Need Opinions - Sigma 18-125 or Tokina 24-200

[Layston]

I am looking to buy a decent lens for a walk around shoot just about anything lens. So far my kit lens and my 55-200 Sigma are okay, but I'm not impressed with the sharpness of the 55-200. It was an impulse purchase to add to my range and I really can't complain for the price but I find that changing lenses is rather annoying and often the range around 35-100 seems to be my most common.

So here's my question - I have read great things about both the Sigma 18-125 DC and the Tokina 24-200. The 24-200 seems VERY appealing, it is a little more expensive than the 18-125 but the extra range is tempting. I already know that I want to eventually get a 10-20 (or 12-24 or 10-22 or...) but that will have to wait. In the mean time I plan to keep the kit lens and sell the 55-200 probably.

Here's my questions:
1. Which one would you choose - the Sigma 18-125 or the Tokina 24-200?
2. Why would you choose that lens?
3. Will the Sigma be sharper through it's range than the Tokina seeing as how it's a smaller range?
4. Will the kit lens be sharper than the Sigma?

I enjoy shooting people and scenery, but also often do macro work. If I can't do macro with this lens that's fine, my A85 with my closeup lens kit will do what I need for macro shooting.

I'd look at the Sigma 18-200 but I keep hearing that it's soft at both ends....

[Raj]

I havent used tokina 24-200 so I cant comment on it but I am VERY pleased with my sigma. I would choose it again over any 24-200 as 24 mm at 1.6x camera is not wide enough for me. sigma's 18 mm end is quite usable & ~ 28.8 mm which is still OK compared to 38.4 mm which you will get from 22 mm. My copy is quite sharp at both the ends, but when stopped down a bit. Above 5.6 pics are very accpetable.
I cant answer on 4 as I dont have kit lense also. General opinion is it is soft hwoever I have seen some ppl here prducing amazing pics from it.

[MrChad]

for what it is worth in a recent issue of pop photo they compared the 18-xxx zooms to the older 28-xxx zooms by Sigma and Tamron. The newer Digital specific hyper zooms had less distortion and better picture quality then the old for film zooms.

Knowing this I would assume the 18-125mm, is better then the old 24-200mm Tokina zoom. I'm happy with mine.

[MrChad]

Just to add I did an informal test of my buddies 18-55mm EF-S vs. my Sigma 18-125mm DC. Both lenses were equally sharp. The only reason to get the Sigma is build quality and the extra reach optically they are the same for my money. The Sigma may have been a tad faster at some focal length but not worth mentioning really.

The non-rotating front barrel of the Sigma is nice for filters too, I also liked the included lens hood and zoom lock.

[Layston]

Okay, it looks like the Sigma 18-125 has a lot of fans, how about people from the Tokina camp? I recently read a comparision of the Sigma 18-125, 18-200 and Tamron 18-200. For my eye the Sigma 18-125 had my vote for being nice and contrasty. How is the Tokina?

Any Tokina owners out there?

[LightRules]

the sigma 18-200 would be a better bet than the tokina 24-200; if you are going to spend the $ on this range, why not just get the extra 6mm (18mm) of the 18-200? that said, the 18-125 has the best IQ of them all.

[Headcase650]

I would sell off the kit and the 55-200. Then pick up the sigma 18-125 DC. The 18-125 from all sample shots Ive seen should match or more than likely out perform the kit lens and should tie you over with its versitility. If you want more reach in the future save up for the sigma 100-300ex f4.