No problem. It's a tough and personal call which is more suitable. If you want it as a long portrait lens, the 70-200 is most commonly used. For sports or wildlife, which I decided was what I would most use it for, then I tend to want 300mm or even more.
Sorry to give you so much heartache, but I had to go through it - why should you get an easy ride? ;-) > -----Original Message----- > From: Sylwester Pietrzyk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: 19 November 2002 16:42 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Tokina ATX PRO 80-200 or Sigma EX 70-200? > > > on 19.11.02 10:57, Rob Brigham at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Thanks everyone for advices! > Rob - why oh why did you write this ;-) You made me thinking > again. Ergghhh... I will postpone this purchase. I have > holded Sigma 100-300/4 in shop (sadly no Pentax mount) and it > is really nice beast. Maybe I will give up F2.8 for > versatility? Thanks again, I will let you know later (now, > thanks to Rob much later ;-) what was my decision! > > > > > > The Pentax 80-200/2.8 is supposed to be the best optically > but is ONE > > BIG AND HEAVY MAMA!!! > > > > Optically I think the Tokina and Sigma are fairly close. In my > > opinion the Sigma edges it, and gets critical acclaim just about > > everywhere. The Tokina is often said to be better built, > but I am not > > convinced this has anything to do with durability - it seems to be > > based on the weight and the fact that more metal is used in the > > construction. These days polycarb 'can' be just as good as > metal and > > the Sigma EX range are very good. > > > > I am guessing that most people that buy a zoom in this range will > > value light weight, and if this is the case you need look > no further > > than the Sigma. If you are prepared to carry something > heavy then a > > second hand Pentax 80-200 would be best. To my mind the > Tokina slips > > between the two camps, although may be a good compromise > for some - it > > is certainly a very good lens and is by no means > significantly below > > these. > > > > Of course, you could consider the Sigma 100-300 F4 for more > reach, but > > I guess you have decided against that now... Have a look > if you can > > though - I found it surprisingly not much bigger or heavier > than the > > 70-200. > > -- > Best Regards > Sylwek > > > >
