DSLRUsers.com

I have a small dilemma at the moment.

I finished up some work recently and have some cash burning a hole in my pocket. Yes it is nice to be cashed up, no I won't send some your way

With the fantastic prices available from HK (poon) I'm getting very tempted to have a photography spend.

The one lens that catches my eye right now is the 80-400VR.

The thing is, I haven't done much telephoto photography. I own a 70-300ED but have never been happy with the results, so it simply doesn't get taken out of the bag.
I was seriously lusting for the Sigma 70-200 and a TC last year. Anyone got any comparisons b/w the 80-400 and Sigma.

However, most of my good / portfolio shots are taken at the shot end of the focal range. The majority probably at 18mm actually.
Which makes me think of the 17-35 ot 17-55 (or 28-70, but that's not got the wide end).
However, while the 18-70 isn't the razor sharp of the above, it does a pretty good job.

Then there are the wide angles. The Sigma and Tokina are pretty blood cheap, and the Nikon isn't that bad. What's the current thoughts on the wide angles (pointing me in the direction of some decent reviews would be appreciated).

Thoughts?

Ken Rockwell did a review of the Tokina, Nikon, sigma 12-24 wides and highly recommend the Tokina.

check his site at kenrockwell.com

The kit lens is good at its price point, the others lenses in its range are not four times as good, but cost four times as much. As you seem to have a fairly compact selection of lenses at the moment why not get a range you dont have, such as 12-24 or 80-400 and come back and get a pro normal zoom later? Your choice which you think you will get more out of, the wide or the long. Good luck

Wow going from a 80 - 400 VR to asking about wide angle lens reviews . I can see your heart is at the short end.

I tend to shot at the long end, but I wanted something at the short end so I got the Sigma 10 - 20 mm. I'm happy with it. Not the fastest glass but what wide angle zoom is?

Nikonians did a fairly comprehensive comparison test.

http://www.nikonians.org/html/resources ... index.html

I really couldn't make my mind up between the sigma 10 - 20 and the tokina 12 - 24, but got the sigma. A few posters on this site have the sigma, not sure how many have the tokina

Hi Nick,

from the work you have done in the past, WA is more the way you seem to go.

I got the Tokina and love it. I use it lots of times. It had some good reviews in Australian Photography a while back. One of our members, Antsl, had written the review of the WA lenses.

The only thing with the tokina is that if you want a CPL, you will have to spend a fair bit, if you don't want vignetting at the 12mm end. With the Hoya CPL, I get vignetting with the CPL on. Not sure if that is a problem with the 10-20 Sigma. Ultra thin CPL are expensive.

Seeing you will have some extra cash if you go for a WA, look at also getting some B+W filters to go with it, well worth the extra.

If you want to borrow my Tokina for a couple days, let me know. You'll have to be quick as I'll be going on holidays in Sept and I'm taking it

Cheers,

André

I think part of the problem is I hate to pass up a bargain and the 80-400 is a bargain at the moment.

Definately looking at the wide angles.

Gotta decide between the Sigma and Tokina

Sigma:
Wider (10mm vs 12mm)
Low CA

Tokina:
Better build
$50 cheaper
Sharper
Less distortion (easier to correct)

I'm leaning towards the Tokina, though the extra 2mm does appeal.

shakey, thanks for the review. Interesting how different reviews / reviewers rate things.

Nick
The 80-400 is a very sweet lens and won't disapoint.

I chose the Sigma soley because the 2mm extra wide. It may not appear much, but with the DX crop factor, its crucial when you're in tight areas, or just need a bit more of whacky effect.

Sigma's distortion is basically free at the 12mm compared up to the Tokina is really good at that point.

The Tokina is better built, but has no HSM (AF-S) bit noisy on the autofocus, but I dont think you will care much on a WA anyways.

The Sigma is also stronger at resisting CA and flare, which is a big bonus when you're outdoors under midday sun.

Nick,

A couple of points to help you narrow down your choices ...

What are you actually going to be shooting? If you're going to be birding, or shooting motorsports, then you're going to be needing the reach.

But if you're not going to be shooting anything different than what you're already shooting, or you're currently not seeing that you're missing some shots because of the lack of reach, then perhaps the 80-400 might not be your best choice.

What about film photography? Do you do any, and if so, is it with a Nikon? Or can you see yourself at some point in the future upgrading to a Nikon FF digital, if and when one becomes available? If so, consider that the short/wide zooms are mainly DX based, and won't be operable on any FF camera that you might wish to consider, perhaps three or four years hence.

Just a few random thoughts for you.

Nick

Knowing your work I'd say forget the 80-400 and get a Tokina 12-24. A bargain is only a bargain if it gets used. Pass on the 80-400 unless you have a desire to change the style of what you do and start taking shots where you need the extra reach. You touch on it, but I'd also consider the not so wide 28-70. It's my new walkaround lens and I'm over the moon with the quality I get from it. If you want to borrow mine and have a play give me a yell.

Gary, thanks for your thoughts. I don't shoot film, nor see myself moving to a FF any time soon.

Stubbsy, I think you nailed it. A bargain is only a bargain if it used, and when I really think about it, I don't think I'd use the 80-400 enough to justify the price tag.

I'm pretty set on the Tokina 12-24 for now. The 2mm on the Sigma is tempting, but everything else points towards the Tokina.
Anyone got any compelling reason not to get the Tokina? People seem pretty happy with it.

I can then get a 28-70 later if I feel the need and I'll still have the focal lengths covered.

pippin88 wrote:Anyone got any compelling reason not to get the Tokina?

It's not a Sigma.

I read somewhere that only super-thin (i.e. super expensive) filters work with the tokina whereas the sigma is fine with normal filter.

But then again if you are already considering buying 80-400 then I don't think that will be such a big deal

I've ordered the Tokina.

The $50 I save with it can go towards a thin CPL.

Decided the advantages of the Tokina outweighed the 2mm wider with Sigma.