Tokina 80-400 AT-X vs Canon 55-250 IS

[futureal33]

Hi all,

I currently own a Canon 55-250mm IS lens, and am very pleased with the IQ it produces, the only thing I dont like so much is the limiting range of 250mm. I was looking through most pictures taken with this lens and they are nearly all at the 250mm limit... which suggests to me I need something a little longer.

Prices soon get silly as you go above 300mm, and things such as the Canon 100-400L although very appealing, are just too expensive for a hobbyist such as myself!
I have looked at many options, Sigma 50-500, 120-400, 150-500 - all of which look good.... but again the prices are around £650, which is nearly Canon 100-400L territory.

Which brings me onto the budget priced Tokina 80-400mm AT-X lens...an amazing focal range, and most reviews say it is soft wide open, but when stopped down to F8 soon becomes very sharp.

As I am used to using a telephoto lens with IS, will I miss not having it? Edit: I will mostly be using this lens WITHOUT a tripod

Most shots I took the other week when using my 55-250 were at around f7.1, ISO 500 and 1/1000 - and they came out nice and sharp. If I was using the Tokina I would probably have to consider using ISO 800 or 1000 in order to get the aperture upto F8-11 and shutter speed above 1/800 (which is what I reckon I would need in order to keep it steady without having IS and at 400mm zoom)

In your opinion, would I be better saving up money and getting something a few months down the line with IS/OS (Canon/Sigma) such as the 100-400L or 50-500Bigma, or would the Tokina 80-400 suffice?

Bear in mind please that I only very rarely use my telephoto lens... I have actually only used it one day this year (safari park trip), and normally I prefer landscape photography hence wouldnt be using the telephoto!

Thanks for any help!

 

[AndyB1976]

Hmmm interesting question.

I've been having similar thoughts about my 55-250 being a bit on the short side but I can't really justify the cost for an extra 150mm and the convenience of the small lens.

I am pretty happy with the IQ of it, the IS is also rather good and it packs down to quite a small size. This is useful for me as I can 'take it just incase' whereas a 100-400/500 range might need to be specifically taken or left if its too bulky. (I have a slingshot 102 bag holding a 500Dgrip, 10-22mm, 100mm, 18-55mm and the 55-250mm)

As you have said you might need to increased the shutter speed to coincide with the increased focal length as well as push the ISO to compensate for exposure - this to me seems like a bit of an overall squeeze on the equipment. I wonder if you will have fewer 'keepers' than maybe cropping in on a 250mm shot?

I usually always end with my decision on the 100-400L. I've read it is the best and going forward I am trying not to compromise on any of my kit because at the back of my mind I will always be thinking "did I miss that shot cause I had the inferior lens". However, like you I don't have frequent occurrences of requiring that focal length, possibly even leaving it behind.

It will be good to hear what the others suggest as I often go round and round with this question myself so hope you don't mind my reply even if it is more of a question than an answer :bonk:


Andy

 

[scottthehat]

save your money and o for a 100-400mm canon or the bigma os,
i love my bigma its awsome.