Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Fast tele lens. EOS mount.

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
June 6, 2005 1:31:45 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Hi guys.
This time I cant decide between the Sigma 70-200 EX 2.8 or the Tokina
ATX-pro 80-200 2.8.
Does anyone have any direct experience of either lens?
I cannot afford the Canon 70-200 2.8 so I think it leaves either the Sigma
or Tokina.

TIA

--
rda
www.rdaphoto.co.uk
Anonymous
June 6, 2005 10:32:56 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

rda wrote:
> Hi guys.
> This time I cant decide between the Sigma 70-200 EX 2.8 or the Tokina
> ATX-pro 80-200 2.8.
> Does anyone have any direct experience of either lens?
> I cannot afford the Canon 70-200 2.8 so I think it leaves either the Sigma
> or Tokina.
>
> TIA
>
> --
> rda
> www.rdaphoto.co.uk

Some people have reported problems with Sigma lenses on the Canon
digital cameras. I do not own a Sigma lens, this is just what people
have reported on rec.photo.digital and rec.photo.digital.slr-sytems
since I have been reading them.

roland
Anonymous
June 6, 2005 12:56:44 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

rda wrote:

> I cannot afford the Canon 70-200 2.8 so I think it leaves either the Sigma
> or Tokina.

Save another $300 and get the Canon.
Related resources
Anonymous
June 6, 2005 8:10:14 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"I have seen the Sigma
70-200 F2.8 for less that US$500"

It's pretty important *where* you've seen it.

If it's a place on this list, for example,
http://donwiss.com/pictures/BrooklynStores/
it might not be a valid price comparison.
Anonymous
June 6, 2005 8:24:16 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"James Of Tucson" <james0tucson@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1118099414.469100.327090@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> "I have seen the Sigma
> 70-200 F2.8 for less that US$500"
>
> It's pretty important *where* you've seen it.
>
> If it's a place on this list, for example,
> http://donwiss.com/pictures/BrooklynStores/
> it might not be a valid price comparison.
>

There's a used one on ebay with 31 bids at $500.05...

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
June 6, 2005 10:39:24 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"rda" <pleaseaskmeforemailinfo@home.net> wrote:

>Hi guys.
> This time I cant decide between the Sigma 70-200 EX 2.8 or the Tokina
>ATX-pro 80-200 2.8.
>Does anyone have any direct experience of either lens?
>I cannot afford the Canon 70-200 2.8 so I think it leaves either the Sigma
>or Tokina.


Optically, the Tokina is a poor performer. Other zoom lenses in the
Tokina AT-X Pro range perform well (20-35mm f/2.8, 28-70mm f/2.8,
28-80mm f/2.8), and all of them are very well made, but the 80-200mm
is optically very disappointing and should be avoided.

The Sigma is much better optically, but compatibility problems arise
with Sigma lenses every time Canon brings out a new camera body.
That's because Sigma won't pay Canon for a licence to use the EF
mount/interface, and reverse engineer it instead. The problem is, you
cannot reverse engineer a future version of the interface, but Canon
will license it for a fee.

It is also the case that people report problems trying to get all the
features of their camera body to work with Sigma lenses, for example
predictive autofocus.

Why not save for the Canon lens or buy a used example now?

The Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 is $839.00. The non-IS Canon 70-200mm f/2.8
L is $1099.95 at B&H. It surely has to be worth $260 more than the
Sigma, but if you cannot afford the extra $260 I would strongly
recommend you consider the excellent Canon 70-200mm f/4 L at all of
$285 LESS than the Sigma.

You will get excellent optics - superior to the Sigma and vastly
superior to the Tokina - at a much more affordable price. The
70-200mm f/4 L is only $554.95 at B&H after rebate (against $1099.95
for the non-IS f/2.8 L and $1649.95 for the IS version, both after
rebate):

http://tinyurl.com/bmzbq
Anonymous
June 6, 2005 10:39:25 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 18:39:24 +0100, Tony Polson <tp@nospam.net> wrote:
>
> The Sigma is much better optically, but compatibility problems arise
> with Sigma lenses every time Canon brings out a new camera body.

This rather overstates the case. Some Sigma lenses have had
problems with some Canon bodies.

> That's because Sigma won't pay Canon for a licence to use the EF
> mount/interface, and reverse engineer it instead. The problem is, you
> cannot reverse engineer a future version of the interface, but Canon
> will license it for a fee.

You imply that e.g. Tokina and Tamron have licensed some Canon IP
for their lens lines. Do you have any positive knowledge of this
or are you assuming? I ask because with all the clamor over this
issue on the Web, I have never seen anything to that effect from
any sources close to Sigma or Canon.

--
Ben Rosengart (212) 741-4400 x215
Sometimes it only makes sense to focus our attention on those
questions that are equal parts trivial and intriguing.
--Josh Micah Marshall
Anonymous
June 7, 2005 12:51:36 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

> Why not save for the Canon lens or buy a used example now?
>
> The Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 is $839.00. The non-IS Canon 70-200mm f/2.8
> L is $1099.95 at B&H. It surely has to be worth $260 more than the
> Sigma, but if you cannot afford the extra $260 I would strongly
> recommend you consider the excellent Canon 70-200mm f/4 L at all of
> $285 LESS than the Sigma.

While I agree with the direction you are going here I have seen the Sigma
70-200 F2.8 for less that US$500, you will save considerably by shopping
around.
Anonymous
June 7, 2005 12:51:37 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Pete D" <no@email.com> wrote in message
news:sH2pe.4499$F7.863@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
>> Why not save for the Canon lens or buy a used example now?
>>
>> The Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 is $839.00. The non-IS Canon 70-200mm f/2.8
>> L is $1099.95 at B&H. It surely has to be worth $260 more than the
>> Sigma, but if you cannot afford the extra $260 I would strongly
>> recommend you consider the excellent Canon 70-200mm f/4 L at all of
>> $285 LESS than the Sigma.
>
> While I agree with the direction you are going here I have seen the Sigma
> 70-200 F2.8 for less that US$500, you will save considerably by shopping
> around.
>
Anybody who's going to sell a lens for more than $300 less (40% less) than
B&H may not be entirely trustworthy...

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
June 7, 2005 4:03:01 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Sun, 5 Jun 2005 21:31:45 +0100, "rda"
<pleaseaskmeforemailinfo@home.net> wrote:

>Hi guys.
> This time I cant decide between the Sigma 70-200 EX 2.8 or the Tokina
>ATX-pro 80-200 2.8.
>Does anyone have any direct experience of either lens?
>I cannot afford the Canon 70-200 2.8 so I think it leaves either the Sigma
>or Tokina.

Do you have to have Zoom? If not look at the 135mm F2.0L.


*********************************************************

"I have been a witness, and these pictures are
my testimony. The events I have recorded should
not be forgotten and must not be repeated."

-James Nachtwey-
http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/
!