I have been looking into buying a 400mm lens. I have narrowed my decision down to either the Sigma, or the Tokina 400mm. I have used the Tokina lens, and found it's AF speed to be satisfactory with an N90s body. Is the Sigma much slower? Would it be decent with an F100 body? Is the Sigma fast enough to track large birds in flight? I like the fact that the Sigma does 1:3 macro. Is it sharp at that magnification? Does the Sigma have significantly better contrast that the Tokina? Any comments on either lens would be greatly appreciated. -Thanks

-- Nick Stevens (nickstevens@hotmail.com), May 21, 1999

Answers

Haven't used the Sigma yet (though I'm interested, too), but the new version does have the HSM AF drive...

-- Scott (bliorg@yahoo.com), May 23, 1999.

I don't know these 2 lenses but according to MFT charts on photodo Sigma gets the better rating. Check for yourself at:

http://www.photodo.com/

-- Marcus Erne (cerne@ees.eesc.com), May 23, 1999.

I've used a Sigma 400 APO Macro for the last year with a minolta system (700si and recently a Dynax 9). The AF is accectable and is fast with the 9. Manual focusing is OK but switching between AF and MF is a pain, switch on the camera and on the lens. Results are good with little distortion. I have not tried the Tokina

Mike

-- M Mannion (mannionm@aol.com), May 24, 1999.

I have had this lens in a Canon mount for a few years. I have been extremely happy with it. The sharpness at 1:3 is good wide open, although keep in mind that the depth of field will be quite narrow (it is a 400 after all) and gets much better stopped down. I just got back several rolls shot at Ano Nuevo and parks in the Chico, CA area and I am very pleased with the results. I experimented a bit with a very cooperative male western fence lizard and was able to shoot at a variety of f/stops (wide open f/5.6 to f/13) right at the close focus limit of this lens. This lens is sharp (assuming you use proper techniques).

I have found that I use the macro feature a great deal more than I ever thought I would. In California this feature allowed me to capture nice close-ups of western fence lizards and marsh wrens as well as portraits of northern elephant seals. The spatial compression the 400 gives is great for isolating a subject.

The AF speed is adequate for me when shooting birds in flight. Since I try to shoot birds in flight with their side profile, rather than head on, I don't require lightning fast AF. The bigger problem for me is effectively keeping the bird framed properly.

I have not tried the Tokina, although I do know that it does not focus as closely as the Sigma. As far as ruggedness, I have shot with this lens in intense cold and intense heat with everything in between and it has stood up admirably. The tripod mount is heavy duty.

With Canon bodies, it is quite simple to switch between manual and AF (only need one switch right on the lens) with Sigma 400 APO Macro.

For when you are shooting distant subject or close-up subjects it has a focus limiter switch which is very handy. The built in lens shade is rugged and effective.

FWIW, Moose Peterson, George Lepp have rated this lens highly and state that it is capable of producing professionally sharp photos.

NOTE: I shoot with a tripod (except for flight shots), try to use the best long telephoto techniques, occasionally use fill-flash and evaluate slides on a light table with a quality loupe.

-- Yuri Huta (yhuta@essential.org), May 25, 1999.

> The spatial compression the 400 gives is great for isolating a > subject.

Upon re-reading my post I realized how ridiculous this may sound. What I meant to say was that the spatial compression is nice for portrait type shots, while the narrowness of the field of view makes it easier to isolate the subject by being able to choose a variety of different backgrounds by making slight adjustments in camera position.

I hope this doesn't make my explanation more confusing :l

-- Yuri Huta (yhuta@essential.org), May 25, 1999.

I use my Sigma 400mm just for it's macro capabilities. It is a good lens for it's price, but the quality is less than Nikon. It hunts for focus with both the N90S and F5 when trying to photograph birds in flight. The optical quality is good wide open. I took a lot of photos with mine. Take a look http://www.photocritique.net/cgi-bin/photog.pl?NICO+MOSTERT It is not perfect, but it is workable. I just don't like the idea of having to add extension tubes to the Tokina for macro.

-- Nico Mostert (mostert@es.co.nz), September 02, 1999.