N178UA From United Arab Emirates, joined Jan 2001, 1626 posts, RR: 68 Reply 2, posted (10 years 2 months 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 6012 times:
I have the Nikon 80-200 f2.8, it is so fast like a bullet!! I am not sure about Sigma, but I bought a Tokina 2.8 lens recently, I have to comment I am less impressed, I droped it once and then repaired, but the Autofocus seems slower than other 2.8 lens and sometimes it won't focus on marginally contrasting object. The repairer told me Tokina optics is less accruate than Nikons, so sometimes the focus is slower and dumber.
I think the Nikon lens is most accurate. So I learn from my mistake, the best is Nikon lens 2.8 on Nikon camera body.
Jwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 21 Reply 4, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 5975 times:
I have neither, but several pros I know do have the Sigma and they say it's excellent.
The Sigma is the equivalent of the 80-200 f/2.8 AF-S Nikkor (it also has lensmounted motors), while costing less than the non AF-S Nikkor yet provides almost the same optical quality.
Even if it is 1% less, at 50% of the price it's a far better deal...
Sam, you can't blame Tokina for not building a lens that is indestructible.
I have several Tokinas (including an ATX-Pro 28-70) and they're very well built and focus quickly and accurately.
Of course an AF-S Nikkor is faster to focus, but an AF-S Nikkor is also faster than an AF-D Nikkor. For the money Tokina AT-X can't be beat, and I dare to state that they're better than anything except AF-S IF-ED Nikkors yet cost about as much as non AF-S Nikkors...
Given the choice between a standard (non AF-S) Nikkor, a Tokina AT-X and a Sigma EX I'd go for the Tokina first, Nikkor 2nd and Sigma a very close 3rd (with the 70-200 Sigma coming before the AF-D 80-200 Nikkor because of its HSM motors).
N178UA From United Arab Emirates, joined Jan 2001, 1626 posts, RR: 68 Reply 5, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 5964 times:
Youre right, I forgot about the price I paid for my Tokina, I won't make too much noise since it is only 1/3 of the price of a Nikon 28-70 AF-S.
I have funny feelings towards it, since I dropped it once, although repaired, it makes me constantly worried when shooting with it, but compare to another cheapo plastic 28-80 f3.5-5.6 Nikon (Made in Thailand) I have, the Tokina 2.8 never give me problems of vignetting (remember a while ago, I posted a thread about those vignetting drove me crazy), I am at least to say, very happy with that. But yes, the focus is slower on my F5, easily noticable, but I won't mind much since it is a lot more affordable, and I know you get what you pay for on everything.
Cannot really comment Sigma, never use one, have heard lots of good and bad sides of it. I just have a Question for Sigma or Tokina, I dropped my Nikon 2.8 80-200 3 times, no problem, and I dropped my Tokina once (first week when I bought it!!) and some screw went off places and need to send to repair. So I am leaning towards, that prehaps Nikon lens are more durable and strong built than others???? (Just my guess, no proves than my own experiences)
Jwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 21 Reply 10, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 5928 times:
Sam, I've been using Tokina lenses for about 15 years now. In all that time I've only had one failure and that was when I was caught by a sandstorm which cause sand to get into the lens barrel as well as causing some sandblasting to the front element.
Maybe an AF-S Nikkor would not have suffered from sand entering it (they're supposed to be fully sealed) but this was a consumer grade Tokina so no comparison.
I replaced it with an identical unit which I still use 10 years later (and it's still in production in a slightly modified version http://www.thkphoto.com/catalog/t/szx210n.html).
You've probably suffered from random chance, getting a unit from the low end of the probability curve.
The same can happen anywhere. I've heard of people sending their $10K AF-S 400 f/2.8 Nikkors back because they weren't good after a few days normal operation (within warranty that will of course be replaced).
I've sent one cheap lens (Cosina) back for replacement too, after just one day. The replacement unit hasn't let me down in over 2 years now (though I'm now 99% certain going to replace it by an 80-400VR Nikkor because of the vastly better optics on that lens).
Kingwide From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2001, 838 posts, RR: 21 Reply 11, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 5927 times:
I can only speak for the Canon version but the Sigma is pretty good. Optically it's very good, the AF is fast although not quite as fast as the USM on the Canon 70-200. Build quality is excellent, I would go so far as to say better then the Canon, it feels absolutely bulletproof and it has proved itself in the field. I've had it for about three years now and, being one of my main motorsport lenses, it gets knocked around all the time. Never had a problem. The only complaint I have is that the lens hood on mine got quite loose and kept falling off but a bit of PTFE tape has sorted it.
Jwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 21 Reply 12, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 5914 times:
Canon EF 70-200/2.8 L USM + hood ø 77mm
Canon EF 70-200/2.8 L USM IS + hood ø 77mm
Sigma AF 70-200/2.8 EX APO (HSM) ø 77mm
Nikkor AF-S 80-200/2.8 IF ED D incl. HB 17, Cl-73 ø 77mm
Nikkor AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor 70-200/2.8 G IF-ED
Nikkor AF 80-200/2.8 IF ED D ø 77mm
Tokina AF 80-200/2.8 AT-X Pro
Warranty in months.
Prices in Euros incl. salestax, all from the same store.
Short decoding guide for lensfeatures (to help you all compare them, sort out the alphabetti spaghetti ):
Nikon VR, Sigma OS (not seen here, first lens to be introduced shortly!) are equivalent to Canon IS (Tokina has no equivalent).
Sigma HSM, Nikon AF-S are equivalent to Canon USM (Tokina has no equivalent).
Nikon IF ED, Tokina AT-X and Sigma EX are equivalent to Canon L.