Tamaron,tokina,sigma which is best/worst

[20dnut]

Which is the better lens company (we won't even talk about the "L" as I would have to unload the house, pickup truck and Dog to get one, and I like the dog):) . I hear you can not even put a sigma on the 20D with out an adaptor? I do not see any menion of the sigma lens in this forum. :confused:

Also, I am shooting indoor basket ball with a Tokina 28-80 1:2.8, but the images seem to blur. Is it the lens not focusing as well a a Canon would?

[ssim]

I've tried a Sigma lens once. It was okay but it just didn't yield the results I wanted. Mind you I only had it on the camera for a couple of hours. There are many Sigma lenses that are made to fit the Canon EF mount. I can't comment on the Tokina line as I have never tried one.

[tim]

You can get each brand in a few different mounts, Sigma and Tamron especially.

I tried a Sigma 70-300 APO Super Macro II, it made very nice pictures, but wasn't fast enough f or me (ie it was F4.5.6 or so).

[Canuck]

It seems to me that the Sigma EX line is 90% the quality (if not more) for about 1/2 the price. There is no competition for the 120-300 F2.8EX, so it is all alone in a class all of its own. I have also had favourable reports from the 100-300F 4EX as well. EX/HSM/APO is the way to go, if you don't plan on unloading it all. I can't verify this, but it seems that the Tamron 24-70 F2.8 XR/Di is also a good lens on the cheap. I have the Canon 24-70mm F2.8L which I enjoy to no end. Now if only I could get me a 70-200, I'd be set from 16-300mm and to 420mm w/ 1.4x TC!

[Motorsports Photo]

I've been unimpressed by Sigma lenses. The wifes Tamron I bought for her has worked well through the years. I got a Tokina 287 Pro SV and It woks well and is very well built.

My only nit-pick is that the zoom on the "T" lenses twists opposite of the Canon lenses.

-Pete

[Mogwyth]

Actualty there are plenty of mentions of Sigma lenses on here.

Like an earlier poster said most of the Sigma Ex range are 90% (I reckon 95%) of the Canons quaility for 50% of the cost, there are also decent lens in the lower range that in some cases are better than Canons equivelent.

I have been looking at 100mm Macro lenses the consensus from the post's I have looked so far is that the Sigma is sharper than the Canon, the Canon's Autofocus is better, but it's looking like Tamron could be the best.

So it's actually very hard to generalise, what you need to do is set your budget, deciede your lengths and then compare the makes.

PS the issue with Sigma lenses is not an adapter problem but some recent and most older lenses need rechipping to work with the 20D and in the case of the older ones the 300D as well.

[pcasciola]

I don't think there is any one "best" of those three, but they all produce some really good lenses, like these to name a few:

Tamron 28-75 Xr Di
Sigma 120-300 f/2.8
Sigma 50-500 (Bigma)
Sigma 18-50 f/2.8
Tokina 17mm f/3.5

With the exception of the long zooms, they are all under $500 lenses, with the Tamron being the least expensive at around $300 and arguably as good optically as some of the more expensive Canon L lenses.

You are probably getting blurry pics because your shutter speeds are too slow. f/2.8 should be fast enough, so you may have to use a higher ISO, like 1600 or 3200, and shoot in Av mode with the aperture fixed at f/2.8. Another option is to get a faster prime, like the Canon 85mm f/1.8 which a lot of people use for indoor basketball. You will get over double the shutter speed as an f/2.8 and have lightning fast focus for around $350.

[cactusclay]

Probably one of the best things to do is to go to one of the lens test sites and see how the ones you are interested in fairs in comparison to others. By reading the posts of different owners you can go back and fourth all day long, because some people like a lens and others don't. Hope that helps.

[Cadwell]

It's an impossible question to answer. All lens manufacturers (inlcuding Canon) make some great lenses and some real dogs.

[Andy_T]

If you would post some of your unsharp basketball pictures - complete with EXIF information - we could try to find out what went wrong. There are a lot of pros here on the forum that have a lot of experience in that respect.

It would be best to make a new thread for that with a 'speaking' title.

Best regards,
Andy

PS: If they were shot at a slower shutter speed than 1/200, that would be a first indication...

[ScottE]

You cannot make an informed decision based on just the brand name. All three make so good lenses and some not so good.

For my purposes I stick to the "pro" line for each brand. For Sigma I look for "EX" and for Tamron "SP" in the lens name. I am not familiar with Tokina, but believe they use "ATX" on their better lenses.

As far as quality and price, the top end lenses from these brands usually fall somewhere between Canon "L" and Canon consumer grade lenses. In some cases the optics are as good as the "L" lens, but the construction is not as robust.

For many people these lenses represent a good compromise between quality and price.

I stay away from the lowest price lenses in these brands (and Canon too). Those lenses are built to compete based on price, not quality. I am not willing to compromise that much on quality.

If you are considering a lens purchase you have to research the specific lens you want to buy, not just the brand name.

[Bruce Watson]

This question is a little like asking "Ford, Chevy or Chrysler, which is best?".

Owner brand loyalty and personal experience will tint the answers you get.

As has already been stated in previous posts, all these companies make some fine lenses, they all also (including Canon) make some very low end stuff to stay price competitive.

For each lens type/size/speed/feature set that you need, do some research here and in other 'net sources for personal and professional evaluations of that particular lens.

Then price goes into the equation. A lens that is "good" that you can afford to buy and use today is infinitely superiour to an "excellent" lens that you can't afford or will cause a divorce if you do find a way to buy it.

Mind you, a divorce is not always a bad thing............but that is just my own personal experience, perhaps not suitable for others.

But I digress, best of luck on your new hobby and remember that it is the photographer who makes the picture. Some great shots have been made by talented individuals with cheap equipment. The opposite is not always true.

[20dnut]

Thank you for all of the responses. So I coud do well in any of the "pro lines" then. I'm looking for a f/2.8 lens that is in the telephoto 200-300 range. As I am new I do not know what I need, I will be shooting Soccer and Lacrosse outdoor as well as basketball indoor. Does the extra 100 mm make a diffeence? WIll I be able to use the extra 100mm without too much "shaking"? Will my 20D make the 300mm lens a 450 after applying the 1.5 factor? If all are the manufacturers are "close enough", pehaps the Sigma 120 300 f/2.8 is the way to go....:confused:

[Canuck]

Thank you for all of the responses. So I coud do well in any of the "pro lines" then. I'm looking for a f/2.8 lens that is in the telephoto 200-300 range. As I am new I do not know what I need, I will be shooting Soccer and Lacrosse outdoor as well as basketball indoor. Does the extra 100 mm make a diffeence? WIll I be able to use the extra 100mm without too much "shaking"? Will my 20D make the 300mm lens a 450 after applying the 1.5 factor? If all are the manufacturers are "close enough", pehaps the Sigma 120 300 f/2.8 is the way to go....:confused:

I have the 120-300mm F2.8EX, pls PM me if you are interested. I'd be happy to share some pics. Mind you, it will set you back about $2K for the lens and the filters, 105mm are not cheap either. I think the UV is about $110 and the polarising filter is about $170. It also weighs 5 3/4 lbs. Just stuff to keep in mind. End of the day, it is an awesome lens, IMHO! There are a few others that have one too too on the forum. Back to the lens, on a clear day I have been using it as a landscape lens for stuff that is about 150 miles away, most notably Denali. On a much closer note, Mt Susitna is an easy shot from my favourite place to do it. I've also been using the 1.4x on it with no noticable degradation of image quality. The only catch is that you loose an f-stop, so it becomes an F4 lens. No big beal.

If you are not looking to blow a huge hole in your wallet, look at the Sigma 100-300 F4EX as it is 1K cheaper!

Forgot somethng, The 300 becomes a 480 w/ the 1.6x crop factor, or what ever you want to call it. Also try mono/tripoding it if you are concerned about shake. I have shot aircraft w/ it at airshows and no problems. I usually shoot 1/750-1/1000 sec.

[Mogwyth]

Not used that lens but if it's as good as the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 then you won't be disappointed.

With any lens of this wieght and length you are going to get the best out of it with a decent monopod or tripod. Hand holding ability is down to the individual, but rule of thumb is a minimum 1/300 or if you allow for the "crop factor" 1/450. It will give you the impression of having a 450mm, but it will always be a 300mm lens.

Congrats to everyone whose contributed to this thread, all have given sensible answers and most importantly no one has given the usual answer "get the "L" lens everything else is rubbish".

[Cadwell]

Congrats to everyone whose contributed to this thread, all have given sensible answers and most importantly no one has given the usual answer "get the "L" lens everything else is rubbish".

Indeed, and in true forum style we have steered him towards the truly awesome Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8... which incidentaly , going by current UK prices (£1679.99) at Warehouse Express, is more expensive than any Canon L zoom (the most expensive of which is the EF 28-300mm L at £1669.00 from the same retailer) :lol:

I suspect he may now have to " have to unload the house, pickup truck, Dog AND HAMSTER to get one" :lol:

Next time I'm lookin' for a bargain I'll be sure to drop by for advice :p

[Mogwyth]

I suspect he may now have to " have to unload the house, pickup truck, Dog AND HAMSTER to get one" :lol:



That is very true but who needs them:lol:.

What I was getting at is that there are some that think "L" is the only answer.

[pcasciola]

Indeed, and in true forum style we have steered him towards the truly awesome Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8... which incidentaly , going by current UK prices (£1679.99) at Warehouse Express, is more expensive than any Canon L zoom (the most expensive of which is the EF 28-300mm L at £1669.00 from the same retailer) :lol:

I suspect he may now have to " have to unload the house, pickup truck, Dog AND HAMSTER to get one" :lol:

Next time I'm lookin' for a bargain I'll be sure to drop by for advice :p

ROTFLMAO!!!

How true.

I just threw the 120-300 f/2.8 in there to show that Sigma does make some quality lenses that Canon does not even have an equivalent in L or otherwise. Put a 1.4x extender on that and you have about a 170-420 f/4, another unrivaled zoom combo. Hey, it could have been worse. We could have mentioned the Sigma 300-800mm f/5.6. :lol:

[20dnut]

How did you know I own a Hamster:lol: :lol:

Thanks for all the input, I'll have to give up my shorts as well for that sigma 120 300 f/2.8. Just as well as I almost wet them when I saw the price on B&H. :shock: I was looking to spend a "little less". Any recommendations on a $500-$600 lens?

[CyberDyneSystems]

Canon 70-200mm f/4L
Sigma 100-300mm f/4 (i think now a bit over $600.00?)

[Canuck]

Canon 70-200mm f/4L
Sigma 100-300mm f/4 (i think now a bit over $600.00?)

CDS,
It was $900 a few days ago from B&H.

[Olegis]

It's less than $800 here (http://www.deltainternational.com/store/Item_SGL100%2D300C.htm).