Tokina & Sigma "Pro" Lens opinions

[snapple]

Well since I own a Canon and wouldnt touch a Nikon with a ten foot poll, I think you Nikon folks would be at a disadvantage when it comes to being envious. I have Canon lenses currently but have looked at Sigma...mind you not every lens has to be PRO, some aplications such as a walk around vacationing lens dont have to be $1200+ .

Keep in mind folks, everybody uses their cameras for different purposes. If I tried to make a living off of shooting I would invest in the best lenses I could purchase for each application I was using it for. As a hobby I might prefer to by a lesser priced lens to invest in another aspect of photography, ie: new case, light stand, soft box, travel expense, etc

I liked the comment about being secure with the size of his penis...I know I am too and dont have to have my canon logo on everything...even though it is superior gear [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
Well since I own a Canon and wouldnt touch a Nikon with a ten foot poll, I think you Nikon folks would be at a disadvantage when it comes to being envious. I have Canon lenses currently but have looked at Sigma...mind you not every lens has to be PRO, some aplications such as a walk around vacationing lens dont have to be $1200+ .

Keep in mind folks, everybody uses their cameras for different purposes. If I tried to make a living off of shooting I would invest in the best lenses I could purchase for each application I was using it for. As a hobby I might prefer to by a lesser priced lens to invest in another aspect of photography, ie: new case, light stand, soft box, travel expense, etc

I liked the comment about being secure with the size of his penis...I know I am too and dont have to have my canon logo on everything...even though it is superior gear [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]


Well,.....I actually shoot w/ Canon.. and all Canon glass.. [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

JP

[ QUOTE ]
You may get all sorts of answers. I use the Sigma 70-200 2.8 for a lot of my glamour work and it appears to be the full equal of the Canon L lens and independent reviews seem to confirm that. But suppose the OEM lens are better than the Sigmas or Tokina, etc. The question is how much better and is the "how much better" worth the price difference. I generally see only 5% or less difference between the best end results between the lens. Is 5% better worth 50% higher price or more?
Cheers,
rfs

[/ QUOTE ]

We should drag Marc Grant in here to tell about his Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 lens stories.... Marc owns a now broken 70-200 f2.8 L lens... and has been using a 70-200mm f2.8 HSM as a back up.. Ask him sometime how it compares to his 70-200mm f2.8 L lens.. [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

JP

[stevenD]

[ QUOTE ]
I liked the comment about being secure with the size of his penis... [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

yeah, that was funny, I'd say that too if I couldn't afford "L" Glass

[Mark_Thomas]

Last week we did a test between Canon Glass and the Sigma Equivalents. The 300 2.8 being one of them. The difference in contrast, saturation and sharpness was a lot greater than we expected. The Canon glass won hands down in every aspect except price. If you want sharp, saturated images then go with the best. You do get what you pay for. Remember that people see image quality differently. Take pics of the same thing under the same circumstances and judge for yourself.