Hi all,

I have been researching on the web about these two lenses. Currently I own Nikon 20-35/2.8 and 80-200/2.8 zooms. I plan to add 28-70/2.8 lens. I do not plan to purchase the Nikon 28-70/2.8. Price is to high for me as a hobbyist. I check on photodo.com and shows that the Sigma is better than the Tokina. Some other websites mention that Tokina is much better than the Sigma. This is confusing. I plan to use this lens as my main lens. What is the main 'down side' of the Sigma lens compare to the Tokina? And, what is the 'better side' of the Sigma lens?

Thanks for any answer.

-- James Tehubijuluw (jamesct@limori.com), August 25, 2000

Answers

Part of the confusion centers around the fact that Tokina has introduced a new lens at this focal length -- a 28-80 f/2.8 lens.

This lens has gotten very positive reviews -- just this month in Pop Photo, for example -- and there has been lots of positive comments about it on the web.

The consensus seems to be that it is truly a pro quality lens in every respect -- sharpness, contrast, speed, build quality.

I don't know about the older Tokina (28-70 f/2.8) versus the Sigma, although I know many people swear by that Tokina. Some people argue that the old Tokina is a good enough lens and a bargain right now with the new one coming out.

In general, some people argue that Tokina has a better quality construction and materials than Sigma, although the top-end Sigmas have their defenders on this score.

This new Tokina is supposed to be better than the old Tokina. I have one of the new Tokinas and like it VERY much.

-- John Wall (john_wall@ncsu.edu), August 25, 2000.

Any reason why you're excluding the AF Nikkor 35-70 2.8. I have the non-D version; except for the rotating front element, it's a great lens (I can't coment of AF speed, I use an F3 and an FA).

-- Geoffrey S. Kane (grendel@pgh.nauticom.net), August 25, 2000.

Sorry, I forget to mention that I also own the 35-70/2.8 AFD. The reason why I want to go for the 28-70/2.8 because it uses 77mm ring as the other lenses (20-35 & 80-200). Also, my girlfriend wants to use the 35-70 as her main lens :(. Thanks.

-- James Tehubijuluw (jamesct@limori.com), August 25, 2000.

James,

If your budget will allow it I would take a good look at the new Tokina 28-80mm f/2.8.

The Tokina AT-X series is very well built. This lens has an extra 10mm which could come in handy. The lens test I have seen shows very low distortion. .75% at 28mm. .65% at 50mm. .55% at 80mm.

The MTF graphs in Pop Photo show excellent performance except for wide open at 50mm.

I'm going to wait until I hear some user reports but this lens is on my short list.

-- Marc Bergman (mbergma2@ix.netcom.com), August 25, 2000.

I had the older Sigma 28-70 f:2.8. It was a decent lens. It was built well and compared with my Canon 28-105 f:3.5-4.5 which is also a good lens. The newer Sigma is just a bit sharper than the old one and has internal focusing that the old one didn't have. All this to say that if you like the pictures you are getting with your Nikon 35- 70 f:2.8 there is no way that this lens will be that sharp. Good optics but not great. The Tokina should be better (and it costs more too), but even that wont be as sharp as the Nikon you have or the Nikon that you ought to get if money wasn't an issue.

-- Jim Strutz (jimstrutz@juno.com), August 26, 2000.

The tokina atx 28-70 2.6-2.8 is the only zoom I own. I have to say it is just as sharp as the 35-70 2.8 Nikon I used to have ( and in some instances, better). The only difference is the color cast compared to the Nikkors, which occasionally throws me when editing a job where I have used multiple lenses. I really like it. It's a workhorse and a bargan.

-- Anthony Nelson (sloanfiske@hotmail.com), August 30, 2000.

James,

I would recommend you to take a look at the new TOkina 28-80 2.8. Check these sites for the users' reviews: www.photographyreview.com

www.techphoto.org

Everything I have read about this lens is very favorable.

-- nguyen thang (nguyentnt@hotmail.com), September 02, 2000.

I'm also debating which of these two lenses to buy at the moment. I would like to get the Tokina 28-80/2.8 but it's too pricey for me. After some research, I got the impression that there were more positive reviews praising the Tokina 28-70/2.6-2.8's optics and mechanics than its Sigma EX equivalent. However, according to Photodo, the Sigma EX is sharper wide open than the Tokina 28-70 zoom at all focal lengths. This is is basically why I would get the 2.8 zoom lens in the first place. But, Sigma has also been notorious for it's poor mechanics in its consumer lens series (elements falling off, fogging, etc.). But since the EX is a "pro" lens, a lot have argued that Sigma has improved on its build quality. This is still to be proven because the EX line has just been released and no long term users out there have yet complained of any typical Sigma consumer lens problems with this lens other than the gritty manual focusing feel.

Now, to make things worse, I stumbled upon the new Nikon 24-85/2.8-4D IF zoom lens to be released this October. Check out the following thread:

http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/micro_stories.pl? ACCT=130907&TICK=NIKON&STORY=/www/story/08-28- 2000/0001299117&EDATE=Aug+28,+2000

I'm willing to wait for more reviews on this lens and compare it to the Tokina 28-80/2.8 while it also accumulates more reviews (which have been mostly positive so far). Anyway, I'm not in such a hurry since I can always use my Nikon primes to cover this focal length. Good luck in your decision!

-- Ron Gregorio (gregorio@ksc.th.com), September 05, 2000.

I own the Sigma EX 28-70mm f2.8 lens and use it for all my most demanding professional shoots. Basicly, it saves my life a lot of the time. I also have a Tokina ATX-SD 80-200mm f2.8 lens as well. I would stick to the Sigma EX for the 28-70 and Tokina for telephotos.

Mike Photography Blue Book web site. Server #1 Photography Blue Book web site. Server #2

-- Mike LePard (michael.lepard@home.com), February 08, 2001.