Tamron or Sigma?

[TIGGER1981]

Tamron or Sigma lenses? comments? Opinions?

Are these cheaper because...well, they are cheap?

I'm looking into the 18-200mm lens for a D40 and wow what a price difference.

Should I just avoid these brands altogether?

 

[Nikel]

I have the Tamron 28-75mm 2.8 for Canon, and I love it. It's plenty sharp. No complaints at all. I've heard it probably won't lasst as long as the Canon L glass, but for 1/4 of the price, I'm cool with that. Esp when we're talking about owning multiple copies of the lens. I can get the 4 I want for the price of one. (My complete set of gear will include a back-up of everything I use when I'm shooting weddings, plus a set for my dh now that he's becoming my second.)

 

[TIGGER1981]

Is there a website that tells you what lenses are compatible with certain cameras?

 

[handicap18]

Tamon & Sigma both make great lenses. They also both have bla lenses. It depends on what lens your looking at.

I have the Tamron 90mm f/2.8 SP Macro and LOVE it. VERY sharp.

I also have the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 EX DC HSM and also LOVE it. I love the wide aperture and the focal length. I have also found it to be very sharp and haven't noticed much of an issue on the edges like it can sometimes have.

The 18-200/18-250mm lenses are good. Not as good as the Nikon version, but still good. I believe the Sigma now has OS (their version of VR).

I believe that both Sigma & Tamron have their lenses available for all the major camera makers. Just make sure when you buy one you get it in a Nikon mount. I know the 30mm f/1.4 is available for Nikon, Pentax, Canon & Olympus. Not sure about Sony.

Take a look at Pixel-Peeper. You can see specific images take with specific lenses. I believe you can also narrow it down to specific body and lens if you click on the Advanced Search link.

 

[fitzperry]

When I got my first dslr about 3 1/2 years ago, I was convinced I'd never put third party lenses on it. Well, I'm singin' a different tune these days. I agree with Kyle that the third party guys offer some great lenses and some not so great ones. Then again, so do Canon, Nikon and Pentax, etc.

Based on what I've read, the third party lens manufacturers seem to have somewhat more lax quality control standards. I've read many reviews on various sites from people complaining that their first copy (or first 2 or 3 or 12 copies) of this or that lens were soft or something and that the manufacturer replaced or repaired it, and now it's great. (Personally, I believe that some of these people are full of hot air and won't accept the first one just so they have something to complain about and can brag about how their superior eye caught the problem, but I digress).

That said, I think it's possible to get a lot more bang for your buck with third party lenses if you're careful and know what you're looking for. I started considering the third party options when I decided I wanted an f/2.8 zoom. Like the above poster, I have the Tamron 28-78 f/2.8, but for Nikon. IIRC I paid less than $400 for it. A comparable Nikon lens would have set me back at least $1200. Is the Nikon better? Probably, but I doubt it's 3x better. The Nikon is probably more solidly constructed to withstand the rigorous use a pro might put it through. It might also be a little better optically, but the reviews on that Tamron compare very favorably to the far more expensive Nikons with similar specs, and I've been pretty pleased with it. It's dead sharp and produces very nice colors. I'm also looking to add a wider angle zoom and will likely purchase the Tokina 12-24 in the near future.

So, my advice is to read a lot of reviews and just be a careful consumer. Here are a few places to start: http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/, http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/, http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/index.php.

 

[TinksDH]

I just purchased the Sigma 18-200 OS HSM, and am very satisfied. I am using it on my Nikon D50, where it replaced my Nikkor 24-120 AF-S VR. The Sigma is sharper, more contrasty, and the OS works better than the VR, which is VR-I. It was $200 cheaper than the Nikkor counterpart. I am very pleased.

Here are some shots from Cozumel taken with the D50 and Sigma 18-200.

http://www.flickr.com/gp/8078549@N07/3y0G2b

 

[Groucho]

I don't think it makes sense to have a "no third party lens" rule, there are too many interesting options and often relative bargains. And every manufacturer has some better lenses and some not-so-good lenses.

Note also that some lenses are the same. I'm most familiar with the Pentax examples obviously... Tokina and Pentax have worked together on a small handful of lenses, with the Tokina 10-17mm fisheye and 16-50mm F2.8 being Pentax designs with Tokina bodies and coatings. Pentax also has the Tamron 18-250mm sold under their own name (with improved coatings and supposedly some optical tweaks, but not sure about the latter), and I think their 12-24mm is actually the same as the Tokina but I don't remember if it's a Pentax or Tokina design.

I have definitely read of a few Canon lenses being rebadged from third-party manufacturers but I don't remember specific examples off the top of my head. I would suspect the others have also rebadged a lens or two in their day. No shame in it if it's a good design.

Anyway - Nikon's 17-55mm F2.8 is $1,200. IMHO, you'd have to be nuts to not at least consider the Tamron 17-50mm F2.8 for $450 or the Tokina 16-50mm F2.8 for $650. A quick glance at Photozone.de indicates that the Nikon and the Tokina really aren't all that far apart in quality.

That Tamron 90mm that Kyle mentioned is definitely known to be a great lens.

 

[Gdad]

I have never been a Tamron fan- I had the 18-200 Tamron and played with the 90mm Macro in the store once and did not buy it. Both lenses seemed kind of slow and noisy to focus IMHO. IQ however I had good results and have seen stunning work from the 90 Micro.

Sigma I had the 10-20 and thought the build quality was great- I oonly sold it because I wanted a fisheye. I also recently got the Sigma 30/1.4 and again am impressed with the lens. I am really thinking about the Sigma 120-300/2.8 as my next big purchase.

 

[Gdad]

Sigma D40 Lenses --> http://www.sigmaphoto.com/news/news.asp?nID=3289

 

[LMarge]

Thanks Jeff for the Sigma link, however does anyone have one for the Canon compatable lens? - specifically the Xti? For some reason, my browser wouldn't let me link back to the Sigma home site.

Sorry, but I have a couple other questions. About the Tamron 90 mm f/2.8 -- how do you think that would work for gymnastic shots -- using the foot zoom of course!?
Thanks,
Marge

 

[jann1033]

i happened to just read a review for the tamron 18-250 f3.5-5.6 dill LD, digital photographer gave it a 84% and 10/10 for value they also reviewed the tokina atx pro dx 16-50 f2.8 and gave it an 88%..however both have some chromatic aberration and the tamron has zoom creep which is annoying...

i have a tokina lens i like and a tamron teleconverter which is great....but the tokina has bad bad bad purple fringing...like so bad i can't use the photos in color from it( although maybe i am freakishly annoyed by pf, wouldn't be the first thing i am freakish about i think i am going to call and see if they can do anything to fix it) the tamron wouldn't give you the low light you want though.

if you go with a sigma i'd go with a pro, i had a really bad sigma lens and like anything else i think if you go to cheap there is usually a reason why.

 

[jann1033]

Thanks Jeff for the Sigma link, however does anyone have one for the Canon compatable lens? - specifically the Xti? For some reason, my browser wouldn't let me link back to the Sigma home site.

Sorry, but I have a couple other questions. About the Tamron 90 mm f/2.8 -- how do you think that would work for gymnastic shots -- using the foot zoom of course!?
Thanks,
Marge

i think jeff posted that since the op needs a lens with a focus in it. you don't have that problem with the xti so any of their lenses would be fine for you.( unless you find some ancient pre ef lens on ebay at least)
heres' a fredmiranda link for sigma..i agree with fitzperry though.. it kills me when they say "not L glass" when reviewing a $300-400 lens,I feel like commenting, well duh, why do you think it's $300
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/index.php?cat=46

 

[fitzperry]

Thanks Jeff for the Sigma link, however does anyone have one for the Canon compatable lens? - specifically the Xti? For some reason, my browser wouldn't let me link back to the Sigma home site.

Here is a chart listing the various Sigma lenses and the camera mounts in which they are available: http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_chart.asp.

The focus motor issue is the reason for the D40 specific page--i.e., not all the lenses available in the Nikon mount will autofocus on the D40.

 

[Gdad]

the tamron has zoom creep which is annoying....

The Tamron 18-200 I had would creep but it had a lock on it so you could prevent that when carrying around. More than I can say for the 3x more expensive Nikon 18-200vr (AKA Der Creeper) model which I also sold.

Anyway - Nikon's 17-55mm F2.8 is $1,200. IMHO, you'd have to be nuts to not at least consider the Tamron 17-50mm F2.8 for $450 or the Tokina 16-50mm F2.8 for $650. A quick glance at Photozone.de indicates that the Nikon and the Tokina really aren't all that far apart in quality.

I have never tried the Tamron or Tokina but I must say the Nikkor 17-55 is a phenomenal piece of glass. The focus motor is so fast/silent/smooth I honestly thought it was not even working right- I had to go back and forth a few times focusing on near and far objects to say- wow- it's that good. And the images from it are yummy as well- not sure if Photozone has a yummy graph.

 

[jann1033]

not taking into the yummy factor the graphs in the reviews i saw put them both pretty equal a f4(around 1400) and 22 ( around 1200, although the tokina chart said for 200-500mm thinking they meant 20-50 maybe) although at f2.8 it was way down to 600-800 ( tokina) so not sure how usable you'd find the f2.8 to be

 

[handicap18]

Thanks Jeff for the Sigma link, however does anyone have one for the Canon compatable lens? - specifically the Xti? For some reason, my browser wouldn't let me link back to the Sigma home site.

Sorry, but I have a couple other questions. About the Tamron 90 mm f/2.8 -- how do you think that would work for gymnastic shots -- using the foot zoom of course!?Thanks,
Marge

I think that might make a very good lens for your situation. IQ is excellent and the copy I have has a very good AF. I haven't used it in an indoor sports environment, but have used it wide open at 1600 with low light indoors and got some nice results.

I got my copy used at keh.com. What lens are you using now? I still might want to lean towards the Canon 85 f/1.8, but in the end its going to depend on how well lit the gymnasium is. You'll want at least a 1/125th if not a 1/250th shutter speed to stop the action.

 

[Anewman]

Sorry, but I have a couple other questions. About the Tamron 90 mm f/2.8 -- how do you think that would work for gymnastic shots -- using the foot zoom of course!?
Thanks,
Marge

For indoor sports F/2.8 is OK but there are faster primes in the same price range(or lower).

I would also consider the Canon 85mm F/1.8 or the 100mm F/2.0

 

[LMarge]

For indoor sports F/2.8 is OK but there are faster primes in the same price range(or lower).

I would also consider the Canon 85mm F/1.8 or the 100mm F/2.0

Thanks everyone - actually the 85mm f/1.8 is what I've been eyeing - just need to make a commitment to something! I had not thought about the 100mm, I'll look at that as well.

I'm currently using a friends Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 - which has been okay - but there are some focus issues with it - seems to stuggle with tracking and refocusing alot - it is an older lens so that may be why. When I manage to get spot on with it - it's great! But when it's not --- it's really not!
And I use a monopod to help with the camera shake thing. This past weekend dd had a meet in Kentucky, and for some reason, the lens kept wanting to focus past her - this happened in a lot of my shots, but that may have been my fault as well. I need to sit down and go thru and look at where the focus points were on the prints. Thank you again everyone for your help and suggestions!

 

[Groucho]

i happened to just read a review for the tamron 18-250 f3.5-5.6 dill LD, digital photographer gave it a 84% and 10/10 for value they also reviewed the tokina atx pro dx 16-50 f2.8 and gave it an 88%..however both have some chromatic aberration and the tamron has zoom creep which is annoying...

You're probably unlikely to find any zoom lens that goes as wide as 16mm that doesn't have some CA... I think that it's kind of a fact of life at that point, if you're lucky you'll get less but probably won't get none.

My Tamron 28-75mm does have some zoom creep, probably more than any other lens I have. It's never been an issue when shooting, but I certainly wouldn't mind a slightly tighter zoom ring. But the IQ is good and from nearly all reviews, it's sharper and lighter than the comparable Sigma, so I'm pretty happy with the choice.

I have been thinking a little about replacing it with the Pentax 16-50mm F2.8 some day, which is optically about the same as the Tokina (Pentax design) but with Pentax's coatings, casing (weathersealed, very nice), and Pentax's ultrasonic focusing. I dunno. I've spent way too much lately on camera equipment for a while, so I think I'm stuck with what I've got for now.