[tabl10s]

Tamron 80-200 2.8 vs. Sigma 70-210 2.8. Which has the best bang for the buck? Most quality(I have the MF version of the Tokina).

[adpo]

hey! i used to own the same tokina and the sigma 70-200 HSM, here are my thoughts:

i'm a manual focus guy and as such, i enjoyed the handling of the tokina a lot. The reason i sold it was because it was heavy as all hell and slowly trying to kill my elbow. I ended up getting the sigma which was a tad lighter and easier on my joints overall thanks to the fast HSM autofocus. I never had the same connection to the sigma that i had to the tokina, despite the wonderful images it gave me.

image quality wise, the sigma is marginally better. Less CA, tad sharper, less vignette wide open, all the fun little things Its not 400 dollars better, but its better.

for build quality, the old all metal and glass tokina wins. That's not to say the sigma is a slouch, its a very solidly built lens. However, the tokina was simply a tank.

handling, i obviously liked the tokina more for its one-touch manual focusing. The sigma is pretty standard here, no complaints but its not as fun as the tokina was.

bang for buck i say definately goes to the tokina. If you can live without autofocus and the image quality is good enough, then the tokina wins here clearly. However, if you simply just want the best, go for the sigma. Image quality is better and the autofocus is handy, but i dont think it's worth the extra 400 or so. in the end, i sold the sigma and decided to just go all primes.

[Erictator]

Unfortunately, I only have experience with the Tamron 80-200 F2.8 Manual lens, so I can't tell you how it compares to the others...but, I like it a lot!

I know, not very helpful. Sorry. I can tell you this much, it's as heavy as a barge, it's tack sharp and built to last. With the PKA mount, it does everything correct, metering wise on my DS, K10, K20, K7, and now my K-5. (only still own the DS and K5 now)

The Tamron has been reviewed in the past and compared to the Tokina, but don't ask me where the review is now, that was a looooong time ago. Might find it in a web archive somewhere...WAIT, holy poop, I just found the link! Here ya go.

Tamron SP Adaptall-2 80-200mm F/2.8 LD Model 30A

Eric

[tabl10s]

hey! i used to own the same tokina and the sigma 70-200 HSM, here are my thoughts:

i'm a manual focus guy and as such, i enjoyed the handling of the tokina a lot. The reason i sold it was because it was heavy as all hell and slowly trying to kill my elbow. I ended up getting the sigma which was a tad lighter and easier on my joints overall thanks to the fast HSM autofocus. I never had the same connection to the sigma that i had to the tokina, despite the wonderful images it gave me.

image quality wise, the sigma is marginally better. Less CA, tad sharper, less vignette wide open, all the fun little things Its not 400 dollars better, but its better.

for build quality, the old all metal and glass tokina wins. That's not to say the sigma is a slouch, its a very solidly built lens. However, the tokina was simply a tank.

handling, i obviously liked the tokina more for its one-touch manual focusing. The sigma is pretty standard here, no complaints but its not as fun as the tokina was.

bang for buck i say definately goes to the tokina. If you can live without autofocus and the image quality is good enough, then the tokina wins here clearly. However, if you simply just want the best, go for the sigma. Image quality is better and the autofocus is handy, but i dont think it's worth the extra 400 or so. in the end, i sold the sigma and decided to just go all primes.

Doesn't Tokina make an "AF" version? There was a white Sigma from '88-'89(reviewed in Modern Photography) that was a front runner before I read about the Tokina.

[adpo]

yeah, there is an af version called the AT-X Pro, although i'm pretty sure it has the same optical formula as the AT-X SD (mf) version. Thing is, it's really really hard to find someone selling one.

From what i can remember when i was making my search for a fast tele zoom, older sigmas has terrible reputations

[tabl10s]

If the Tokina is metal bodied, the Sigma and Tamron are?....

[JinDesu]

Pretty sure the Sigma is plastic (part of it is the sparkly rubber feeling plastic, and the other part is the standard smooth plastic), and if the Tamron is anything like the 90mm macro, it's plastic bodied as well.

[jpzk]

This should perhaps be moved to the lens section? Where's the K5 stuff here?

JP

[legacyb4]

I sold my copy (for better or worse) of the AT-X Pro last year. Big, heavy, and prone to CA but quite the impressive lens to have...

yeah, there is an af version called the AT-X Pro, although i'm pretty sure it has the same optical formula as the AT-X SD (mf) version. Thing is, it's really really hard to find someone selling one.

From what i can remember when i was making my search for a fast tele zoom, older sigmas has terrible reputations

[Qwntm]

If your interested in the Tamron AF 70-200, I have a short video on my thoughts regarding this lens at photouniverse's Channel - YouTube It might help, might not...

[tabl10s]

It did help. The only problem now is that I read the dpReview on the lens and the Sigma equivilent. The Tamron has better optics with the Sigma having better AF(body/manufacturer dependent).

[snostorm]

HI tabl10s,

I have a Tokina 80-200 f2.8 AT-X Pro AF2, It's the second AF model, and only differs from the AF1 in that it has a petal hood instead of a cone, IIRC. There might be some other differences, but I can't really remember. It was discontinued quite a while ago (3-4 years)

It's a very good lens, but not the best of the bunch, even in it's day. When it was current, the FA* 80-200 f2.8 was clearly the best, and also the biggest, heaviest, and most expensive, the Sigma EX 70-200 f2.8 APO (pre DG) was very good, and performed better than the Tokina optically, and was heavier and more expensive. IIRC, the Tokina was by a small margin the lightest of the 3, but had all metal construction, and it indeed is built like a tank.

Optically, the FA* was considered prime like, the Sigma was considered excellent, but not as good as the Pentax, and the Tokina was considered excellent, but not quite as good as the Sigma. Sigma later introduced the DG version of their zoom, and it was generally considered to be of lower optical quality than its predecessor, but I don't recall any comparisons with the Tokina, as it had already been discontinued. Way back when, the Pentax was going for @ $1500 USD used, the Sigma was $600-700 used, and the Tokina was @ $400 used. I chose the Tokina as I didn't plan on using this FL range that much (which has been the case), but wanted a fast zoom that covered the med to long tele range.

The Tokina has served me well, and when Sigma came out with their HSM version, and Tamron introduced their AF version in the same range, I wasn't even tempted to upgrade though each of these is a better performer than the Tok -- as I stated, I don't use this FL range that often -- I mostly shoot longer.

One more point about the handling of this lens. Tokina long zooms seem to torque more when auto focusing -- you can actually feel the lens want to twist in your hand. My Tokina 80-400 does the same, and these are really the only two lenses that I've felt this with.

Bottom line, it's still a pro caliber lens, though by a slight margin not the best in its class, but it's usually offered at prices that are hundreds of $$s lower than any of the alternatives (if you can find one). If you need fast, quiet focusing, the current Sigma HSM is better, both optically and in focusing performance, but TC use is a question mark (I know that PZ AF TCs will power the focusing motor, but I don't know about AF performance). If you want sharper, the current Tamron is considered the best (other than the FA*, and maybe the original Sigma APO) , and it's screw drive AF, so it can be used with any of the AF TCs. The Tamron is also the lightest of all the alternatives in this FL range, and is pretty reasonably priced.

I don't know if you're considering the MF 80-200 f2.8 lenses, but in case you are, the Tamron SP 80-200 f2.8 is clearly a sharper lens than the Tokina 80-200 f2.8 SD AT-X, but the Tamron is an Adaptall-2 lens and needs a PK/A adapter to be fully functional, and they've become pricey.

Scott

[tabl10s]

Scott,

All my lenses are MF and I'm trying to figure out what to get. I know I want the the Limited 77, 43 and 33. The Sigma 18-30 2.8(?)is another I'm lusting after. Since the Tokina is dead and gone, I'll go for the Sig and sell my MF Tokina 80-200 2.8.