Tamron and Sigma Lenses for Professional Work?

Hi,

 

I plan to shoot portrait, fashion and glamour photography and I was wondering how

Tamron and Sigma lenses fair to the Canon L lenses. I am thinking purchasing a

used lens (16 - 34mm range) for this purpose.

 

Are the Tamron and Sigma lenses good for professional work? If so, what are

some good lenses that are on par, or better, than the Canon L lenses?

 

Thanks for your help.

<i>Are the Tamron and Sigma lenses good for professional work?</i>

<Br><Br>

Not all Tamron and Sigma lenses are the same. Some are very well suited to professional work, some are certainly not. Since you're trying to get as good or better than Canon's best lenses, and presumably are asking because you're trying to save money, you've got to know that there are reasons they cost less. Which lenses are you actually looking at? What focal lengths are you considering, what body are you using, and what's your budget? There are a lot of variables at work, here.

The short answer is yes. The longer answer is...... maybe.

 

It is generally accepted that Canon and Nikon make pretty good lenses but even some of theirs fall into the not-so-great category. Likewise Tamron and Sigma, though arguably they have far more lenses in that not-so-great category.

 

Looking at your question, the 16-34mm focal range seems a bit wide for portrait, even more so if shooting full frame. Maybe it works well for some fashion stuff but are you sure about this range?

I wouldn't touch Sigma with a 10 foot pole, I went through 3 of their lens and not one of them focused. No user error, it just wouldn't lock on anything. Now with that said I don't hesitate to use the Tokina ATX Pro stuff, it's as good as Nikon in most cases.

Tokina AF 16-50mm f/2.8 AT-X Pro DX "has very heavy CAs at 16mm and 24mm at large aperture settings - <i>this is rather typical for Tokina lenses.</i>" <a href=http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/Nikkor%20/%20Nikon%20Lens%20Tests/274-tokina-af-16-50mm-f28-at-x-pro-dx-nikon-lens-test-report--review?start=2>link.</a><P>

 

There have been similar reviews.

Not typical for the 4 I own.

<a href= "http://pages.sbcglobal.net/b-evans/Images28/Carnival%202008/">Here are

some pix</a> from last Sunday using a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 Canon mount lens for the

first time.

Sigma has always had a good reputation from an optical standpoint, but in the past they had a bad reputation for construction durability. And of course there is probably more variability in their QC. On the other hand Canon doesn't exactly have a flawless reputation in that regard either.

 

I'm guessing their more expensive "serious" (aka non-super cheap) lenses are probably good bets for long term use. They seem to get good reviews for lenses like the 18-50/2.8 macro and the 30/1.4.

Canon L lens cost a lot more but they keep their value a lot better, I have Sigma, Tokina, Tamron, and several Canon lens including L lens, if you can afford the L lens go with those, if you are in the states buy them new, keep all the boxes, paper, etc. in case you ever decide to part with them. Photozone.de has fairly good reviews on lens.

Anyone who says he won't ever use xxxx lenses, or says "only xxxx lenses are good enough" doesn't understand some important things.

 

All lens makers make very good lenses, and the all make some very weak lenses. You need to learn which lenses are capable of what you want, balance in build quality and specifics of ergonomics, and then think about price and resale value.

 

If a third party manufacturer makes a lens good enough for your purposes, and they all make some that are, then there is no reason to refuse to buy one just on principle. Canon L lenses tend to be very good, and very expensive. They hold value well because people think they are good, and they are well built. They are not, however, the only way to get good image quality.

I was looking at the following Tamron lens:

 

Tamron SP AF28-75mm F/2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical (IF)

 

Right now, I cannot afford to spend the money on an L lens; however, I would like to get very similar image quality within the Tamron/Sigma price range. I'm not sure which lenses are the "good ones" and which one are the "bad ones". The build does not matter as much as I plan to upgrade to a few L lenses in about a year or two; so, which ever Tamron/Sigma/etc. I purchase will have to last at least this long. Being that I shoot occasionally on the weekends, I'm hoping this life span is realistic.

The Tamron 28-75/2.8 is an excellent lens. Take a look at

<A HREF="http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/tamron_28_75.html">this review by Bob Atkins</A> for a comparison with the Canon 28-135 IS, one of the best "consumer" lenses Canon has ever produced.

In the Sigma line there are a number of good choices for what you'd like to do. The

18-50 EX f/2.8 is very sharp, even wide open. Lots of people like the 12-24, but

that's probably more for architecture or landscape kind of work than portraits. It

seems to me like you'd also be interested in the longer lenses for portrait/fashion,

like the new 50mm f/1.4 or the 70mm f/2.8 (which has really nice bokeh) - though I

don't mean to impose of whatever vision you might have in going wide!

<p>

All of those lenses have good build quality, and are quite sharp (disclaimer: Have

not seen tests from the new 50mm so I can't vouch for that but the old one was

quite sharp).

<p>

As others have noted, all camera makers produce good and bad lenses, so it's

important to map out the space a bit before you buy, and preferably look at samples.

One thing that may help in the case of Sigma is a lens sample image gallery under

construction on PBase, here:

<p>

<a

href="http://www.pbase.com/sigmadslr/lens_gallery">http://www.pbase.com/sigmad

slr/lens_gallery</a>

<p>

I have a Canon 70-200 2.8L that I purchased in 1996 that is still functioning like the day I bought it, despite mud, rain, being dropped and a few thousand wedding, sports, and PR photos. I have had a number of second party lenses that were either technologically obsolete or were broken. I no longer buy or use anything but Canon lenses. Maybe some others have improved since my last one. Considering the continuing life of the 70-200 in the long run it is the least expensive for its life cycle cost of any lens I have owned and that has been more than a few.

I'm not sure why so many people are so quick to jump to Sigma and Tamron after spending allot of money on a Nikon or Canon camera ? Why not start with a Sigma camera and get some Canon lenses ?

"I'm not sure why so many people are so quick to jump to Sigma and Tamron after spending allot of money on a Nikon or Canon camera ? Why not start with a Sigma camera and get some Canon lenses ?"

 

Because buying a Sigma camera limits you to Sigma lenses for one major reason. The other is because Nikon and Canon make better bodies too.

 

"Quick to jump"? Who said that? But to rule out their better lenses just because they are not Canon is just snobbery.

Photo Nerd,

 

Yes, Sigma makes some very fine lenses. Their "EX" lenses are designated for professional use and are quite expensive, albeit less so than Canon's or Nikon's professional lenses. If I were buying big telephoto glass (which I don't have much of a need for), I'd probably buy Sigma, because I simply couldn't afford the Canon. However, if price were no object, I'd take the Canon L glass. I own both Sigma EX and Canon L, and to me there is little contest in image quality. Canon's best outperforms Sigma's best. Note that I'm not comparing a cheapo Canon kit lens with a Sigma EX or a cheapo plastic-mount $50 Sigma junk lens with a Canon L. I'm also not discussing that Sigma has a long history of some rather impressive optical innovations, especially in wide angle optics. However, I just don't think they have the quality control that Canon does, even in their EX lenses.

 

I agree about the focal lengths. If you shoot fashion/glamour photography at 17mm or even 34mm -- with either a crop body or a full frame body, you're really going to piss off the models, especially if they're sensitive about the size of their noses or otherwise have body image issues. If you have the room, go with something more in the neighborhood of 100mm for full frame or 65mm for crop frame.