camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

In the past I had a Tokina 80-200 f2.8 and I am in agreement with the gentleman that stated it is a sharp lens. I also had a 12-24 f4 and its performance was also excellent. I have a Sigma Art lens, it is the 60mm f2.8 for use with my Olympus. Very sharp lens, well built.
I had a Tamron lens in the 60's, I believe it was a 135mm f2.8. The lens was not built like lenses of today but it did not fail me. It also was sharp.

Today it is a totally different story. All manufacturers are using excellent glass with technologies such as nano coating, LD glass and aspherical lenses. When it comes to tolerances and quality control the premium lenses made by independent manufacturers compete very well with those made by camera companies and usually at a fraction of the price.

I favor the lenses made by the manufacturer for their cameras but I have nothing against using independent lenses. Zeiss makes independent lenses and Leica makes lenses for use with Panasonic cameras. I bet nobody will argue that both companies make quality optics.
Olympus and Panasonic share their lenses and I have been using Panasonic lenses with my Olympus with no issues. I believe Panasonic lenses are of excellent quality also.

If you can use the lenses the manufacturer of your camera makes that is your best bet but if in a budget nothing wrong using independent lenses.

bkwaters

IMHO, for Sony E, Tamron lenses are fantastic. They are sharp, focus is accurate and quick, and the newer ones allow for firmware update attached to the camera body. Reviews suggest they are as good as Sony brand lenses.

keywest305 Loc: Baltimore Md.

I have Tokina Tamron and Nikon. My Yamron are the G2 series and are incredible IMO. They are built solid fast and sharp. My Tokina 100 2.8 is also sharp and built well. I have no complaints.

starlifter Loc: Towson, MD

I have 4 Tamron. The 15=30, 24=70, 70=200 all 2.8 and G2 versions. I also have the 150=600 also G2. I feel anyway they have excellent optics and build quality. The 15=30 is almost at the top of my list. It is tack sharp across the view and believe it or not is bigger and heavier than the 24-70. I use them on my D850 with very nice results.

cmc4214 Loc: S.W. Pennsylvania

Bad memory this morning, I also have a Tamron 150-600 G2, sharp in good light, autofocus is good in good light, hunts a lot in dim light....what I could afford at the time.

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

Tokina makes great lenses, Sigma and Tamron have greatly improved over the last decade, personally I am a fan of Sigma Art lenses, they are the professional line of Sigma I own several of their primes that I feel compare very positively to the Canon L series. The Tokina's that I have experience with have great optics for their price point but I still prefer the Sigma Art line though it is pricey, not quite as pricey as OEM products but certainly not inexpensive.

jlg1000 Loc: Uruguay / South America

It can't be answered in general... but only as a lens by lens comparison.

It could happen that for a particolar type of lens, Sigma is the best, while for another, Tokina is the best, and so on.

It could happen that a newer version is superior and outperforms the older versions of all...

Read all specs and reviews, watch YouTube, download sample photos *for the of lens* you want to buy and decide for yourself .

cjc2 Loc: Hellertown PA

I have owned several WONDERFUL Sigma ART lenses over the years, including the Sigma ART 135/1.8 I still own. Never been that pleased with the build of the other two. YMMV. Best of luck.

kymarto Loc: Portland OR and Milan Italy

It entirely depends on the actual lens. All three have some stellar lenses (sometimes superior to OEM). Build quality also somewhat depends on the class of the lens.

kymarto Loc: Portland OR and Milan Italy

Lenstip and Optical Limits both offer in-depth lens reviews, and DXO Mark as well.

mikegreenwald Loc: Illinois

All three of the manufacturers you name, like the OEMs, make top of the line lenses and economy lenses of lesser quality. I have experience with Sigma Art lenses, and they have been excellent.
As with everything else, the top of the line are better than economy models and more expensive. Newer lenses are usually better than older models as CAD has improved all levels, and years of experience and experimentation has led to many improvements. Competition helps too.

keywest305 Loc: Baltimore Md.

Tamron G2 series really stepped it up. I have the 15-30 24-70 70-200...no regrets

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

None of the above. My choice is Nikkor, Zeiss, and Schneider.
--Bob

kpmac Loc: Ragley, La

I have a Tokina 100mm macro which I really like and a Tamron 150-600 G2 which I also like. I think there are better lenses out there but they are much more expensive and these two lenses serve my needs quite nicely.

spencehg1

Based on cameras and lenses in use every week for macro 1:1 to approximately 1:4 on sensor for detailed archaeology and geology documentation, on Nikon D5200, D600, D810 and D850 camera bodies I use
2@ Nikon 40mm micro (on DX)
Nikon 60 mm micro (on DX and FX)
Tamron 90mm macro (DX and FX)
Nikon 105 mm Micro (FX)
Sigma 150 mm macro (FX)
Tamron 180 mm macro (FX)

The subjects are fine sand grain level detail on the order of <~ 0.1 mm
I would rate the resolution on the same subjects and scale
#1 Nikon 105 mm (clearly superior)
#2 Tamron 90 mm (big surprise after a lot of testing and use)
#3 Tamron 180 mm (even bigger surprise) but at this scale and for our subjects, no choice but to use focus shift and focus stacking
#4 Sigma 150 mm same issue with focus shift and focus stacking (Helicon)
#5 Nikon 60 mm
#6 Nikon 40 mm (DX only)

So far, I find the Tamron and Sigma lens to have equivalent build to the Nikon 105 and 60mm