Comments on Tamron and Sigma lenses

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?

Thanks.

On 9/8/05 4:12 PM, in article ,
"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

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.

Don't waste your money. Save another $700 or so and just get the Canon
EF 70-200/2.8L or a 300/4L and be much happier.

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).

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?

Generally, yes, since the 70-300 isn't as much of a zoom range.
However, the 70-300s out there are built rather inexpensively. The
28-300s have somewhat better construction and that might offset it.
The question is this: will you be able to keep a little distance
between you and your subject, such that the 70mm is acceptable?

Is a comparable Tamron better than a Sigma?

Roughly. Just be sure to compare across similar price ranges.

Thanks.

The others are correct in pointing out that the 70-300s out there
(Canon, Sigma, Tamron) are all kinda crappy. I have the Tamron 75-300
and it's not hard to get pics that show its chromatic aberrations and
slower focus. I guess if I had to choose among them the Sigma 70-300 DG
is probably the best choice.
A really great value is the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 DG ($840). It's
excellent glass, and some copies are of similar quality as the Canon
70-200 f/2.8L ($1150). As well, the Sigma 50-500 (the "Bigma") is
another compelling value ($1000). Then you can save up a little more
and get a 1.4x teleconverter and stretch it further.
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

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?

The Tamron AF 28-300 just complemented a Nikon 18-70 on my D70. I've
also got the Nikon 180/2.8 which I prefer for most telephoto-shooting,
but I was looking for a lightweight telezoom for the times where the
size and weight of the 180 would be too much.

Regarding 70-300 to 28-300: I feel that having the extra 28-70 gets me
those pictures that I might miss if I had chosen a 70-300. There's not
always time to go for a lens-change. I considered an 18-200, but I also
wanted the extra 100 at the top.

Quality: Birdman's post (almost) says it all. Both Sigma and Tamron
generally make good lenses. Both brands sometimes make a *really* good
lens and sometimes a *really* bad one. I did some research reading
tests, newsgroups, discussion-forums before going for the Tamron.

What to consider: You might have a camera today with a smaller sensor,
thus getting away with "Digital Lenses" that are smaller than lenses
covering 35mm. The Tamron Di II-series is an example. But in a few
years, you might want a new SLR, and I'm pretty sure that most SLR's
will have a full size sensor. If you buy one of the "Digital Lenses"
today, you can't use it with your next full size SLR. The Tamron 28-300
is a Di-lens, which also covers the full size.

--
erik

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....

"David Geesaman" wrote in message
...
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?

Generally, yes, since the 70-300 isn't as much of a zoom range. However,
the 70-300s out there are built rather inexpensively. The 28-300s have
somewhat better construction and that might offset it.
The question is this: will you be able to keep a little distance between
you and your subject, such that the 70mm is acceptable?

Is a comparable Tamron better than a Sigma?

Roughly. Just be sure to compare across similar price ranges.

Thanks.

The others are correct in pointing out that the 70-300s out there (Canon,
Sigma, Tamron) are all kinda crappy. I have the Tamron 75-300 and it's
not hard to get pics that show its chromatic aberrations and slower focus.
I guess if I had to choose among them the Sigma 70-300 DG is probably the
best choice.
A really great value is the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 DG ($840). It's excellent
glass, and some copies are of similar quality as the Canon 70-200 f/2.8L
($1150). As well, the Sigma 50-500 (the "Bigma") is another compelling
value ($1000). Then you can save up a little more and get a 1.4x
teleconverter and stretch it further.
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.

Speaking of the Bigma, a more compelling value is $ 599.99 which is the
price it's going for now at the camera shop I buy from that also is a huge
eBay dealer - Cameta Camera. It's not the "DG" version ("DG" is the version
with a different lens coating that suppossedly optimizes the lens for
digital) but at that price it is a very attractive deal. It's just not
something to carry around due to it's massive weight, I doubt the OP had
something like this one in mind!
Dave

According to Vince_Ecosse :
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.

Not for all of us. I have quite a few Nikon-F bodies, two N90s,
and a D70. Cannon lenses would not serve any real purpose on those. :-)

However, if you will modify that to "worth considering buying
the body maker's lenses", I could agree with that.

They are a bit more expensive, but once bought,
you get it for life.

Agreed.

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.

The only one which I have which is tailored for the smaller
sensor size is the 18-70mm "kit" lens. And it covers about the same
range as my 28-105mm on a full frame, so I am pretty well covered there.
(I also have a 20mm f2.8 and a 16mm f3.5 fisheye for use on that future
camera with a full frame sensor -- or on the older film bodies.

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

Agreed. And convincing yourself to pay new price for one is
also tough -- especially if you are retired, and on a fixed income.

Enjoy,
DoN.

--
Email: | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---

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