New Tokina vs. Canon for Macro?

I was reading through a recent addition of popular photography magazine and noticed that Tokina has come out with a new Macro lens, a 100mm f/2.8 Macro(yes, it is a true macro this time). It seems to have very good image quality from the specs that I read in the magazine, at a price of $399 is a little bit cheaper than the canon equivalent. I am wondering if anyone has used this lens? I like the Tokina build quality much better than the Canon consumer grade lenses, and if it performs anything like the 12-24mm or 11-16mm Tokina lenses, then it should be a tough competitor to the Canon version. I guess here's your chance to convince me that the Canon is better.

I also was wondering if I would be able to use this Tokina lens for telephoto as well? I know that the Canon is famous for having multiple uses and I figured that I could do the same thing with the Tokina. I have no doubt that the canon is an excellent lens, but if all else equals I would choose the Tokina for build quality and a cheaper price.

I thought the last one was also a true macro?

Anyhoo, all the dedicated macro lenses are very good. the Canon 100mm is the only one with USM and the only one that does not change length with focal distance. IMO it's worth the extra money, but in terms of image quality they are all very good.

steved110 wrote in post #6373491
I thought the last one was also a true macro?

Anyhoo, all the dedicated macro lenses are very good. the Canon 100mm is the only one with USM and the only one that does not change length with focal distance. IMO it's worth the extra money, but in terms of image quality they are all very good.

I assume you mean of the ~100 mm macros? (Since the EF-S 60 macro also has USM and IF)

Kind regards, Wim

I was referring to an older Tokina 90mm Macro which was said to only convert to "half life size." Barrel extension definitely would be a disadvantage...

wimg wrote in post #6373540
I assume you mean of the ~100 mm macros? (Since the EF-S 60 macro also has USM and IF)

Kind regards, Wim

The Sigma 150mm 2.8 Macro has HSM and IF. It also comes with the hood and tripod collar.

40Driggs wrote in post #6373721
I was referring to an older Tokina 90mm Macro which was said to only convert to "half life size." Barrel extension definitely would be a disadvantage...

The new Tokina 100 mm macro, http://www.tokinalens.​com …ts/tokina/afl-m100-a.html, does not have IF; it extends considerably when focusing nearby.

It does focus to 1:1, however.

If you want a lens that does not extend when focusing, you are very limited in your choices. Canon EF 100 F/2.8 macro, Canon EF-S 60 F/2.8 macro are the only choices, as far as I am aware, in the short tele range that do not extend when focusing.

In longer tele macros there is more choice when it comes to non-extending or IF macro lenses: Canon 180 F/3.5L, Tamron 180 F/3.5, Sigma 150 F/2.8, Sigma 180 F/3.5.

Kind regards, Wim

I found the Tokina to be unreasonably expensive compared to other offerings in the range, such as the Sigma 70 and 105, the Tamron 90 and the Canno 100. But that could only be an Australian thing.

I really don't like the idea of the barrel extending....It sounds like it will probably be between the 100mm Canon and the 150mm Sigma for me. Thanks everyone for the help!

I'd personally go for a 100mm for a 40D, I reckon a 150mm could be too long for hand holding, but the extra reach could be nice too.

The_Camera_Poser wrote in post #6377277
I'd personally go for a 100mm for a 40D, I reckon a 150mm could be too long for hand holding, but the extra reach could be nice too.

I owned the 150 for a year when I had my 20D. I handheld ~90% of my shots.