tokina vs sigma

[terence_tong1]

tokina at-x 20-35 f/2.8 VS sigma 20-40 ex vs sigma 17-35 ex HSM

price: 600 vs 600 vs 439

i personally do mostly people and landscape

 

price wise they are all comparable, the 17-35 would be the fastest under

presumpsion.

 

i am not pro, probably not adv ameture yet either (trying to be humble).

 

would like a good lens that could last me 10+ year

 

price is probably the sigle limiting factor, hence sigma 17-35 seems to be the first

choice for me in this case. 600 on a 3rd party lens is a bit too much

 

prove me wrong??

[terence_tong1]

another point for sigma is the 82mm filter, which is the same as my 24-70 ex

[steve_levine]

If you want a lens that will last ten years,I would avoid either of these.I will get flamed for sure,but I have to say that most 3rd party lenses are crap.They work fine,and are plenty sharp.But in 6 months of bouncing around in a camera bag,they are useless.(I have had several Sigma lenses "cloud up",as well as a few fall apart.)Save your money for a real lens.

[al_kaplan1]

I agree with Steve! Have you considered buying a few used prime wide angles by the camera manufacturer? Perhaps a 20 and a 35? Better quality glass and mounts and much higher speed. You'll be amazed at the sharpness and clarity of your photos! Used ones can be had for little money as everyone blindly rushes off to buy zooms. My 21 sees a lot of use and my 35 is SHARP at f/2, ideal for low light situations. I had a 28 for years and hardly used it, so I find that there's no sense for me to have the in between focal lengths a zoom offers, especially when I'd have to stop down to f/8 to aproach the sharpness I get now wide open.

[bacsa]

Construction(and not only) quality of the "at-x" series tokina lenses are considered superior to sigma. That's what I also noticed, although, not about the 20-35 f/2.8 but the 17mm f/3.5 i have(that is a tank, i got it second-hand, has some bumps on the metal built-in hood but perfect everywhere else) and some long tele zooms...

 

Finally,i also agree about considering (used or new)primes. There's much less to go wrong with a quality prime lens, in function, during those 10+ years. Used ones you always can sell for the ~same amount if you reeeeally hate that focal length and want 5 more millimeters...

 

Cheers.

[douglas_greenberg]

I don't agree about third party lenses being "crap." Sigma lenses from fifteen years ago were often poorly built, but their newer ones are far better, in my experience. I have Tokina and Sigma lenses in my camera bag that have been used for ten years and more and they are in excellent shape. Whether or not your equipment gets beaten up is partially up to you.

 

I do agree that it's safer to get a camera maker's own lenses, as not all third party lenses work equally well on all camera bodies, and over time sometimes a company's lens mounts change. I had to have an otherwise superb Tokina 400mm. AF AT-X telephoto "rechipped" to work on my new Nikon D100.

 

Finally: of course the best possible results will be achieved using prime lenses. But the reality is, and has been for some time, that in the field lots of photographers want the convenience of zoom lenses, and most of us know by now what the "cost" is in terms of absolutely optimal performance. It's up to each individual to decide whether the slight loss of performance is worth the convenience of not changing lenses constantly.

 

As for the choice Terrence is making, I think that he can assume that the build quality of the Sigma 17-35 is going to be a bit inferior to the Tokina 20-35, and I assume the widest aperture is slower. You always pay for additional speed. Is it worth it? On the other hand, it will go slightly wider-angle than either of the other two lenses. Keep in mind also that there will definitely be more linear distortion with a wide-angle zoom than with primes, so architectural photography will not be its strength.

[terence_tong1]

thank you guys, let me clarify a few things before unnecessary flame war starts :D

 

since i am not a pro, my equipments stays in the bag more than i'll use them (good

tenba bag or pelican case)

 

reason i said 10+ years is the last time i purchased camera equipments were about

10-12 years ago (eos 630,20-70,100mac,100-300L) and with the L motor being

dead, i realized camera and equipments does have a life span, even for my kinda use

<100 roll a year.

 

i would love to have own 14/24/28/35 all in prime and L one day but versatility and

money is the name of my game.

 

soft corners or vigenneting is not noticeable to my eyes yet (but i'll sure start

complining the more i hang out here)

 

let's put it this way, at this day and age, i would still like to be able to find a lens like

the ef 100 non usm Macro: Not extravagant but produce good to above average

results (outstanding/awesome would be bonus of course)

 

i know i get what i pay for in terms of lens, and turst me, sigma's bad reps are still in

the back of my head :D

[ron_ford]

I seen all good reviews in photography mags about the new Sigma Telephoto Zoom 50-500mm f/4.0-6.3 EX APO RF HSM lens. Sure I read all the message boards about peoples opinions, but I spend more time reading articals done by pro's in the photo magazines and I have read alot of good things about this lens. The articals say the only down side is the filter size. I'll take their word for it since the magazines hold their reputation with every review they print. I've also seen some test shots on one website with this sigma lens and other makers and they look fantastic!

 

Until now all I have ever owned are off the wall brand lenes and I've never been dissapointed in them. I just happened to get a good deal on a outfit that had same name lenes. If it wasn't for that I'd be back out there with cheap lenes.

 

Stay sharp and keep the rolls rollin!!!!

[brentdlong]

Ron, I see a problem with your method. The magazines really don't want to be quite as forthcoming with the downside of equipment from manufacturers that are paying their respective salaries. I wouldn't say that there is "No" value in their reviews, but everyone should keep in mind that even though we would like to think otherwise, it's very hard to bite the hand that feeds us. Find some reviews on this forum by people with no other vested interest than to get great looking photos and compare their opinions to what the mags. say. I think you will find the pros. not quite as great and the negs. not so subtle by comparison.