Tokina vs Sigma vs Tamron vs Minolta vs Sony, new lens time

ThomasH

ThomasH

Messages
63
Edit My Images
Yes
I have decided to stick with just one camera format. In so I have sold off all my Canon kit and selling off all my Nikon kit. But now I would like to fill a gap in my A mount lens bank. I am after a fast telephoto in A mount mostly for sports photography. The options I have found so far are:

Tokina AT-X 80-200 f2.8
Tokina AT-X Pro 80-200 f2.8
Sigma 70-200 f2.8 APO
Sigma 70-200 f2.8 APO HSM
Sigma 70-200 f2.8 APO HSM OS ( really OS on Sony?)
Sigma 75-200 f2.8-3.5
Tamron 70-200 f2.8 ( no idea what all the variant codes indicate ?)
Minolta 80-200 f2.8
Minolta 70-200 f2.8 SSM
Minolta 200 f2.8
Minolta 70-210 f4
Sony 70-200 f2.8 SSM
Sony 70-200 f2.8 SSM II

Does any one have any experiences with these? I know the one I would like to have the most the Sony 70-200 f2.8 SSM II but sadly there rather expensive even used. I don't know if I should buy a cheap lens to tide me over until I can afford the Sony or buy a mid range lens that can probably do everything the Sony can at a fration of the cost. I actually really fancy giving the Tokina a go. What would you do?

Thanks
 
Last edited:
One lens in your list stands out and that's the minolta 200 2.8, get the high speed version with the fully adjustable focus limiter. It doesn't get better optically.

I have the above and also the old Tamron 70-200 2.8 which is pretty good (at least on sony) as it has screw drive focus and you get it stabilised.

The new tamron 70-200 usd is even better.


Yes the sigma does have os even on a sony body so you either use the lens os or the body ibis but not both.
 
Thanks for the reply Brazo :)

The older Tamron 70-200 f2.8 appear to sell for around £400+- so are defiantly affordable so may be worth a try. The USD version look to be a lot more expensive. Perhaps a little to expensive.

I almost got the Minolta 200 f2.8 yesterday. The only thing that's putting me off is I would have to get another lens as well to fill the gap. I suppose I could get a 100 or 135 prime to fill in the gap. But then again it all starts adding up.
 
I'm using the screw driven Tamron 70-200mm f2.8 lens in Pentax K mount. Optically it is superb.

Simon.
 
theres a older sigma 70-200 in the classifieds at 300ish

id of gone for it cept im broke :p
 
pingu666 said:
theres a older sigma 70-200 in the classifieds at 300ish

id of gone for it cept im broke :p
Click to expand...

Me too.

Take out the Minolta 70-200 f4 from your list - focussing is slowish, it's not particularly sharp and there's quite a bit of purple fringing. Nice colours, but not one for sports.
 
ancient_mariner said:
Take out the Minolta 70-200 f4 from your list - focussing is slowish, it's not particularly sharp and there's quite a bit of purple fringing. Nice colours, but not one for sports.
Click to expand...

Thank you I have crossed it out. I thought the sigma 75-100 f2.8-3.5 may also have slow focus. I only listed them as they can be had for ~£50 so thought one may do as a stop gap until I could afford a Sony 70-200 SSM. But after reading a few reviews its perhaps not the best plan.
 
ThomasH said:
Thanks for the reply Brazo :)

The older Tamron 70-200 f2.8 appear to sell for around £400+- so are defiantly affordable so may be worth a try. The USD version look to be a lot more expensive. Perhaps a little to expensive.

I almost got the Minolta 200 f2.8 yesterday. The only thing that's putting me off is I would have to get another lens as well to fill the gap. I suppose I could get a 100 or 135 prime to fill in the gap. But then again it all starts adding up.
Click to expand...
I will be selling my own 135 2.8 minolta in the not to distant.

It depends what you really want, ultimately a 70-200 is far more flexible than a prime, the minolta 80-200 is very, very good, loud autofocus though. I would avoid the minolta 70-200 SMS as they aren't much cheaper than the sony version and the SMS unit in the Minolta is old and was the first of its kind and has been bettered since.

Check out the Minolta 200 2.8 on photozone.de better than even the most recent nikon and canon versions.
 
Last edited:
There are a couple of Mino 135 f2.8s on ebay right now (1 has been there a couple of weeks at least) around £200, but a zoom would be more flexible.
 
As already mentioned, if you're happy with a prime, get the Minolta 200 f/2.8, it will be the best.

If it's a zoom you want / need, then the BEST is the Sony 70-200 f/2.8 SSM GII, but it's also the most expensive (by some margin).

I settled for the newer Tamron (70-200 f/2.8 USD - USD is the Tamron equivalent of SSM, a fast, quiet, in-lens AF motor), and am perfectly happy with it, but I've not tried it for Sports - which I'm guessing needs fast AF as well as fast shutter.
 
i have the 70-210 f4 beercan, for motorsports atleast its not the focusing speed, but the accuracy that lets it down, i think you just get some play or slack with some screw drive lenses, think with af-c its too corse a adjustment, the a77m2 might handle it better
 
I'd say get the new Tamron 70-200 (not the cheaper original one). From all the reviews I've read, the new Tamron is nearly as good as the Nikon/Canon if not better in some areas. Factor in price and you're on a winner. Never used the Sony GII but I can't see how you can go wrong with the Tamron.

I have used the original Tamron back when I shot Sony and it was terrible. The IQ was brilliant but the AF was a big fat turd. There's a reason it's so cheap and that's cos it can't focus for toffee.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top