Tokina, Sigma, Tamron --- Are they equivalent in quality?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Dave, Apr 6, 2007.

  1. Dave

    Dave Guest

    Are zoom lenses from these manufacturer's (Tokina, Tamron and Sigma)
    equivalent in quality and performance for the most part these days or how
    would you rank order them if not.
    Dave, Apr 6, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. "Dave" <> wrote in message
    news:EbgRh.76$...
    > Are zoom lenses from these manufacturer's (Tokina, Tamron and Sigma)
    > equivalent in quality and performance for the most part these days or how
    > would you rank order them if not.


    You have to do the work, that is, read the individual reviews of the
    different lenses. There's lots of variability, and different trade offs.
    (For example, the Tamron 28-75/2.8 is a gem if you don't mind the slow AF;
    it's light, cheap, sharp, and focuses quite close. But don't try to shoot
    hockey with it.)

    It also helps to go to a camera store and try them. For example, Sigma gets
    a lot of cheap shots here (I call them "Stigma", but the 12-24 (full-frame
    lens) is also a gem), but the local camera store (the largest store in
    Tokyo) had some entry-level dSLRs with Sigma kit lenses, and they were
    really nicely built: much nicer than the plastic junk Nikon and Canon were
    providing at the time.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
    David J. Littleboy, Apr 6, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. In article <EbgRh.76$>, Dave
    <> wrote:

    > Are zoom lenses from these manufacturer's (Tokina, Tamron and Sigma)
    > equivalent in quality and performance for the most part these days or how
    > would you rank order them if not.


    Generally speaking, they all suck pretty much equally.
    Randall Ainsworth, Apr 6, 2007
    #3
  4. Dave

    JR Guest

    In article <050420071829005675%>,
    Randall Ainsworth <> wrote:

    > In article <EbgRh.76$>, Dave
    > <> wrote:
    >
    > > Are zoom lenses from these manufacturer's (Tokina, Tamron and Sigma)
    > > equivalent in quality and performance for the most part these days or how
    > > would you rank order them if not.

    >
    > Generally speaking, they all suck pretty much equally.



    Thats a completely wrong statement....I can personally say the nearly
    ALL the Tokina Pro series lenses are EXCELLENT....especially the
    12-24/4, the 28-70/2.6-2.8 II, 28-80/2.8 100/2.8 Macro....all those are
    EXCEPTIONAL and every bit as good optically as their Nikon or Canon
    counterparts and ALWAYS better than Canon or Nikon variable aperture
    zooms of the same range. Build quality they are excellent and customer
    service is top notch. The ONLY are they are not as good as a Nikon and
    I assume Canon is focusing speeds....they dont have internal motors life
    the HSM and AFS lenses....so focus speed isnt quite as fast as the
    fastest Canon or Nikkor, but they are by no means slow either.....Tamron
    and Sigma have inferior build quality and thats where my personal
    expertise ends...

    JR
    JR, Apr 6, 2007
    #4
  5. Dave

    Yoshi Guest

    "Randall Ainsworth" <> wrote in message
    news:050420071829005675%...
    > In article <EbgRh.76$>, Dave
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> Are zoom lenses from these manufacturer's (Tokina, Tamron and Sigma)
    >> equivalent in quality and performance for the most part these days or how
    >> would you rank order them if not.

    >
    > Generally speaking, they all suck pretty much equally.


    Generally wrong. Tokina's ATX series lenses are usually pretty good. They
    may give up a little to their OEM equivalents, but are generally *better*
    constructed and significantly less expensive. Tokina and Sigma lenses are
    more variable, offering somewhat lower build quality, but among both
    Tamron's and Sigma's offerings there are some excellent lenses.

    If you can't offer accurate information, it's best not to say anything.

    Yoshi
    Yoshi, Apr 6, 2007
    #5
  6. In article <46164363$0$9882$>, Yoshi
    <> wrote:

    > If you can't offer accurate information, it's best not to say anything.


    If you want to buy cheap junk, be my guest.
    Randall Ainsworth, Apr 6, 2007
    #6
  7. Dave

    Guest

    On Apr 6, 3:29 am, Randall Ainsworth <> wrote:
    > In article <EbgRh.76$>, Dave
    >
    > <> wrote:
    > > Are zoom lenses from these manufacturer's (Tokina, Tamron and Sigma)
    > > equivalent in quality and performance for the most part these days or how
    > > would you rank order them if not.

    >
    > Generally speaking, they all suck pretty much equally.



    We weren't talking about your mother and sisters.
    , Apr 6, 2007
    #7
  8. Dave

    J. Clarke Guest

    Dave wrote:
    > Are zoom lenses from these manufacturer's (Tokina, Tamron and Sigma)
    > equivalent in quality and performance for the most part these days or
    > how would you rank order them if not.


    There's no general ranking. All of them make some good lenses and some
    crappy ones. Only way to pick between them is to decide what capability
    you need then compare lenses that provide it. In some cases you'll end
    up with one, in some cases another.

    --
    --
    --John
    to email, dial "usenet" and validate
    (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
    J. Clarke, Apr 6, 2007
    #8
  9. Dave

    Yoshi Guest

    "Randall Ainsworth" <> wrote in message
    news:060420070641063562%...
    > In article <46164363$0$9882$>, Yoshi
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> If you can't offer accurate information, it's best not to say anything.

    >
    > If you want to buy cheap junk, be my guest.


    Mr. Ainsworth:

    A check of the usenet archives demonstrates that you are in the habit of
    offering off the top of the head uninformed opinions on a variety of topics.
    Your credibility is rapidly approaching zero. As for buying cheap junk... I
    have a variety of lenses: manual and autofocus Nikkors, Canon FD, Pentax
    Takumar, Zeiss, and Minolta Rokkors. And yes, I have a few Tokinas, Sigmas.
    and Tamrons. My opinions about lenses are fully informed and based on
    personal experience. Take your silly trolling elsewhere.

    Yoshi
    Yoshi, Apr 6, 2007
    #9
  10. "Dave" <> writes:
    > Are zoom lenses from these manufacturer's (Tokina, Tamron and Sigma)
    > equivalent in quality and performance for the most part these days
    > or how would you rank order them if not.


    They're not equivalent, but you can't rank them by brand. Even if you
    included top brands such as Nikon, Canon, Oly and Pentax in the
    lineup, a strict ordering based upon brand names may be somewhat
    misleading.

    All of them make some good lenses, some that are not as good, and some
    stinkers. While the good/stinker fraction is probably somewhat better
    for the top brands than the aftermarket suppliers, even Canon will
    sell you a lens than is not premium quality (such as the 18-55 EF-S
    kit lens), and Sigma has some gems in its zoom lineup (such as the
    10-20 mm superwide).

    Learn to read reviews and MTF charts, try them out before you buy if
    possible, and know that the rule (with some notable exceptions) is
    that you often get what you pay for.
    --
    - gisle hannemyr [ gisle{at}hannemyr.no - http://hannemyr.com/photo/ ]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Sigma SD10, Kodak DCS460, Canon Powershot G5, Olympus 2020Z
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Gisle Hannemyr, Apr 6, 2007
    #10
  11. "Dave" <> wrote in message news:EbgRh.76$...

    > Are zoom lenses from these manufacturer's (Tokina, Tamron and Sigma) equivalent in quality and performance for the most part these
    > days or how would you rank order them if not.


    You will hear different answers, and as has been pointed
    out, it can depend on individual lenses in each line - though
    I think very few of these brands, even at their best, quite
    equal the best from Nikon, for instance (but, they are much
    lower in price and sometimes quite good). People's standards
    also vary. What looks sharp to one person may not look
    sharp to me (softish corners are a "no-no" for me in a lens...),
    or may look good in the small prints some people make (but
    not in large), so they may be quite satisfactory for some.
    Examples: I found the 12-24mm Sigma to be only barely
    acceptable in sharpness (I would not want to use it when I
    have the superior 15mm f5.6 Nikkor or 12mm Voightlander
    available (for full-frame); the much-praised Tokina f2.8
    mid-range zooms are too soft wider than f5.6 (so what's
    the point of having f2.8?) and they flare unacceptably (the
    28-70mm f3.5-4.5 is a true gem in that range); an exception
    that I keep is the Sigma 8mm f4 - it is not perfect, but it is
    surprisingly good (as are most of the macro lenses from
    various manufacturers). More is at my Nikkor evaluation
    list, at www.donferrario.com/ruether/slemn.html. I know
    you were asking about zooms, but non-zooms do generally
    perform better than zooms with the exception to that
    sometimes happening with tele zooms, which can be quite
    good (but then there are the superb Nikkor 17-35mm f2.8,
    28-70mm f2.8, and 70/80-200mm f2.8 that are really
    excellent, so......;-) In "bargain" lenses, good ones can be
    had, with a little research, but remember that with any lens,
    even expensive ones, sample variation and outright defects
    can remove any supposed advantage of one lens over
    another - and no lens is perfect, but it is often possible to
    work around the shortcomings of a particular lens, whether
    it be relatively poor wide stop performance, relatively poor
    close focus performance, tendency to ghosting, etc.
    --
    David Ruether

    www.donferrario.com/ruether/
    (note address change)
    David Ruether, Apr 6, 2007
    #11
  12. In article <46166c62$0$17215$>, Yoshi
    <> wrote:

    > A check of the usenet archives demonstrates that you are in the habit of
    > offering off the top of the head uninformed opinions on a variety of topics.
    > Your credibility is rapidly approaching zero. As for buying cheap junk... I
    > have a variety of lenses: manual and autofocus Nikkors, Canon FD, Pentax
    > Takumar, Zeiss, and Minolta Rokkors. And yes, I have a few Tokinas, Sigmas.
    > and Tamrons. My opinions about lenses are fully informed and based on
    > personal experience. Take your silly trolling elsewhere.


    Yeah...I've only done photography for 40+ years, many of it
    professionally...so I don't know what I'm talking about. You amateurs
    are so cute.
    Randall Ainsworth, Apr 7, 2007
    #12
  13. Dave

    ASAAR Guest

    On Sat, 07 Apr 2007 09:27:01 -0700, Randall Ainsworth wrote:

    >> As for buying cheap junk... I
    >> have a variety of lenses: manual and autofocus Nikkors, Canon FD, Pentax
    >> Takumar, Zeiss, and Minolta Rokkors. And yes, I have a few Tokinas, Sigmas.
    >> and Tamrons. My opinions about lenses are fully informed and based on
    >> personal experience. Take your silly trolling elsewhere.

    >
    > Yeah...I've only done photography for 40+ years, many of it
    > professionally...so I don't know what I'm talking about. You
    > amateurs are so cute.


    Wow, 40+ years of babies and brides. This explains why you
    developed this surlier-than-WCFields disposition. Do you have it in
    you to give some amateurs an even break? :)
    ASAAR, Apr 7, 2007
    #13
  14. Dave

    Paul J Gans Guest

    Dave <> wrote:
    >Are zoom lenses from these manufacturer's (Tokina, Tamron and Sigma)
    >equivalent in quality and performance for the most part these days or how
    >would you rank order them if not.


    All, including Canon, Nikon, Olypus, etc., have or have used
    very capable designers. Lenses are designed for different
    markets and so designed to different standards. Even so, some
    designs are simply better than others.

    That said, the primary manufacturers design for their own
    cameras. The three you've named design a given lens to work
    on a variety of cameras. That may or may not involve compromises.

    Beyond that, in my opinion, the biggest problem with any of
    those three is quality control. It seems to vary more with
    them than with the primary manufacturers. So you may get a
    good lens and your buddy can buy the identical lens and have
    it be not quite as sharp, slightly more distortion, etc.

    That said, each of the three makes some excellent lenses. You've
    got to read reviews and ask questions in places like this newsgroup.
    And you are best off if you buy from a dealer that either lets you
    try the lens in the store or who has an excellent return policy.

    My camera is a Canon. I have a wonderful 24-105mm f/4 IS L lens
    from Canon that I justl love. I also have a 12-24 mm f/4 Tokina
    that I also just love.

    --
    --- Paul J. Gans
    Paul J Gans, Apr 7, 2007
    #14
  15. Dave

    Paul J Gans Guest

    Randall Ainsworth <> wrote:
    >In article <46164363$0$9882$>, Yoshi
    ><> wrote:


    >> If you can't offer accurate information, it's best not to say anything.


    >If you want to buy cheap junk, be my guest.


    Is that what you've got for sale?

    --
    --- Paul J. Gans
    Paul J Gans, Apr 7, 2007
    #15
  16. Dave

    =\(8\) Guest

    I have found that both Tamron and Sigma can make very good lenses. However,
    they both have quality control problems. So you stand a good change of
    getting a lens from them that you will need to send back to them for
    adjustment. Also, you need to consider the type of lens you are planning to
    get. A 28-300 for example will never be a sharp lens that gives top quality
    images. There are just too many compremises in its construction to cover
    that range.

    After having problems with two Tamron and a Sigma I now only buy lenses made
    by the company that made my camera, in my case Pentax. I have been much
    happier doing this and so far Pentax has had everything I have wanted. They
    are a little more expensive and in the case of the 50mm f1.4 time consuming
    to find instock and get but it has been well worth it.

    =(8)
    =\(8\), Apr 7, 2007
    #16
  17. In article <>, ASAAR
    <> wrote:

    > Wow, 40+ years of babies and brides. This explains why you
    > developed this surlier-than-WCFields disposition. Do you have it in
    > you to give some amateurs an even break? :)


    Very few babies, thankfully..more like high school seniors, families,
    and brides.
    Randall Ainsworth, Apr 7, 2007
    #17
  18. Dave

    ASAAR Guest

    On Sat, 07 Apr 2007 13:14:13 -0700, Randall Ainsworth wrote:

    >> Wow, 40+ years of babies and brides. This explains why you
    >> developed this surlier-than-WCFields disposition. Do you have it in
    >> you to give some amateurs an even break? :)

    >
    > Very few babies, thankfully..more like high school seniors, families,
    > and brides.


    Awww. Babies can be wonderful. I'll bet you've even liked a few,
    though not, I hope, as WC might have, parboiled. :)
    ASAAR, Apr 7, 2007
    #18
  19. Dave

    Bill Funk Guest

    On Sat, 07 Apr 2007 09:27:01 -0700, Randall Ainsworth
    <> wrote:

    >In article <46166c62$0$17215$>, Yoshi
    ><> wrote:
    >
    >> A check of the usenet archives demonstrates that you are in the habit of
    >> offering off the top of the head uninformed opinions on a variety of topics.
    >> Your credibility is rapidly approaching zero. As for buying cheap junk... I
    >> have a variety of lenses: manual and autofocus Nikkors, Canon FD, Pentax
    >> Takumar, Zeiss, and Minolta Rokkors. And yes, I have a few Tokinas, Sigmas.
    >> and Tamrons. My opinions about lenses are fully informed and based on
    >> personal experience. Take your silly trolling elsewhere.

    >
    >Yeah...I've only done photography for 40+ years, many of it
    >professionally...so I don't know what I'm talking about. You amateurs
    >are so cute.


    I love it when "pros" think they are just the cat's meow!
    Especially when they decide that amateurs can't possibly know much.

    The difference between a pro and an amature is the pay, not the
    quality of work.

    --
    THIS IS A SIG LINE; NOT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY!
    The White House gave John Kerry's
    campaign nemesis Sam Fox, who funded
    the Swift Boat Veterans, a recess
    appointment to Belgium on Wednesday.
    Nothing ever changes. John Kerry
    insisted he was for the appointment
    before he was against the appointment.
    Bill Funk, Apr 8, 2007
    #19
  20. Dave

    Skip Guest

    "Bill Funk" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Sat, 07 Apr 2007 09:27:01 -0700, Randall Ainsworth
    > <> wrote:
    >>
    >>Yeah...I've only done photography for 40+ years, many of it
    >>professionally...so I don't know what I'm talking about. You amateurs
    >>are so cute.

    >
    > I love it when "pros" think they are just the cat's meow!
    > Especially when they decide that amateurs can't possibly know much.
    >
    > The difference between a pro and an amature is the pay, not the
    > quality of work.
    >


    All too true. And the pro photographers I know avoid making sweeping
    statements about most aspects of photography.
    My daughter has my old Tokina 28-70 f2.6-2.8 ATX Pro II lens, which served
    me very well, and her even better. It is excellent, both optically and in
    build. We have both the Sigma 15mm f2.8 EX and 8mm f3.5 fisheye lenses,
    which are both a match for the Canon in build, as far as optical quality,
    what can one say about a lens meant to distort? The color and contrast on
    both lenses are excellent. I also have the Sigma 17-35 f2.8-4 EX HSM, and
    while well built, it is no match for the Canon 16-35 f2.8L, optically, but
    it costs about 1/3 what the Canon does. My wife has the Tamron 90mm f2.8
    Macro, a lens with an excellent reputation, borne out by her usage of it.
    One cannot make generalized statements about aftermarket manufacturers,
    based on what one has heard or read on the 'net.

    Randall seems hell bent on giving pro photographers a bad rep. The
    experience he claims has not given him the insight it should have nor the
    humility to realize that he may not have all the knowledge available.

    --
    Skip Middleton
    www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
    www.pbase.com/skipm
    Skip, Apr 8, 2007
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Larry R Harrison Jr

    Tamron 75-300 Vs Tamron 70-300

    Larry R Harrison Jr, Sep 5, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    489
    Bill Tuthill
    Sep 6, 2005
  2. traderfjp

    Tokina 80-400 or Sigma 70-300mm

    traderfjp, Nov 1, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    795
    Oliver
    Nov 1, 2005
  3. Siddhartha Jain

    Which wide angle for Canon 300D - Tokina or Sigma

    Siddhartha Jain, Nov 7, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    308
    Dimitris M
    Nov 8, 2005
  4. yuri
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    953
    J. Clarke
    Dec 22, 2006
  5. RichA
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    302
    RichA
    Dec 9, 2011
Loading...

Share This Page