Tamron . sigma or Tokina ?

L

London luke

Suspended / Banned
Messages
187
Edit My Images
No
I know they all have their good glass and bad. But is there one that stands above the other 2?

had a little "itch" some years ago and tried a Tokina and found it very very well made.


which models from each are the good the bad and the ugly?

your thoughts...
 
I've got two Tokinas, a Tamron and a Sigma and I like them all!
I think the Tokinas are the most robust, followed by Sigma. Optically, all the same IMO.
 
The Tamron 90mm Di Macro lens is a corker and considered one of the best available, hopefully others will agree :D

A recent magazine test put the Sigma 18-250 marginally above the Tamron 18-270, even with the extra reach!
 
I have a Sigma 18/50 f/2.8 and a Tamron 90mm macro. I like both.

What I've seen so far is that usually Tokinas are better built, then Sigma and then Tamron. But optically they can all be good.

Sigma has a bad reputation about its quality control but I've had no problems so far
 
D_Ninety said:
The Tamron 90mm Di Macro lens is a corker and considered one of the best available, hopefully others will agree :D
Click to expand...

:thumbs: I'm selling mine!!!!!!! :D


I have 2 Sigma's as well, both EX.
 
I have the Tokina 11-16 and its edge to edge sharpness is amazing, shame that their 12-24 isn't so great, which proves the point, be choosy and read the write ups every one has good and bad.

Sj
 
I have a Tokina 50-135 f/2.8 (I think they've discontinued them now), which I picked up used in Mint condition off MPB Photographic.

I absolutely love it.
 
I have several Sigma lenses, 20mm f1.8, 30mm f1.4, 50mm f1.4, 150mm f2.8 and 12-24mm and all seem to be good lenses to me. They certainly all look and feel like quality products.

I have one Tamron lens, a 17-50mm f2.8 and it looks and feels cheap compared to the Sigma lenses but it's an excellent lens and despite looking slightly less robust and slightly cheaper it works great and has never shown any inclination to fall apart.

My Canon lenses don't actually look as classy as my Siggy lenses, IMVHO.
 
im up to 4 sigma zooms now..

18-50mm f2.8 EX DC, 2x 70-200mm f2.8 EX DG macro I's and a 120-300mm f2.8 EX.

all of which are fast AF'ing (even the non-HSM 18-50) and have superb sharp IQ through the range.
 
My experiences on Nikon DX bodies:

Tokina 12-24. Very nice lens. Solidly built. Flares easily. Strong distortions at the wider end.
Tokina 28-70. Only bought this secondhand recently. Very favourable first impressions. Complements the 12-24 nicely. Performs well optically.
Sigma 30 f1.4. Solidly built. Mine made an awful scraping noise when focussing if the camera was angled downwards. Pretty soft upto f2.8. Nice lens despite it's limitations but sold it because I just didn't use it.
 
I've got a Sigma 10-20 which has decent IQ. Corners are a tad soft and there is some vignette, but other than that it's a lovely lens. Well built, lovely to hold and the focus/zoom rings are silky smooth. They give you a bag and a hood as well, can't complain about that!

woof woof said:
My Canon lenses don't actually look as classy as my Siggy lenses, IMVHO.
Click to expand...

Especially ones that have white paint :gag: (they say it's to keep the heat out on sunny days... :lol: )
 
I couldn't posssibly comment...:)

I was thinking of the 17-85mm and 10-22mm I used to own and the 50mm f2.5 and 70-300 I currently own. I wasn't keen on the 17-85mm and 10-22mm but the 50mm f2.5 and 70-300mm are optically good but not too sexy in the way they look, feel or work.
 
NikonSimon said:
I have a Tokina 50-135 f/2.8 (I think they've discontinued them now), which I picked up used in Mint condition off MPB Photographic.

I absolutely love it.
Click to expand...

Yep agreed, I picked one up mint too! What a great portrait lens it is...:thumbs:
 
Google Kaz studios. All photos taken with Tokina Pro lenses I believe. Sure I haven't been to Rayleigh for a few years, but I do believe that Clive still uses Tokina.
 
White Rose said:
Tokina 12-24. Very nice lens. Solidly built. Flares easily. Strong distortions at the wider end.
Click to expand...

Strong distortions? Not quite so bad, there is a mild barrel distortion (about +2 correction in PS). This is far better than most other UWAs or 24-70mm f/2.8 @ 24mm on FF. Sharpness is excellent, but ghosting may be a problem in some situations. The build quality is unbelievable.
I have mostly heard only positive things about Tokina 16-50mm f/2.8 and would get that if I was in the market for this focal length. It is a shame they don't have USM though.

Tamron can be good (17-50 non-VC, 17-35, 28-75, 90 macro and 70-200 in particular) optically, but build and AF are somewhat inferior.

I had mostly very bad luck with Sigma across their whole range and couldn't recommend them.
 
daugirdas said:
Strong distortions? Not quite so bad, there is a mild barrel distortion (about +2 correction in PS). This is far better than most other UWAs or 24-70mm f/2.8 @ 24mm on FF. Sharpness is excellent, but ghosting may be a problem in some situations. The build quality is unbelievable.
I have mostly heard only positive things about Tokina 16-50mm f/2.8 and would get that if I was in the market for this focal length. It is a shame they don't have USM though.

Tamron can be good (17-50 non-VC, 17-35, 28-75, 90 macro and 70-200 in particular) optically, but build and AF are somewhat inferior.

I had mostly very bad luck with Sigma across their whole range and couldn't recommend them.
Click to expand...

I have the Tokina 16-50 and love it. Build quality is excellent and a step above the Tamron 17-50 which I used to own. I have had some excellent Sigma lenses but also some lemons. Having said that, Sigma customer service aren't bad and will do their umost to fix any issues. I love the feel of the Sigma EX lenses.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top