A tokina 80-200 f/2.8 vs sigma 70-200 f/2.8

[sriram]

Other: I like my Canon 70-200L. Superb lens.

 

[smallaperture]

Recently, Cathay was offering the Tokina for a song, only for those who still sue Minolta or Pentax......

Otherwise, the Nikkor 80-200 F2.8D with tripod collar, just not much more than the Sigma or Tokina. Only thng is that the Nikkor is not IF. During focussing, the big and heavy front elements turns and move in and out - slow and somewhat noisy. Still a fabulous lens. Going down there to buy next week and shoot some monkeys in the zoo.

 

[Iceman27]

Had a go on the Tokina one @ CP last week. NOT impressive! Personally felt the AF was rather slow. Have to try the Sigma (HSM) one to be sure. The AF of the Sigma (HSM) 120-300 f2.8 was superb.

Anyone knows who carries the Sigma 80-200 f2.8 HSM? Would like to try it out b4 buying.

Cheers!

 

[smallaperture]

Hi,

Prefer my Nikkor AF 80-200 f2.8D ED. Only a bit more than the Sigma. Obviously the AF-S is a different story altogether. ;p

Regards
CK

Yeah, I chose the AF 80-200D F2.8 against the Tokina and the Sigma. Love the pic very much, but not the weight - heavy like a brick, especially on my neck! How I wish someone could shrink it and reduce the weight correspondingly, just like Tamron has done with their XR series of lenses. What more, for dSLR, a DX version to cater for the smaller sensor should give rise to a smaller, lighter and maybe cheaper lens. I would be happy if the DX version slims down to 0.8kg and using 67 filters. And still as sharp and performs as well if not even better than before, as dSLR is more demanding.

 

[Iceman27]

Had the chance to test a Sigma 70-200 HSM last sat. AF response was good. A little "hunting" once in a while. Then i saw an EF70-200 f2.8L and couldn't resist testing it. AF was just that little bit quicker and "hunting" almost non-existent. The price diff. for both lens (2nd hand) were rather great. The Sigma @ approx S$1K & the "L" @ approx S$1.8K.

As a photog on a shoestring budget, i'll go for the Sigma. If i do well on wed night, it's "L" anyday!

Cheers!

 

[mpenza]

if you don't need f2.8 or prefer less bulk, 70-200 F4L is a great alternative for Canon users that cost around the price of the sigma 70-200 f2.8 HSM ;p

 

[Snake]

AF 80-200mm and AFS 80-200mm.. with or without "S".... $700-$1k much diff but pics quality no diff or maybe diff by just one hair ... which prefer ?

 

[bernards]

Does anybody know what is the current market price for the Sigma lense? I want to upgrade my 70-300 APO.

 

[JAG]

Does anybody know what is the current market price for the Sigma lense? I want to upgrade my 70-300 APO.

yup any of you know the current prices of both lens, sigma and tokina and also the nikon AF 80-200 F2.8

 

[bernards]

I was quoted 1.4k plus for the Sigma 70-200 HSM version. The Nikkor 80-200D was 1.6k plus. Those were the prices from Tk Foto. Sorry I can't remember the exact price.

This was about two weeks ago.

 

[JAG]

I was quoted 1.4k plus for the Sigma 70-200 HSM version. The Nikkor 80-200D was 1.6k plus. Those were the prices from Tk Foto. Sorry I can't remember the exact price.

This was about two weeks ago.

Have you compared both sigma hsm vs the nikor AF. is there difference in af speeds?

 

[Spectrum]

Maybe you can get S$1580 or less at AP for the Nikkor AF zoom 80-200mm f/2.8 ED lens.

 

[bernards]

Have you compared both sigma hsm vs the nikor AF. is there difference in af speeds?

I can't give you any comments from experience. I have only read the reviews and got some advice from other users.

With the Sigma. You get HSM, which equals slient and fast AF (AF-S). Apparently the AF performance is somewhere between the Nikkor AF-D and AF-S version. The 80-200 is without AF-S. So expect slow and noisy AF. I don't have complains with AF-D primes. But with such a big zoom, the speed is bound to suffer.

I was advised optically the Nikkor is superior, with sharper pictures. The build quality is a whole lot better too.

As you can see, it's hard to make a decision. Since the price is so near. Yet both have pros and cons. I've decided to go for the 70-200 VR. If I can't afford it... seriously I still have not made up my mind is which better, sigma, or Nikkor. :sweat:

 

[singscott]

Tokina or L or none at all :bsmilie: :bsmilie:

 

[Top Gun]

How much for Tokina 80-200/2.8 for Pentax/Minolta? If CP's price is low enough, may consider to get one.

 

[blurblock]

How much for Tokina 80-200/2.8 for Pentax/Minolta? If CP's price is low enough, may consider to get one.

1K+ ......

But if you got it last Apr .... it was selling for $399

 

[jsbn]

Never tried those lenses before. All few thousand bucks one. Will cost me 1mth of my pay.

Got an el'cheapo 75-300 f/4-5.6 though. Chromatic abberations galore! Yoo hoo!! :gbounce::gbounce::gbounce:

 

[user111]

if u r talking about f-mount, then the tokina is less responsive than the 2-touch nikkor. likewise, the sigma hunts more than the AFS

 

[khairi]

Never tried those lenses before. All few thousand bucks one. Will cost me 1mth of my pay.

Got an el'cheapo 75-300 f/4-5.6 though. Chromatic abberations galore! Yoo hoo!! :gbounce::gbounce::gbounce:

ha ha...CA CA CA...that's what i get fr using that cheap 75-300 lens too...CA almost everywhere in high contrast areas he he...but none the less...it's still a lens that i can use...

 

[proverbs]

there is something here about Sigma lens 70-300
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1034&message=11363280