- This topic is empty.
Tokina AT-X 12-24mm AF PRO DX or Sigma 18-50/2.8 EX DC
-
I have a Canon 350 Rebel XT. I have been using the limited and plastic 18-55 kit lens and my eight year old Canon Zoom Ultrasonic Lens EF 75-300mm 1:4-5.6 up until now.
I want to extend my walk-around lens options with potential for sharper images and more versatility ie. basically upgrade the yellow pack kit lens.
I have been recommended the Tokina AT-X 12-24mm AF PRO DX or Sigma 18-50/2.8 EX DC. My budget is ?500 approx…. unless I take advantage of the dollar and import from NYC :wink:
Has anyone got an opinion on the above or, perhaps, a better option.
Go raibh maith agat.
Not sure that you’re comparing like with like. The 12-24mm is perfect for landscape
due to its wide angle capability. The 18-50mm at 2.8 is nice and bright and because of that
and its range probably a better walkaround lens.As I say, not really comparing the same type of lens there.
I should say that I’m not a Canon user and so haven’t used either of these guys.Just my thoughts on it :)
Thanks
Agree with Mark about not comparing like with like. Don’t have the sigma you mentioned but have the Tokina. Its a super lens very sharp and extremely well built. Another option in the 12-24 area is Sigma’s 10-20. It gets great reviews also. The 12-24 and 10-20 is very much a landscape lens but can be used for other stuff
M
Martin wrote:
Agree with Mark about not comparing like with like. Don’t have the sigma you mentioned but have the Tokina. Its a super lens very sharp and extremely well built. Another option in the 12-24 area is Sigma’s 10-20. It gets great reviews also. The 12-24 and 10-20 is very much a landscape lens but can be used for other stuff
M
Thanks for the replies. I realise that I was comparing apples with oranges! I was in town on Saturday on a browse and these two lenses bowled me over!
I have just been reading about the new Sigma 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 DC OS AF (Optical Stabilizer) in the October edition of Popular Photography & Imaging which was in the post box when I got in tonight. Perhaps, that would give me the range at the right bang for the buck!
I can see now why some guys have four or five lenses!
You’ll get it around town for less than ?400. Excellent walk around lens & extremely sharp.
http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp?id=3315&navigator=6
carpedeum wrote:
Martin wrote:
Agree with Mark about not comparing like with like. Don’t have the sigma you mentioned but have the Tokina. Its a super lens very sharp and extremely well built. Another option in the 12-24 area is Sigma’s 10-20. It gets great reviews also. The 12-24 and 10-20 is very much a landscape lens but can be used for other stuff
M
Thanks for the replies. I realise that I was comparing apples with oranges! I was in town on Saturday on a browse and these two lenses bowled me over!
I have just been reading about the new Sigma 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 DC OS AF (Optical Stabilizer) in the October edition of Popular Photography & Imaging which was in the post box when I got in tonight. Perhaps, that would give me the range at the right bang for the buck!
I can see now why some guys have four or five lenses!
F6.3 200mm would put me straight off that 18-200mm lens, but then again my focus is sports so anything that slow would not be suitable.
Think about your current kit lens, at worst it’s f5.6 at the long end… do you ever have trouble with that not allowing enough light ?lahinch_lass wrote:
F6.3 200mm would put me straight off that 18-200mm lens, but then again my focus is sports so anything that slow would not be suitable.
Think about your current kit lens, at worst it’s f5.6 at the long end… do you ever have trouble with that not allowing enough light ?Hi Lahinch_Lass,
You mention sport. I take a lot of sports photos, football and hurling in particular. What lens would you recommend? My quality to date is quite mixed – http://pix.ie/spetherbridge/albums My best shots have been with my 75-300mm at about 150mm.
I haven’t used Canon’s EF 10-22 or the Sigma, but I can say with authority (having investigated shots taken by a friend very close up with a Fuji S3) that the Tokina is rubbish at the edges unless stopped down hard. It’s just very smeary and lacking any sort of detail. It’s OK in the middle.
I think all those superwides made for crop cameras are severely compromised at the edges, relying on the “Wow! That’s wide” field of view to make users ignore the abysmal edge resolution.
SteveFE wrote:
but I can say with authority (having investigated shots taken by a friend very close up with a Fuji S3) that the Tokina is rubbish at the edges unless stopped down hard
mmm…I find this lens quite good at the corners (this is basically the Pentax 12-24 in different clothes). Your friend might have a bad sample
Many thanks for the replies and PM’s.
I went fror the Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 DC Macro lens . It arrived today and looks the dogs, though I will push it to the limit on a field trip hopefully over the next few days.
The Tokina 12-24 is on Santa’s list!
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
