I've notice people referring Tokina lenses....

Scraptag

TPF Noob!
Joined
Feb 27, 2012
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
Location
So Cal
Can others edit my Photos
Photos OK to edit
how are these generally in relation to the canon lenses. I bought a sigma 18-200 this past summer for over $400 and I'm not impressed. I see a lot of CA in my photos and now it is really grainy in lower light, even when I can still use iso 100 (including a pretty decent ss). I was thinking about buying the canon 10-22 which is not a prime, but still really expensive. The Tokina looks considerably less expensive in this aperature range. Would Canon always be better than these other brands, or does Tokina have a raving reputation?
 
It seems in general that canon lenses are prefered over third party lenses. One thing i always hear about Tokina is how well they are built. Truthfully from my limited experience swapping and trading lenses the price seems to be the major factor, not the badge. Canon make some poor lenses also, as do other brands. There is so much info comparing on the net between lenses and any other product you can think of, but truthfully can a lens for 450 whatever currency be as good as one for 1100, maybe but rarely.

You have to decide how good you need the product or how much its worth of your money.

As you mention the canon 10-22 above I read a photo magazine today that says the sigma 10-20 is as good at about 2/3rds the price. I read somewhere else that they are close but the canon is better. Where i live there is not a big market so try before buy isn't always an option, but if i see a few close comparisons like this by experts i imagine i wont go far wrong with either as they will be harder to please than me.
As for the 18-200, I would consider this a convenience lens and would not expect to get the best out of my camera with this
 
Oh yes, I bought the 18-200 because I was travelling and wanted one lens to travel with. I just get so upset that this lens has soooo much chromatic abbrassion and grainyness. I can buy a $200-$300 p&s and take better pictures. That's just not right.

I'm getting into landscape photography, and that's why I want the 10-22, but wouldn't mind spending a tad bit less if I was getting a comparable lens. I wouldn't dream of getting a lens for half the price and expecting it to do the same job as an L lens.
 
Generally when it comes to 3rd party lenses its best to treat it on a lens by lens basis - comparing similar featured lenses against each other. Sometimes 3rd party makes better, just as good or worse than - other times they make things that the primary party just does not make.

You might find the following reviews and comparisons of help:
Sigma 8-16mm (widest you can go without using a fisheye lens)
JuzaPhoto - Sigma 8-16mm f/4.5-5.6 EX DC (vs Sigma 12-24 on FF)

Tamron 10-24, Sigma 10-20 f/3.5, Sigma 10-20, Canon 10-22, Tokina 11-16 (sigma 8-16 not included as it was not released at the time)
JuzaPhoto - Sigma, Canon, Tamron and Tokina APS-C Wide-Angles

Sigma 12-24mm
JuzaPhoto - Sigma 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6 EX DG HSM Review
 
I agree with Overread. You have to compare them on a lens by lens basis.

Oh yes, I bought the 18-200 because I was travelling and wanted one lens to travel with. I just get so upset that this lens has soooo much chromatic abbrassion and grainyness. I can buy a $200-$300 p&s and take better pictures. That's just not right.
To be fair, I don't think that the Canon 18-200mm is much better.

It's not so much that it's a Sigma, it's just a silly lens design. To be able to zoom a lens over 10X, while keeping it small, light and affordable, they had to compromise on image quality.

A good rule of thumb, is to stick with zoom lenses that don't exceed 3X.
 
Another problem is sensor size - the bridge cameras/point and shoots have much much smaller sensors, which are far less demanding on the glass. DSLRs, even the smaller 1.6 crop sensors, are much much larger which puts additional demands on the quality of the glass itself.
 
The tokina wide angle 11-16 is really nice. Not familiar with many of their other lenses. But its pretty hard to beat the 11-16 f2.8.
 
Generally when it comes to 3rd party lenses its best to treat it on a lens by lens basis - comparing similar featured lenses against each other. Sometimes 3rd party makes better, just as good or worse than - other times they make things that the primary party just does not make.

You might find the following reviews and comparisons of help:
Sigma 8-16mm (widest you can go without using a fisheye lens)
JuzaPhoto - Sigma 8-16mm f/4.5-5.6 EX DC (vs Sigma 12-24 on FF)

Tamron 10-24, Sigma 10-20 f/3.5, Sigma 10-20, Canon 10-22, Tokina 11-16 (sigma 8-16 not included as it was not released at the time)
JuzaPhoto - Sigma, Canon, Tamron and Tokina APS-C Wide-Angles

Sigma 12-24mm
JuzaPhoto - Sigma 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6 EX DG HSM Review

I really like the 10-20 f3.5. Nice lens. Hella sharp. Can even get decent shots handheld at night.
 

Most reactions

Back
Top