Tamron, Tokina, Sigma, How do they stack up?

[EdColorado]

I have a number of Tamron lenses in Adaptall mount, and Nikon AF. The ones I have are mostly outstanding lenses. I've never used a lens from Tokina or Sigma though and am curious about how they compare to the best from Tamron. Those of you who have used them, what do you think and what are your favorites?

 

[jp498]

I have no experience with Tamron, but have owned Tokina and Sigma lenses and of course Nikon lenses. Tokina is a good rugged brand of lens for Nikon that performs well optically. I owned back in 1988-2002 a 28-70 2.8 AF and 80-200 2.8 AF. From about 2001 to present I have had a Tokina 300 2.8 sd-af which is rugged and provides beautiful results with film and digital. I had to send in the 80-200 for some work when the d100 came out as it wasn't quite software compatible, and customer service was excellent. I've owned a Sigma 50mm macro lens for about 20 years and it is optically first-rate. It is not built as rugged as the Nikon lens, but is a lot less expensive. If you take care of your equipment, I'm sure Sigma is a rewarding choice.

 

[tkamiya]

I tried a few new Tamron lenses last year. One thing that struck me odd was that sample variations were great and QA seems to be lacking a little. One had great sharpness wide open, the other was visibly soft. One had rough zoom ring and binds, and the other one was smooth. I didn't try a third. I gave up at that point and didn't buy one.

I own one Tokina lens and tried quite many. Build quality is excellent and perhaps on par with Nikkors. They are heavy though. Optically, they tend to be soft and lacks contrast quite visibly wide open on samples I tried. I am aware all lenses do this but degree of which looked excessive in my samples. I bought one because I needed it for a project and it was acceptable.

I love Nikkors. High end lenses have very little sample variations. I compared two 24-70 f/2.8 and they were both very sharp even at wide open. 105mm Micro is just impressive. Consistent QA. I bought one of each. All of my consumer zooms are plastic but they are optically very good. I love them all. An odd one was 50mm f/1.8D. Went though 4 of them and picked the best one. Even then, it was excessively soft even at 5x7 enlargement at wide open. (looked like soft focus lens) I sent it in to Nikon. Came back in 2 weeks and the tech replaced focus assembly, front element, and recalibrated. Now it's great. This was a brand new purchase. How that happened, I don't know....

As you might be able to tell, I am picky about lens and sharpness. I don't make huge enlargements and complain but if I can see obvious problems at 8x10, I have issues with it. I buy fast lens so I can actually use them at those apertures. Some are quite disappointing.

Those are my experiences.

 

[polyglot]

They're like any brand: practically impossible to generalise. Just like the first-name brands, they make some excellent lenses and they also sell cheap rubbish. I guess due to the nature of them being third-party brands, they sell a lot more of the cheap rubbish so that's mostly what you're going to find when you look for second-hand but if you do your research, you can find excellent lenses at good prices.

If you're into AF lenses, check out the dyxum lens database. Anything that anyone made for the Minolta AF mount will be listed in there with detailed reviews and the glass will be identical to those made for other (Nikon, Canon, Pentax) AF mounts (the drawback is that some are only in Nikon/Canon mount but not Alpha, so don't appear in that database).

 

[Ralph Javins]

Good morning, Ed;

All three of those brands of lenses have had some really good lenses, and, some ones that did not really quite make it also.

In the Tamron line, who can forget the first version of the SP 300mm f/2.8 LD IF telephoto lens, the Type 107B, where they forgot to include the small filter at the back of the lens in the optical design. Yes, that lens performed better without the "normal" filter in the holder than it did with it in place. The next year when they put out the Type 60B where the filter was included in the optical design, that lens did much better with the "normal" filter in place. Then there is the performance of the SP 90mm f/2.8 and the SP 180mm f/2.5 where you will go along way to find something that will outrun them in the OEM lenses.

The Sigma people have had a really wide ranging success level. There were a couple of lenses a few years back that produced a bad taste in the mouth of many photographers, but in recent times, there are a couple of their zoom lenses that are really good performers, such as the new 8-16mm f/4.5-5.6 that seems to be very well received in comparison with the earlier 10-20mm f/3.5 and f/4.5-5.6.

The Tokina people (a group of Nikon optical engineers who left Nippon Kogaku, or Nikon, to form their own lens company; sort of a true return to the original roots of Nippon Kogaku) have had some good lenses also, mainly in their ATX series.

All three of these companies have produced some good lenses, and also some that did not really make it, as mentioned. Of the three, the Sigma people probably have had to work the hardest to overcome their past reputation. Tamron has enjoyed a very good reputation as a third party lens manufacturer for years. The Tokina people may have had some difficulty with name recognition, although I am not really sure why.

Now. What do I have? Of those three, mainly Tamron with about 20 lenses. One of them is their new wonder lens, the 18-270mm f/4.5-6.3 lens for digital APS-C sensors. So far, I like it. There are also the SP 90mm f/2.8 Macro lens, the SP 300mm f/2.8 LD IF, and a couple of other well known performers. I started with them with due consideration to the Adaptall-2 mount system and its earlier incarnations, the Adaptall and the Adapt-A-Matic. I have only a couple of lens types where there are lenses from each of the manufacturers, but I do not yet have any really definitive data for making a dispassionate comparison. That might be an interesting task for this coming summer.

Please keep in mind that for any really meaningful comparison, there should be a reasonable size statistically valid sample population. I am not sure that I can make a truly rigorous testing of the lenses that will withstand the scrutiny of knowledgeable people.

 

[nsurit]

I currently have the following Tamron SP lenses; 17mm f3.5, 90mm f2.5, 180mm f2.5, 300 f2.8 and 400mm f4 and can find no reason to not reccommend them. The 180mm, 300mm and 400mm lenses replaced Zuiko lenses of the same focal length in my Olympus OM kit. Each of them is faster than the Zuiko lenses and I feel just as sharp as the Zuikos. I've also owned several Tokina AT-X series lenses and would say they tend to also be good sharp lenses. This is not meant to knock the superb optics produced by Olympus/Zuiko as I have most of their lenses up to the 200mm, however other good lenses were made by others which work well on these cameras. Bill Barber

 

[Rol_Lei Nut]

As others have mentioned, it's almost impossible to generalise and sample variation can be high.

I've used all 3 brands (usually older generation primes). In my experience, Tokina was the one which did best, often with Vivitar-branded lenses (rumour has it that they had better QC).
My 2 samples of the Vivitar 17mm are *much* better than the various Tamron 17mm samples I tried. A "Vivitar" 400mm is also quite decent. I've been very disappointed by the Tamron 300mm f/5.6 (which some say is great), various samples.
My experience with Sigma is simply awful (3 lenses), but they seem to have improved their construction lately.

The best thing would probably be to go to a shop which has several samples of different lenses, shoot with them all and choose the best...

 

[film_man]

I've owned the Tamron 90/2.8 in Canon EF and Nikon F mounts, I've had a Tamron 17-35 for Canon and I also own a 28-75/2.8 for Canon. I have owned a Sigma 50-150/2.8 in Nikon as well in the past.

Basically, the optical quality was pretty much what tests like those in Photozone show. The Tamron 90 was simply brilliant and I preferred it to the Canon and Nikon versions. The performance was the same, I actually preferred the bokeh and overall look of the Tamron over the Nikon and the price was a lot lower.

The 17-35 was a good lens but I wouldn't get too excited about it, it flared quite badly. The Sigma 50-150 mkI was a bit soft wide open, just like the tests said and found the colour a bit too cool for my taste (which I believe is the general Sigma look).

The Tamron 28-75 I now use is brilliant, the scans I get from it are ridiculously sharp and I could seriously see no difference vs my 50/1.8. I might have a brilliant sample, who knows.

Generally I avoided Sigmas because of all the incompatibility stories but I cannot comment any more, never had an issue. And never used a Tokina. So as you can see, there are some brilliant lenses and some not so brilliant.

I know that lots of people say a Canon/Nikon 24-70 is the best thing ever with test charts but I don't really print bigger than 10x8 and I find the price and weight advantage to be significant.

 

[Ian Grant]

The Tamron SP lenses are excellent, like nsurit I have quite a few Adaptall's, from 17mm f3.5 upwards, I laso have two EOS AF zooms These are quite different in terms of quality to the non SP Tamron's which are mostly just average performance wise.

I had some very bad experiences with Sigma lenses in the 70's and found the build quality appalling, it may have changed but I won't buy another.

Tokina/Hoya had a bad time in the 1980's, they launched a wide range under the Hoya brand name which was quietly withdrawn after a few years due to design/quality issues, their multi coating was poor not all elements, some lenses flared badly. They went back to the drawing board and re-launched a totally new range of lenses as Tokina a brand name they already owned. They never looked back

Missing off this list is Vivitar, their aerly Series One lenses wre at the cutting edge when launched, each lens at least as good as the equivalents from the then top 5 camera manufacturers. Also some ground breaking desins, a 28mm f1.9, a fast vari-focal, mirror lenses etc. They outsource manufacture and there can be slight differences between the same lens depending on when manufactured, but the SI's are consistently good.

Ian

 

[ozphoto]

I've had experience with both Tamron and Tokina.

In the Tamron stable:

• 28mm f2.5 - fantastic pin-sharp 28 mm
• 90mm f2.5 macro - superb when combined with the 1:1 converter, and a beautiful portrait lens as well, only sold to buy an EF 90mm f2.8 TSE
• 180mm f2.5 - optically an absolute gem - combined with the 1.4x it was a great 300 f3.5 lens, still have this one, but think I'll be selling her soon as I rarely use her these days.
• 300mm f2.8 IF - comparable to the Canon FD equivalent in all departments and a great 420 f4 with the included 1.4x converter - wish I hadn't sold this baby, but she wasn't getting much use

In the Tokina stable:

• 17mm f3.5 - nice wide angle that gives good results stopped down, just upgraded to the EF 17mm TSE so she'll be up for sale soon
• 28-70mm f2.8 - a good lens, but when it came to being repaired, impossible! Now have a Canon EF 24-70 f2.8 in its place (bargain!!), but even that won't guarantee repairs being ok in later years.
• 300 f4 - nice optics and easy to use, but will be trading her up to a 70-200 f2.8 as she's a little too long for the work I do these days.

Up until the Tokina 28-70mm, I hadn't had any problems with these after-market lenses; that being said, I wasn't able to get a 16-35 f2.8 EF repaired either - parts were no longer available, so buying "Name-brand" doesn't guarantee anything.

They are good alternatives to the main brands, and I'd happily use them again any day and save the extra $$$$ on film (and an air ticket!).

 

[Ian Grant]

Have to agree Nanette the Tamron Adaptal 28mm f2.5 is a superb lensm not sure wy it wasn't an SP as performance is as good as a Nikon, Pentax, Canon equivalent.

Ian

 

[mgb74]

I can't confess to doing any side by side optical testing, but I do like the build quality of the Tamron SP and the Vivitar Series One lenses. Maybe not equal to Nikon/Olympus/Canon/Minolta etc lenses of the same era, but very, very close. And I do feel that you can't have good optical quality over the life of a lens without good build quality.

 

[PentaxBronica]

I picked up a Tokina AT-X 28-85mm with a black Pentax ME Super. I was really after the camera (makes a great low-key pocket SLR with the 40mm f2.8 "pancake" lens) but the lens is a nice piece of kit which I don't use as often as I should. Only criticism is that it focuses backwards compared to Pentax lenses, which causes a bit of confusion when swapping between brands on the same body.

 

[randyB]

I have not been pleased with any Sigma lens that I've tried. On the other hand my Tokina 28-70 ATX f/2.6-2.8 is one of the sharpest zooms I've owned. I also had the ATX 19-35 f/3.5-4.5 which was impressive stopped down to f/8, kinda soft wide open. No experience with Tamron.

 

[narsuitus]

A major advantage of buying a first-party lens is that they are usually high quality. By high quality, I mean that optically the lenses have excellent resolution and contrast; the lenses have minimal optical defects such as barreling, pin cushioning, vignetting, and hot spots; the material used to make the lenses will withstand use and abuse; the quality control used to assemble the lenses assures that all lenses display uniformity in workmanship; and the lens is truthfully labeled (lens labeled 28mm to 200mm is actually that instead of 30mm to 170mm).

I have used Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Miranda, and Fuji first-party lenses. I have been very pleased with all the first-party lenses I have used except for one (a Nikon 43-86mm f/3.5).

Some third-party lenses are made by who have a reputation and a long history for producing high-quality lenses. One of the few disadvantages of these high-quality third-party lenses is that they may not handle the same way as first-party lenses. For example, the focus-control ring or the aperture control ring on a manual lens may rotate in the opposite direction. This only tends to be a problem for photographers who own multiple lenses, some first-party and some third-party. Another disadvantage of these high-quality lenses is that they may not function identically. For example, the auto focus may be noisier or the auto focus search time may be slightly longer.

I have owned and used Sigma, Tamron, Tokina, Kiron, Vivitar, and Soligor third-party lenses. I have been very pleased with all my third-party lenses. They have either exceeded a comparable first-party lens in features and/or quality or they have equaled a comparable first party lens but done so at a lower price.

I look forward to one day trying a Zeiss or Voitländer third-party lens.