bill_thorlin Posted January 26, 2005 Share Posted January 26, 2005 After more good advice in this forum am considering adding to my kit. Camera 800si , existing long telephoto zoom Minolta 75-300 D which forms part of my "everyday" kit. When specifically going for sports/wildlife (not a priority subject at present)am thinking of adding a prime 400mm.Have both a 1.4x & 2x teleconverter. There appear to be good deals available on Sigma 400mm f5.6 APO & Tokina 400mm f5.6 AT-X PRO. Appreciate that these are "other manufacturers" lenses but attractive price-wise.Which would be the better choice ? what degradation would there be when using a teleconverter ? any other choices available with price competitiveness ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matt hedgecoe Posted January 26, 2005 Share Posted January 26, 2005 I can't offer any feedback on the lenses as I have not used either of them however, as a general rule you will always see some degree of image degradation when you add a teleconverter. This is very much down to the quality of the teleconverter you have. One word of caution though: A 2X teleconverter will reduce the effective aperture of the lens to f11. At this speed it is almost certain that the autofocus system will not work. You'll probably just get away with it with the 1.4X. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan_dzo Posted January 27, 2005 Share Posted January 27, 2005 I have the sigma 400 and at best it's adequate. the tokina has a beter reputation, but I have no experience of it. You will probably lose autofocus with the 2x and it will be very slow with the 1.4x. I personally don't feel that it's a good enough lens to cope with any converter from an optical point of view. I bought a Minolta 200mm f2.8, which with 2x converter is hugely better than the Sigma. hope this helps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_lewis3 Posted January 27, 2005 Share Posted January 27, 2005 The tokina AT-X PRO range of lens are all built like bricks in steel blocks and that is thier main draw back they are just so heavy. (I use the 80-200 2.8 with a 2x tell converter to save on weight) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bacsa Posted January 27, 2005 Share Posted January 27, 2005 0:0 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmphoto1 Posted January 27, 2005 Share Posted January 27, 2005 From what I understand, Sigma reverse engineers their AF technology instead of licensing it from the manufacturers. With Minolta cameras, this causes a problem in that a Sigma lens that works on a 9xi may not work on a 700si without sending it to Sigma for rechipping, if they still service the lens in question at all. They do it for free, but, it's still a pain in the ass. For that reason along, I would not touch a Sigma AF lens. Tokina has solid optics and I would not hesitate to use one of their lenses. chad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill_thorlin Posted January 28, 2005 Author Share Posted January 28, 2005 Thanks Matt,Ivan,Scott and Chad for your input. Seems to me that the Tokina would fit.When going for wildlife/sports would cut my kit down to a minimum to cope with weight,manual focus not a big problem as I cut my teeth on an SRT101 and 200mm + 1.4 x t/c in Kenya from '69 onwards,hopefully would not need to resort to a t/c too often with a 400. Pricewise it also makes sense as cheapest 200mm f2.8 found in UK was ?stg 499 whereas KEH quote a Tokina at $US 172 - excellent.Will have to see if they ship to UK as the silly exchange rate makes US very cheap. Nice one Csab' but what about after aet ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul_hancock Posted January 28, 2005 Share Posted January 28, 2005 I have the tokina 400mm which I'm very please with. It's inexpensive, lightweight and pretty sharp. I've shot slides, prints, and digital with it. I also have the minolta 300mmf4 which I use with the 1.4apo converter. It's sharper than the tokina and has much superior build quality but then again given the price difference that's what you'd expect. I haven't used the 400mm in recent years but now that I have a 7D it has found a new life. It is nice and light and I find it makes the perfect walk around lens when you need a long tel (effectively 600m). The minolta 300f4 is a little unweildly to walk around with and no doubt would attract more attention than the much small (and black vs white) tokina. For $100-$150 I don't think you can go wrong with this lens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bacsa Posted January 29, 2005 Share Posted January 29, 2005 Bill - i have no experience with 400mm lenses so the score is 0:0 - for me :) Anyway, i only have heard good things about the tokina atx (pro or not pro) 400mm lens -except its weight maybe. As to the brand, i have one lens made by tokina (17mm at-x), it is built like a tank and optically superb; i have two sigma lenses (24mm superwideII and 28-105 2.8-4 asph) of which the 24mm is very good but noisy in focus, while the zoom sucks (falling apart after one year of light use + unreliable optical quality, sometimes great sometimes bad). Honestly, i would go for the tokina. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bacsa Posted January 29, 2005 Share Posted January 29, 2005 "KEH quote a Tokina at $US 172 - excellent" -That's a very very good price, if it's really about the at-x pro. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill_thorlin Posted February 3, 2005 Author Share Posted February 3, 2005 Thanks all.The Tokina it is then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now