Comments on Tamron and Sigma lenses

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On 9/8/05 4:12 PM, in article Bz3Ue.259$Aa1.235@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net,
"PM" wrote:

> I have a Canon DSLR Rebel XT. I would like to buy a longer lens and have a
> few questions. I'm looking for the best lens in performance for less than
> $500. I'd like to have about the equivalent of the 10X zoom on my old
> Olympus UZ700.
>
> Would a 70-300 any brand be better than a 28-300?
>
> Is a comparable Tamron better than a Sigma?

I bought a Tamron 18-200mm lens produced for digital SLRs that is newly on
the market. It is an outstanding lens - but you will need a tripod at longer
focal lengths.

http://www.tamron.com/lenses/prod/18200_diII_lg.asp

The lens is sharp, exhibits great color balance and is functionally smooth
and efficient. It is easily available almost anywhere for a street price
well under $500. I paid less than $500 for mine at a retail photo store.
Check the online sellers - you won't be sorry.

I won't knock Sigmas, but I chose the Tamron over the Sigma. Others will
surely disagree......

PC

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

I may be one of the few people who has actually used these lenses and
compared them in general use with other lenses.
For most users the new digital 18-200 zooms from Tamron and Sigma are very
good performers. They are not as good as the best zooms with more restricted
focal length ranges made by the camera makers: my Nikon 80-200 f2.8 is
clearly a better performer at those focal lengths. The difference in size
and weight of the two lenses are considerable and the compromises made in
constructing these 18-200 dSLR lenses are pretty reasonable in practice.
They are far better performers than the 28-200/300 range lenses made by
camera manufacturers and others; those are generally among the worst lenses
ever made by major manufacturers. I presume the smaller size of the digital
sensor, compared to 35mm film, is the main reason for this improved
performance.
I was surprised to see the high contrast and sharpness of these Sigma/Tamron
lenses. It is really very good. Distortion is most prevalent at the very
shortest end of the focal length and will likely not bother most users. It
is easily corrected in CS2 if it is bothersome. The distortion at 18mm in
these lenses is slightly more than the Nikon 18-70 and less or no worse than
the Canon kit lenses. Chromatic aberration is lower in these lenses at 18mm
than in the Canon digital zooms and as low, meaning almost negligible, as
the Nikon 18-70.
Distortion is not noticeable at the medium and longer focal lengths and
vignetting is reasonably controlled even wide open at 18mm (not absent but
very minimal) and disappears within a few f-stops.
The reason I know this about these lenses is that I was so appalled
(disgusted would be a better term) by the new Nikon 55-200 (possibly the
worst Nikon branded lens of all time) that I let a salesman talking me into
trying the Tamron and Sigma because of extended travelling plans where
carrying and changing lenses would be impracticable. I have been pleasantly
surprised by the Sigma 18-200 on my D70 (admittedly I shoot raw and sort of
automatically correct distortion when I see it in Photoshop). I cannot blame
the lens for my aethetic shortcomings. I have several hundred exposures
taken in Asia over three weeks, under some extreme conditions, and none are
uncacceptable because of inherent problems in the lens.I would never say the
same about images taken with my 28-200.
When I bought the 18-200 I really thought it would be something I would
regret along the lines of the 28-200 that sits gathering dust somewhere. So
far in comparing general use performance between the Sigma 18-200 and the
Nikon 18-70 there is not a compelling reason to switch to the Nikon (I have
a closetful of high end Nikon lenses and I am not comparing the Sigma to
those lenses).

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Just a quick thoughts...

As PM, I've got a Rebel XT. I've tried on it an "old" (10 years old)
Sigma 28-200. It was working only at wider aperture. Therefore, it is
to take into account that the sigma/tamron lenses we buy today may not
be fully compatible with a new body in some years.
Therefore, if one is starting a lenses bag, it may be worth considering
buying canon lenses. They are a bit more expensive, but once bought,
you get it for life.
Also, in the future, we may have much bigger sensor (full frame sensor
as the 5D...). Then is it really smart to buy lenses optimized for
smaller sensors whereas the one optimised for 35mm works well on
digitals.
Chosing a lense is a very tough choice....

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Vince_Ecosse wrote:

> As PM, I've got a Rebel XT. I've tried on it an "old" (10 years old)
> Sigma 28-200. It was working only at wider aperture. Therefore, it is
> to take into account that the sigma/tamron lenses we buy today may not
> be fully compatible with a new body in some years.

Hm.. Did Canon (Nikon, Minolta, ...) say that all they
future bodies will be compatible with today's lenses?
Especially when there is more and more electronics inside
(e.g. IS)? Yes, it is more probable, but sure?

> Therefore, if one is starting a lenses bag, it may be worth considering
> buying canon lenses. They are a bit more expensive, but once bought,
> you get it for life.

I don't mind 'a bit', but the lenses of equivalent optical
quality often cost the double In other words, if I have
to buy new lenses in a few years, financially it is still
better (money now is more than money in the future, I can
probably sell the old lenses for non-zero price, ...).
And maybe I will want to switch the vendor anyway -
who knows who will be making the camera that suits
my preferences the best in 10 or 15 years?

> Chosing a lense is a very tough choice....

Yes, it is...

Regards
--
Stano

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In message <R6sUe.701$5g.329@tornado.socal.rr.com>,
"IMKen" <imken@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:

>I tried a couple Sigma lens and was very disappointed. One was a wide and
>one was a tel. Both were soft and both had poor color reproduction. I got
>rid of them and went with Nikon stuff.

It would be nice if you stated the exact lenses, instead of painting
Sigma lenses with a wide brush.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Good points, I did not thought about all of that. thanks!

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 23:02:24 -0400, David Geesaman
<dgeesamanIHateSpam@yahoo.com> wrote:

> I'm currently saving for the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 since I have found that
>with my sports photography the f/2.8 aperture and better glass is
>important for so many reasons.
>
> Dave

I'm wondering what kind of DOF would you expect at 200mm and f 2.8 ? How far
away do you normally shoot sports? My fastest lens is about f4 at that mm.

Thanks!