Sigma vs. Tokina quality

dioptic · Nov 8, 2005

Hey guys,

I'm looking at a 28-70 2.8 lens for a 20D. The Sigma has a DG (digital) rating while the Tokina does not. They are about $100 different in price.

Two questions:

1. Is there generally a quality difference (dust entering, durablity, etc.) in these two products?
2. Does the DG (digital) rating make a difference?

Thanks.

dioptic

uberben · Nov 8, 2005

I know very little about either of these lenses..... however, I post a lot on wwwfredmiranda.com and I find that there are many more pro's on that site that give very helpful advice. I would check out their review section and then ask over there as well.

Marctwo · Nov 8, 2005

Sigma said:
Optimized for digital SLR cameras

It incorporates "Super Multi Layer Coating" to reduce the influence of harmful light caused by reflections from the digital image sensor.

.

maxxum · Nov 8, 2005

I have a 28-70 At-X from Tokina that is pretty good. On photodo.com it gets a better rating than the Sigma 28-70 2.8

DocFrankenstein · Nov 8, 2005

Tamron 28-75 is better and lighter than both of those lenses together.

thebeginning · Nov 8, 2005

yep, i agree. check out the tamron. the sigma 24-70 2.8 is quite good as well.

Rapala46 · Nov 8, 2005

I own two sigmas (28-70 mm zoom, 75-300mm zoom/macro) and so far, (knocks on wood) they have held up very nicely and take great pictures

DocFrankenstein · Nov 8, 2005

Rapala46 said:
I own two sigmas (28-70 mm zoom, 75-300mm zoom/macro) and so far, (knocks on wood) they have held up very nicely and take great pictures

You ever tried other lenses?

Rapala46 · Nov 9, 2005

yes, i have tried the kit lens that i had a choice of taking, and didnt like it at all. Why do you ask?

thebeginning · Nov 9, 2005

probably because the reason you thought the lenses were good was because you only had tried cheap lenses before and had not used more expensive lenses. what you consider great might not be that great when compared to higher quality equipment. it's relative.

DocFrankenstein · Nov 9, 2005

thebeginning said:
probably because the reason you thought the lenses were good was because you only had tried cheap lenses before and had not used more expensive lenses. what you consider great might not be that great when compared to higher quality equipment. it's relative.

Yes, sums it up quite nicely.

I'm not trying to start anything. There's nothing wrong with consumer lenses at all and I've recently seen a gallery of awesome pictures shot with a Drebel and Tamron 28-300 which simply floored me. That lens is widely considered to be low contrast POS, but the composition is good and the choice of subjects is decent... and that makes art.

BTW: is that the sigma 28-70 f/2.8-4 or 28-70 f/2.8 EX ?

I know... I know... I have equipment fetish.