Tamron, Sigma, or Tokina?

On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 23:35:02 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet
wrote:

writes:

Generaly speaking, which company makes better lenses? Tamron, Sigma,
or Tokina?

I'd rank Tamron and Tokina *generally* equal, and Sigma a cut below
*generally*. However, the range of quality in individual lenses is
larger than the tendency to difference between the brands, so I don't
know that it ever makes sense to prefer one of the brands over another
when considering a specific purchase. You need to see what people
think of the *specific* lenses you're considering.

I have an old 17mm Tokina that's sharp as a tack and a Sigma 28mm
f:2.8 thats also sharper than the Pentax 28 I had.

THOM
--
David Dyer-Bennet, , http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/
RKBA: http://noguns-nomoney.com/ http://www.dd-b.net/carry/
Pics: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/ http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/
Dragaera/Steven Brust: http://dragaera.info/

On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 23:35:02 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet
wrote:

writes:

Generaly speaking, which company makes better lenses? Tamron, Sigma,
or Tokina?

I'd rank Tamron and Tokina *generally* equal, and Sigma a cut below
*generally*. However, the range of quality in individual lenses is
larger than the tendency to difference between the brands, so I don't
know that it ever makes sense to prefer one of the brands over another
when considering a specific purchase. You need to see what people
think of the *specific* lenses you're considering.

I have an old 17mm Tokina that's sharp as a tack and a Sigma 28mm
f:2.8 thats also sharper than the Pentax 28 I had.

THOM
--
David Dyer-Bennet, , http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/
RKBA: http://noguns-nomoney.com/ http://www.dd-b.net/carry/
Pics: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/ http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/
Dragaera/Steven Brust: http://dragaera.info/

(Thom) writes:

On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 23:35:02 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet
wrote:

writes:

Generaly speaking, which company makes better lenses? Tamron, Sigma,
or Tokina?

I'd rank Tamron and Tokina *generally* equal, and Sigma a cut below
*generally*. However, the range of quality in individual lenses is
larger than the tendency to difference between the brands, so I don't
know that it ever makes sense to prefer one of the brands over another
when considering a specific purchase. You need to see what people
think of the *specific* lenses you're considering.

I have an old 17mm Tokina that's sharp as a tack and a Sigma 28mm
f:2.8 thats also sharper than the Pentax 28 I had.

I'm pretty pleased with my Tokina 17mm AF (Nikon); not that old, less
than 10 years I'm sure. I've been using the central portion of it
quite a lot since I got my Fuji S2 (it gets me a 25.5mm view).
--
David Dyer-Bennet, , http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/
RKBA: http://noguns-nomoney.com/ http://www.dd-b.net/carry/
Pics: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/ http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/
Dragaera/Steven Brust: http://dragaera.info/

I have a Tokina 28-70 f/2.6, a Tamron 70-300, a Sigma 135-400 among a fairly
complete selection of fixed. Among these three lenses, the Tamron is
slightly weaker than the other two; however, it is very easy to use and good
enough for most situation. Without side-by-side comparison, it is difficult
to tell quality. The ultimate factor is user technique.

"David Dyer-Bennet" wrote in message
...
(Thom) writes:

On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 23:35:02 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet
wrote:

writes:

Generaly speaking, which company makes better lenses? Tamron, Sigma,
or Tokina?

I'd rank Tamron and Tokina *generally* equal, and Sigma a cut below
*generally*. However, the range of quality in individual lenses is
larger than the tendency to difference between the brands, so I don't
know that it ever makes sense to prefer one of the brands over another
when considering a specific purchase. You need to see what people
think of the *specific* lenses you're considering.

I have an old 17mm Tokina that's sharp as a tack and a Sigma 28mm
f:2.8 thats also sharper than the Pentax 28 I had.

I'm pretty pleased with my Tokina 17mm AF (Nikon); not that old, less
than 10 years I'm sure. I've been using the central portion of it
quite a lot since I got my Fuji S2 (it gets me a 25.5mm view).
--
David Dyer-Bennet, , http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/
RKBA: http://noguns-nomoney.com/ http://www.dd-b.net/carry/
Pics: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/
http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/
Dragaera/Steven Brust: http://dragaera.info/

I have a Tokina 28-70 f/2.6, a Tamron 70-300, a Sigma 135-400 among a fairly
complete selection of fixed. Among these three lenses, the Tamron is
slightly weaker than the other two; however, it is very easy to use and good
enough for most situation. Without side-by-side comparison, it is difficult
to tell quality. The ultimate factor is user technique.

"David Dyer-Bennet" wrote in message
...
(Thom) writes:

On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 23:35:02 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet
wrote:

writes:

Generaly speaking, which company makes better lenses? Tamron, Sigma,
or Tokina?

I'd rank Tamron and Tokina *generally* equal, and Sigma a cut below
*generally*. However, the range of quality in individual lenses is
larger than the tendency to difference between the brands, so I don't
know that it ever makes sense to prefer one of the brands over another
when considering a specific purchase. You need to see what people
think of the *specific* lenses you're considering.

I have an old 17mm Tokina that's sharp as a tack and a Sigma 28mm
f:2.8 thats also sharper than the Pentax 28 I had.

I'm pretty pleased with my Tokina 17mm AF (Nikon); not that old, less
than 10 years I'm sure. I've been using the central portion of it
quite a lot since I got my Fuji S2 (it gets me a 25.5mm view).
--
David Dyer-Bennet, , http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/
RKBA: http://noguns-nomoney.com/ http://www.dd-b.net/carry/
Pics: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/
http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/
Dragaera/Steven Brust: http://dragaera.info/

ROBMURR wrote:
Sigma has had a lot of compatibility
and reliability problems especially
with newer Canon Eos bodies.
Tamron and Tokina seem to be higher
quality construction.

I've heard Tokina and Tamron have better construction in general, but
the new Sigmas are equal to them in construction, plus Sigma's optics on
new lenses are generally equal or better as well.

Thanks George - Your Troll is noted. This man does not own a camera, or any
Sigma lenses. He has no credibility.

--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
A sample chapter from "Haight-Ashbury" is at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html

"CGC" wrote in message news:%7Dbd.202$u6.9@trnddc06...
ROBMURR wrote:
Sigma has had a lot of compatibility
and reliability problems especially
with newer Canon Eos bodies.
Tamron and Tokina seem to be higher
quality construction.

I've heard Tokina and Tamron have better construction in general, but
the new Sigmas are equal to them in construction, plus Sigma's optics on
new lenses are generally equal or better as well.

wrote in message . ..
Generaly speaking, which company makes better lenses? Tamron, Sigma,
or Tokina?

Cow ****, horse ****, sheep ****, or pig ****? Which one is best?

You're a moron!

wrote in message . ..
Generaly speaking, which company makes better lenses? Tamron, Sigma,
or Tokina?

Cow ****, horse ****, sheep ****, or pig ****? Which one is best?

You're a moron!