Jump to content

Which lens for me? Sigma versus Tamron


susan_stoneman

Recommended Posts

This is my first GOOD camera (rebel g2)... I have the opportunity to

purchase it with either the Sigma 28-80mm and 70-300mm, or the Tamron

28-80mm and 70-300mm.

 

I basically just want better pictures than with my cruddy old point

and shoot, with the ability to do some nice close-up work when I want.

I haven't found a difference between these two brands other than the

fact that they are just two different brands. ;) Any opinions on which

would work best for me? The package costs the same regardless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tamron and Sigma make some very good lenses. Unfortunatly, a "package" of lenses sold by most camera stores usually contain some of the cheapest lenses made by these manufactures. IMHO, the Canon 28-105 3.5-4.5 USM (NOT THE CHEAP ONE), plus the Canon 50 F1.8 would serve you better than the "package" deal.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

let me rephrase.. i'm getting a package deal, i just want to know which is better than the other. :) I'm sure $500 lenses WOULD be better, but this is a fun thing and on a rather limited budget besides. Maybe one day...

 

I'm thinking the Tamron would be quite nice, the macro ratio is 1:8 compared to the 1:2 of the Sigma, and a few other slight things I've just recently discovered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Susan, one major issue with Sigma lenses is that they often do NOT work at all on Canon bodies that were made after the lens. This is because Sigma "reverse engineers" the lenses without a contract from Canon (so I understand), so whenever Canon comes out with a new body they do something with the connection to make all previous Sigma lenses obsolete. If you can ever imagine yourself upgrading to a new body some day, then I'd get the Tamron. Of course you would probably want to upgrade the lens itself first before a new body. I also would echo the previous poster who recommended looking at adding at least one high quality lens. The Canon 50/1.8 is only $70 brand new and is one of the best optical performers you can buy at any price. If you can work it in any way, it will open a whole new world of low light, snappy, high contrast pictures that inexpensive zooms can't do. Starting out with the zooms AND the 50mm is a really great way to learn photography. Have fun with whatever you get!

 

Del

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<i>I'm thinking the Tamron would be quite nice, the macro ratio is 1:8 compared to the 1:2 of the Sigma, and a few other slight things I've just recently discovered.</i>

<p>The smaller the ratio, the bigger the object is on film. A 1:1 macro ratio means whatever thing you're photographing shows up on film as its actual size. Thus, the Sigma has better macro capabilites in terms of magnification.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not gonna give any specific advice for either brand, they are probably equally good. My instinct (and experience) tells my that either 70-300 lens is actually going to be poor beyond 200mm, especially when doing close-ups, and that you may be better served with skipping the 70-300 zoom entirely and getting Canon's cheap and ultra-light 80-200 f/4.5-5.6. You close-up needs will be better served with the long end of a 28-80 zoom. My experience with a pair of consumer xxx-300 f/5.6 zooms is that they peak between f/11 and f/16 at the long end, meaning that you have very little chance of hand-holding them except with fast film (ISO 400 and faster) in very bright sun. Coming from a point-and-shoot, they're probably very fine, but if you start doing 8x10 enlargements you'll see what I mean.

 

I hope that you'll manage to stretch your budget by $70 at some point to get a Canon 50mm f/1.8. Very few lenses are cheaper or lighter, yet very few lenses are sharper or have more low-light capabilities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not gonna give any specific advice for either brand, they are probably equally good. My instinct (and experience) tells my that either 70-300 lens is actually going to be poor beyond 200mm, especially when doing close-ups, and that you may be better served with skipping the 70-300 zoom entirely and getting Canon's cheap and ultra-light 80-200 f/4.5-5.6. You close-up needs will be better served with the long end of a 28-80 zoom. My experience with a pair of consumer xxx-300 f/5.6 zooms is that they peak between f/11 and f/16 at the long end, meaning that you have very little chance of hand-holding them except with fast film (ISO 400 and faster) in very bright sun. Coming from a point-and-shoot, they're probably very fine, but if you start doing 8x10 enlargements you'll see what I mean.

 

I hope that you'll manage to stretch your budget by $70 at some point to get a Canon 50mm f/1.8. Very few lenses are cheaper of lighter, yet very few lenses are sharper or have more low-light capabilities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I'm sure $500 lenses WOULD be better"

 

I don't recommend $500 lenses for beginners. The Canon 28-105 3.5-4.5 sells for $210 at B&H, with a US Warrenty, after rebate. This is one of the best bargains in photography, and will likely be working fine long after the cheap sigma/tamrons turn into paperweights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are asking yourself that same question that I was 2 years ago when starting with photography.

I decided for tamron 28 - 90 f/3.5 - 5.6 and 70 - 300 f4 - 6.3, 1:4 macro.

You will be probably satisfied with these lenses. Handholding 70 - 300 at the longer end ?

1/250 shutter speed and higher at f/8 - f/16 should give you acceptably sharp images...it's gonna take some practise and a lot of 400 ISO film. Keep them clean, play with them and experiment as much as you can.

Get a tripod, a compromise between sturdiness / weight, something that you woun't leave at home when going out shooting. Forget about Wal-mart.

From a two year perspective ? I ended up selling both lenses and got 24mm f/1.8, 50mm f/1.4, 28 - 135 IS USM, 180mm MACRO.

Assuming that you are on a tight buget, these tamron zooms are certainly a good starting point and may even last you a few years. Sigmas in this category are just as good OR as some might say just as bad.

I suggest that you take something with "macro" feature. 1:4 is great. 1:2 only with a tripod.

There is also an optin to go with a 28 - 300 mm f 3.5 - 6.3 asp zoom from both Sigma and Tamron

or that formentioned 28 - 200mm from canon. All around $ 250 -300, canon $ 350.

Don't get too frustrated...there are many pro photographers on this site that love zooms too ... they take out all the glass elements, stick in some flowers and there you go... a beautiful vase.

 

Have fun shooting

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have the 70-300 Tamron with a Minolta mount and have not been disappointed with the results. It's a great range for portraits and longer sports/nature shots. Much better than your point and shoot and good value for the money. Since I've moved to the Canon 10D I've invested in better lenses but the images I've taken with the Tamron still look fine. The main thing is to extend your photographic experience at the rate that is comfortable for you. You'll learn a lot moving up to an SLR and will benefit most by investing time and money in building your skills and shooting a lot.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...