Originally posted by [COLOR=Silver: [/COLOR]I have not tested the Bigma to my Tokina 400mm yet. Carrying both lens is just a bit too much. I will however take both out soon and do some comparisons. For now this is what I have found. The sharpness of both lens is good, the Bigma seems to have a slight edge. The focusing on the Tokina just can not compare to the Bigma. The Bigma is quicker and basically silent. The Bigma handles CA and purple fringing much better than the Tokina in high contrast situations. The ability to focus close up on smaller subjects definitely gives the Bigma a major advantage. The minimum focusing distance on the Tokina is about 13 feet at 400mm, on the Bigma it is 1.6 feet at 50mm to just under 6 feet at 500mm. The Tokina is must smaller and easier to handle than the Bigma making it a better choice on longer hikes. However for the value you get with the Tokina you just can not beat it if you can find a good one. For versatility the Bigma can not be beat. I can take two lenses and shoot from 16-500mm with my DA*16-50.
Michael
Michael, thanks for your response. Yes, I've found the one drawback to the Tokina (or any fixed lens) is that it curtails you especially when shooting wildlife. You have to move for better framing, and of course that spooks the wildlife you're shooting. I'm also interested in the fact that you prefer not using the SR on the body, rather using the one on the lens.
I really love the Tokina, but am very excited to get the Bigma!