area and I

am very pleased with the results. I experimented a bit with a very

cooperative male western fence lizard and was able to shoot at a

variety of f/stops (wide open f/5.6 to f/13) right at the close focus

limit of this lens. This lens is sharp (assuming you use proper

techniques).

 

<p>

 

I have found that I use the macro feature a great deal more than I

ever thought I would. In California this feature allowed me to capture

nice close-ups of western fence lizards and marsh wrens as well as

portraits of northern elephant seals. The spatial compression the 400

gives is great for isolating a subject.

 

<p>

 

The AF speed is adequate for me when shooting birds in flight. Since I

try to shoot birds in flight with their side profile, rather than head

on, I don't require lightning fast AF. The bigger problem for me is

effectively keeping the bird framed properly.

 

<p>

 

I have not tried the Tokina, although I do know that it does not focus

as closely as the Sigma. As far as ruggedness, I have shot with this

lens in intense cold and intense heat with everything in between and

it has stood up admirably. The tripod mount is heavy duty.

 

<p>

 

With Canon bodies, it is quite simple to switch between manual and AF

(only

need one switch right on the lens) with Sigma 400 APO Macro.

 

<p>

 

For when you are shooting distant subject or close-up subjects it has

a focus limiter switch which is very handy. The built in lens shade is

rugged and effective.

 

<p>

 

FWIW, Moose Peterson, George Lepp have rated this lens highly and

state that it is capable of producing professionally sharp photos.

 

<p>

 

NOTE: I shoot with a tripod (except for flight shots), try to use the

best long telephoto techniques, occasionally use fill-flash and

evaluate slides on a light table with a quality loupe.

[yuri_huta]

> The spatial compression the 400 gives is great for isolating a

> subject.

 

<p>

 

Upon re-reading my post I realized how ridiculous this may sound.

What I meant to say was that the spatial compression is nice for

portrait type shots, while the narrowness of the field of view makes

it easier to isolate the subject by being able to choose a variety of

different backgrounds by making slight adjustments in camera position.

 

<p>

 

I hope this doesn't make my explanation more confusing :l

[nico_mostert]

I use my Sigma 400mm just for it's macro capabilities.

It is a good lens for it's price, but the quality is less than Nikon.

It hunts for focus with both the N90S and F5 when trying to

photograph birds in flight. The optical quality is good wide open.

I took a lot of photos with mine. Take a look

http://www.photocritique.net/cgi-bin/photog.pl?NICO+MOSTERT

It is not perfect, but it is workable. I just don't like the idea of

having to add extension tubes to the Tokina for macro.

[don_weeks1]

I like the idea of the 400 Macro Sigma. It got a great review in Popular Photography (whatever that means!?!) I had a non-macro version of this lens and it was very good. I also had the Tokina and could never get a great shot w/it. They're both gone and I now have a Sigma 500mm f7.2 but it's no great shakes. They were sellin' the 400mm Macro on the "Bay" for around $400.00 which is pretty good. Tristate has the 170-500mm Sigma which everyone seems to like for about $450.00.

 

Good luck!

Don