Which Tele

[daddy]

Hallo everybody

I'm looking for a new tele lense. Actually i'm using a 18-200 lense but now I need a stronger lense. I was interressted in the Sigm 80 -400
http://sigma-photo.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp?id=3272&navigator=3
and the SIGMA 50-500
http://sigma-photo.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp?id=3307&navigator=3

the canon 100-400 is quite impressiv but also quite expensiv.

Now I wanted to hear your opinions? Any great lense I forgot? Is IS important?

[DonSchap]

You did not mention which camera system you wanted to hook the lens up to, (I'll assume Canon) but if it were me ... I'd be looking at this:



25035 (http://www.thkphoto.com/products/tokina/afl-12.html)
Click on image for more ...


The smallest SLR lens available that zooms to 400mm, the AT-X 840 AF D has a smooth and quick internal focusing system that means the all-metal inner barrel that houses the heaviest glass elements does not have to rotate when the lens focuses, making it much faster than the previous models.

Differences are noted:

Mount availability: Canon EOS, Nikon-D,

Focal length: 80 to 400mm

Maximum aperture: f/4.5-5.6

Minimum aperture: f/32

Optical construction: Tokina 16 elements in 10 groups
SIGMA Optical construction: 20 Elements in 14 Groups

SD glass: One elements

Coatings: Multi-layer

Angle of view: Tokina 29° 50’ to 6°13’
SIGMA Angle of view: 30.3° - 6.2°

Minimum focus distance: 2.5m (8.2 ft.)

Reproduction ratio: 1: 5.4

Zooming system: Rotary type

Number of diaphragm blades: Tokina 8
SIGMA Number of diaphragm blades: 9

Filter size: Tokina 72mm
SIGMA Filter size: 77 mm

Maximum outer diameter: 77.2mm (3.0in.)

Dimensions: Tokina 3.1 in. (79mm) X 136.5 mm (5.4in.)
SIGMA Dimensions: 3.7 in. (95mm) X 192 mm (7.6 in.)

Weight: Tokina 1020 g (35.9 oz.)
SIGMA weight: 1750g (61.9 oz.) Break out the hernia belt :eek:

Cost: Tokina ~$650
Sigma Cost: ~$999

All that extra weight and $349 more, for roughly the same performance? Not this guy.

If Tokina would make this for SONY-Mounts, I'd have one!

It only comes in Nikon and Canon mounts, at this time.

That 50-500mm is another monster lens at 1840 g (64.9 oz.) ... but if you don't mind carrying it, what the heck? After a couple hours ... you may wish you had gone with the Tokina! :rolleyes:

[coldrain]

The Tokina 80-400mm lens is not great at longer focal lengths though.
If you want to get a cheap tele, the Sigma 135-400mm is a bit better.
Don, since the person mentioned a Canon 100-400mm, it obviously will be Canon mount.

About the Sigma 80-400 OS, it is a good lens, and still gives good results at 400mm. It is maybe on par with the 100-400 from Canon IQ wise.

The Sigma 50-500mm is BIG and heavy, otherwise it is a nice lens. The 80-400's OS (Optical Stabilization, Sigma talk for IS) is a worthwhile feature, I think.

I think that if the Canon EF 100-400 L IS USM would be out of my budget, I would check out the Sigma 80-400 OS.

[DonSchap]

Just bring a shoulder sling, when you do. :o

Personally, heaving a huge lens up for nature shots is no fun. I bought my TAMRON SP AF200-500mm f/5-6.3 Di LD for just that reason. Light and sharp. I also have the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM as the gap-filler lens. (As if... LOL :D ) ... produce roughly the same overall range the 80-400mm does.

If the light is bright (sunlit conditions), "Image Stabilization" is effectively useless and a waste of money. At 1/500th of second ... nothing shakes, rotors stop, cars freeze, bird's wings stop that darn flappin' ... etc.

Personally, the weight increase is not worth the minimal return you'd get. An 80-400mm f/4-5.6 lens has very little value indoors, so what are we really talking about, here? :confused:

[coldrain]

Yes Don, IS never has any use on any lens, especially not on long tele lenses. You are right.:rolleyes:

I am just silly, I will replace my EF 70-200 f4 L USM sometime in future with an EF 70-200 f4 L IS USM.
I'd be so much happier with a Tamron plastic fantastic... without worthless IS of course.

[DonSchap]

Disregard shutter speed if you like ... your choice, but in the practical world ... IS outdoors ... in bright sunlight ... unless you are really stopped down ... pointless.

Hey, I got pictures to prove it. :eek:

I almost bought into it, too ... but, after the prior few weeks, high shutter speed ... no need for IS. Save your money and your back. ;)

[coldrain]

Oh, i guess I skipped the part where the OP talked about only wanting to photograph on the brightest part of very sunny days out in the open. Silly me...

yes, go for the inferior optics of the Tokina, the Sigma has OS! Yuck!

[DonSchap]

The way I figure it ... that's at least $349 out of MY pocket for the privilege of carrying an additional 26 ounces and much larger lens to do the very same job, with the same aperture range. Oh, excuse me ... wonderful anti-sh-sh-shake I will rarely if ever use.

Sorry, not this week.

I'd rare pony up the $349 for a 17-50mm f/2.8 lens or a 580EX Speedlight flash. Sounds to me like a much better use of funds. ;)

[coldrain]

Yes, your lust for lower quality optics is well known...

[DonSchap]

Do you have SIGMA stock or something? I'll bet this guy can turn out excellent shots with the Tokina ... and not suffer from financial shock to boot.

I did a lot of investigation about this particular lens and Tokina has seriously improved this lens over the past two years over its predecessor. Pop Photo Reviews (http://www.popphoto.com/cameralenses/3266/lens-test-tokina-at-x-80-400mm-f45-56-af-d.html) give it a "GOOD" for the long shot, "very Good" at 200mm and "Excellent" for the shorter stuff (80 & 135).

TAKE A LOOK AT THE SAMPLES (http://www.pbase.com/cameras/tokina/atx_840_af2) <- click here

Let's face facts, most outdoor stuff doesn't have you shooting a full length, anyway.

Earlier today, I was speaking with a young man who rented a EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM for a couple weeks. He said the lens shot well and was pretty happy, except he really did not need all that long glass for most of his shots. It was heavy and a chore to use. He added that the EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM was a very popular alternative with the accompanying crowd. Ok ... what does this mean? The range from 200-400mm is not going to get nearly the amount of work the 80-200mm range will. Your quality should be concentrated in that range ... and it is there, that the Tokina does "Excellent."

Like I said, earlier ... I'd have this for the SONY, if Tokina produced it in that mount. I see no advantage to lugging around a big, heavy lens in the woods if you don't have to. Image Stability ... bah ... hold still and get the shot! Just like they used to. :D

[coldrain]

popphoto? are you serious? They write a bunch of nonsense most of the time, and really can not be relied on as a real source of information.

And the Tokina does NOT get sharp until you go past f8 at 400mm. And why oh why would the person be looking for a long tele. To not use 400mm or something?
Do you have Tamron and Tokina and Sony stock?

The Tokina is NOT much better than the older version. Only coatings changed basically, the lens construction is the same. And so... still... it is not as good as the Sigma 135-400mm at 400mm, and way less than the Sigma 80-400 OS (which does help you with IS whenever needed...)

That you have a personal dislike of Sigma is fine. But advice people a bit more seriously.

I can really not help it that Sigma makes some better lenses than your beloved Tamron.... Complain to the Sigma bosses.

I do like my Tamron 90mm macro btw... if only the build quality was upto spec.

[DonSchap]

What are you using the 90mm for, to pound nails? Does it fail to operate properly? I think it has served you and others extremely well.

If Canon can get away with building that "Plastic L" for $1000, I hardly think TAMRON can shamed for producing a plastic-bodied $400 lens.

Metal-bodied zoom lenses usually weigh in excess of 30 ounces and check in at around $800. That's quite bit compared to the 15-ounce plastic-bodied, $350 lenses.

Personally, I've had most of my newer TAMRON lenses for the better part of a year or longer. They have endured all the punishment the routine shoots throw at them and not a single one has failed to make the call.

The older ones, even though they are film-based lenses operate cleanly and efficiently to still be used when needed. I have a couple metal-bodied lenses that are complete ... well, not what I would consider top-drawer. The plastics run rings around them.

So, what does it all mean? Metal vs plastic? As usual, it just depends on who and what, that's all. Pound for pound, I believe the Tokina is a worthy choice. If you can hook one up, I say: "Trial-shoot it." YMMV. :p

[coldrain]

Yes, it did fail. There is a problem with the manual zoom ring. And that happened from one day to the other, with nothing actually happing to the lens (it didn't fall or anything).
It is the only lens that has failed on me so far. All my Nikon lenses, my Canon lenses, my Sigma, Tokina all are fine. The Tamron is the one that developed a problem.

Like I said, i do like the lens. But the build quality is not super.
And I do like my Tokina 12-24mm. Does that mean I should like all Tokina lenses? No...

[DonSchap]

Yes, it did fail. There is a problem with the manual zoom ring. And that happened from one day to the other, with nothing actually happing to the lens (it didn't fall or anything).
It is the only lens that has failed on me so far. All my Nikon lenses, my Canon lenses, my Sigma, Tokina all are fine. The Tamron is the one that developed a problem.

Like I said, i do like the lens. But the build quality is not super.
And I do like my Tokina 12-24mm. Does that mean I should like all Tokina lenses? No...

I guess what I'm missing here is a direct limitation to why someone would not want to use the Tokina vs the SIGMA ... which is near $400 more. A side-by-side shoot off would probably accomplish most issues, but these lenses have been around long enough to impress or depress photographers. One of the guys over on Canon's POTN site did a thread where he compared the Tokina AT-X 840 AF D 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6 II to the Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM. He had them both and shot both under equal conditions. The Tokina AT-X 840 did incredibly well and well-enough for me to consider it viable. That was nearly a year ago ... and no one has complained about it except you, my friend.

Personally, I'm kind of tired of buying new glass to prove my point ... it's your turn. You want to take it to task ... prove it. Shoot a roll or two through it. LOL :D I'll wait ... (theme from Jeopardy plays in the background)

In the meantime, for those who want some response other than myself or "Coldrain", may I suggest this POTN forum thread for a decent read and examination of this very lens:

Tokina AT-X 840 AF D 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6 II (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=206338&highlight=400mm+tokina) <-- Click here

[daddy]

Thanks to all for all your ideas. Has nobody been hurt? As my opinion, I have a standard Sigma lens (could be better) and a Sigma Ex lens which is quite good. No experience with Tokina and Tamron. I woulld take the Canon 100-400 but it is a little bit expensiv. I guess I will go to the shops on the weekend and try some lenses.

[DonSchap]

Ah, the best choice of all ... trial by shutter-fire! :D

All I can tell you from personal experience is that looking long, the TAMRON SP AF200-500mm f/5-6.3 DI LD delivered a nice and sharp shot, for about $800. It weighs only 43 ounces and totes well. The focus ring is closer to the photgrapher, on the lens, than the focal-length (z00m) ring, which is the reverse of what you find on most other lenses. It makes index-finger MANUAL focus control easy, when following a distant target and not wanting to autofocus with every step. You'd have to try this, to appreciate the design change.

The SONY A100 has an auto prefocus, which allows the camera to continually update the focus on the subject, as you press your eye close to the viewfinder, until you press the shutter-release. This certainly is handy when following and tracking ... prey. ;)

Oh, BTW, did you happen to grab a towel on your way in ... to clean up after the previous blood-letting? :rolleyes:

Good luck in your search. :D

[daddy]

Hallo

Got my lens!!!! It's a Sigma 80-400. If you need a feedback please find pro / contra.

+ Build quality
+ Image quality
+ OS very helpful
+ F5.6 for 400mm is not bad

- Heavy Heavy Heavy
- Slow and noisy autofocus
- Zoom ring not easy to use

Great technique not easy to use

[DonSchap]

Good luck in your shooting ... :D

Footnote: Gosh, I'm sure glad money isn't a problem in these decisions. :rolleyes: