Tamron or Sigma

[ketan_doshi]

I wish to buy a 28-300 lens, choices are Sigma / Tamron.

Any suggestion?

[frank_bunnik]

In an independent test in a Dutch magazine this month, the Tamron was compared to the sigma. The conclusion was that both optical and mechanical, the tamron was better (in Holland, both lenses cost the same price). However, I would never advice anybody a lens like this. Although the range seems interesting, it is very hard to keep the lens steady at 200 to 300mm. You will need a monopod if you zoom in. Both lenses are not very sharp fully open and need to be stopped down 2 to 3 stops for reasonable quality, therefore limiting you to at least 400 iso film. Also, remember that the little flash that might be built into your camera will not be able to put its flash over your lens, resulting in a dark shadow at the bottom of your photo. Futhermore, the lenses get very long when you zoom to 200-300 mm and thereby destroy the balans on the very light camera's they are often mounted on (eos 300/500 etc.)

 

Why not spend a bit more and buy (secondhand) a 28 or 35mm lens and an 85mm lens? You will get optimum quality when stopped down 1 stop and still very good quality with the lenses fully opened. I made a few wonderful pictures of a young monk in Nepal last year who was lighting small butterlamps at the Bodnath stupa. The only light came from the few lamps he had already lit. By using the 28mm fully opened, 100 iso film and spotmetering, I was able to get a few wonderful shots that would never ever have been possible with the 28-200/300 zoom.

 

By investing in 2 good primes your results will be sharp, show good contrast and therefore you will enjoy your photo's more. I bet that if you buy the superzoom, you will get a lot of unsharp pictures and thus lose joy in your hobby.

[isaac sibson]

Whilst I would echo the other advice given to you, and stay well away from 28-300 lenses, if you MUST have a lens of this type, I'd be rather more inclined to buy the tamron than the Sigma. Tamron have officially licensed the Canon EF lens interface, so there's a good chance that a tamron lens will work with most if not all EOS bodies. Sigma have not licensed the interface, and have reverse engineered it instead, which means there are often problems with compatibility with new EOS bodies.

[todd_evans]

I would advise potential superzoom users to only heed the advice of those who have ACTUALLY USED the new Tamron XR 28-200mm and 28-300mm lenses. My Tamron 28-200mm XR zoom is amazing, and I thought I would be the last person on earth to buy a superzoom. Lots of people on the internet will advise you not to buy one of these superzoom lenses, but only listen to those that have actually used one, especially one of the latest generation ones - they have come a long way.

[ray_harris]

I would like to contribute an answer from someone who has been taking photos for 35 years and has an EOS and a Sigma 28-200mm Hyperzoom. Whilst I echo some of the comments made here (the internal flash does give a shadow over the large lens at 28mm in the lower part of the photo and it can be a bit on the heavy side)I beleive there is a lot of snobbery about Canon versus Sigma lenses. Horses for courses I say. For normal and even creative use the Sigma 28-200 is sharp, displays good colour balance and has no vignetting and minimal curvilinear or barrel distortion to my eye. The Tamron 28-300 won some recent tests and is undoubtedly a good buy, but I have the older Sigma model of 28-200mm. It focuses down to 30mm and is acceptably sharp for normal use even wide open - again photography magazine tests back this us (UK - (Sept?) 2001 Amateur Photographer).

I am sure that if you purchse an $800 lens it will definitely be better and sharper but unless you shoot for a living and/or need to blow your pictures up significantly beyond 10"x8" a Sigma 28-200 is a very visually pleasing lens. My advice is don't be anal about this! The Sigma & Tamrons are both phenomenal value for about £200 or less - but do use a tripod as the gentlemen say if you are shooting regularly at 200mm+ (i.e. not just for quick snaps).

 

btw - I would suggest get a real flash unit for serious photography beyond occasional fill-in flash

 

Ray Harris

[gene_austin]

I have a 3 year old Tamron 28-200 and a brand new 29-300. The 28-200 took fairly good pictures but had an annoying inability to focus closer than 3 feet. The new 28-300 has superb clarity and macro focusing capability. Both use aspherical lens elements which is something not found on all Canon brand lenses. I shot a wedding this past weekend with just the one 28-300 3.5 lens and had the means to get the perfect shot at all times. The Tamron is over $100 more than the Sigma though. I'm happy with my Tamron hyperzoom and give it a thumbs up. Just make sure you don't cut corners with your filter as they charge more for 72mm sizes. I spent $45 for a multicoated Hoya UV but when your starting point is f3.5 you want to make sure you dont lose too much light.