Sigma vs. Tamron for EOS?

Since that last thread was so popular ;-)

In general is Tamron glass better, worse or the same as Sigma?

I've never tried any Tamron lenses and was considering trying a 28-75 f/2.8
or even the 28-300 since it seems the magazines rate them so highly (not too
bad on Fred Miranda dot com, too).

you know who maybe wrote:
Since that last thread was so popular ;-)

In general is Tamron glass better, worse or the same as Sigma?

I've never tried any Tamron lenses and was considering trying a 28-75 f/2.8
or even the 28-300 since it seems the magazines rate them so highly (not too
bad on Fred Miranda dot com, too).


I can't comment on the Sigma lenses (I've never owned one but had used
one or two a long time ago); I've used Tamron lenses on both film and
digital and they are absolutely terrific. I currently have the 28-300,
the 19-35 and 24-135 and couldn't be more pleased with the results. I'm
looking to buy the 90mm portrait/macro after my funds start building
back up a bit ;-). I owned the "film" version of it about 18 years ago
and it was one of the best pieces of glass in my arsenal. You can't go
wrong with Tamron glass but as I said earlier, I haven't used Sigma in
many years but I was still more impressed with Tamron back then. Don't
really know what their [Sigma's] quality is like now.

By the way, all are currently being used on a Canon 20D.

Zach

"Zach" wrote in message
newsvotd.70847$GN4.1794@okepread02...
you know who maybe wrote:
Since that last thread was so popular ;-)

In general is Tamron glass better, worse or the same as Sigma?

I've never tried any Tamron lenses and was considering trying a 28-75
f/2.8 or even the 28-300 since it seems the magazines rate them so highly
(not too bad on Fred Miranda dot com, too).
I can't comment on the Sigma lenses (I've never owned one but had used one
or two a long time ago); I've used Tamron lenses on both film and digital
and they are absolutely terrific. I currently have the 28-300, the 19-35
and 24-135 and couldn't be more pleased with the results. I'm looking to
buy the 90mm portrait/macro after my funds start building back up a bit
;-). I owned the "film" version of it about 18 years ago and it was one
of the best pieces of glass in my arsenal. You can't go wrong with Tamron
glass but as I said earlier, I haven't used Sigma in many years but I was
still more impressed with Tamron back then. Don't really know what their
[Sigma's] quality is like now.

By the way, all are currently being used on a Canon 20D.

Of my L glass (17-40, 70-200, 100-400) I've got nothing faster than f/4
except a Sigma 15mm fisheye which is pretty soft at max aperture f/2.8 so I
was wondering if the Tamron was like the Sigma in that it's not very good at
f/2.8, and a general comparison of the company and their standards.

Thanks

you know who maybe wrote:
"Zach" wrote in message
newsvotd.70847$GN4.1794@okepread02...

you know who maybe wrote:

Since that last thread was so popular ;-)

In general is Tamron glass better, worse or the same as Sigma?

I've never tried any Tamron lenses and was considering trying a 28-75
f/2.8 or even the 28-300 since it seems the magazines rate them so highly
(not too bad on Fred Miranda dot com, too).

I can't comment on the Sigma lenses (I've never owned one but had used one
or two a long time ago); I've used Tamron lenses on both film and digital
and they are absolutely terrific. I currently have the 28-300, the 19-35
and 24-135 and couldn't be more pleased with the results. I'm looking to
buy the 90mm portrait/macro after my funds start building back up a bit
;-). I owned the "film" version of it about 18 years ago and it was one
of the best pieces of glass in my arsenal. You can't go wrong with Tamron
glass but as I said earlier, I haven't used Sigma in many years but I was
still more impressed with Tamron back then. Don't really know what their
[Sigma's] quality is like now.

By the way, all are currently being used on a Canon 20D.


Of my L glass (17-40, 70-200, 100-400) I've got nothing faster than f/4
except a Sigma 15mm fisheye which is pretty soft at max aperture f/2.8 so I
was wondering if the Tamron was like the Sigma in that it's not very good at
f/2.8, and a general comparison of the company and their standards.

Thanks


The only [Tamron] lens I've had at 2.8 was the 90mm and it was tack
sharp at any aperture. The ones I own now are either 3.5 or 4.0 but
still just as sharp although the view is slightly dimmer than with 2.8
on down (of course, that'll be the scenario w/ any make of lens). I
don't quite understand what you mean about the general comparison of the
company and their standards. I've never had a problem with any lens
from them either now or from 18 years ago (I just took up photography
again after that time lapse) so I can't speak for customer service or
other entities within the company. You can go to their web site to find
out more about them and what their business practices may entail.
http://www.tamron.com/

Zach

you know who maybe wrote:

Since that last thread was so popular ;-)

In general is Tamron glass better, worse or the same as Sigma?

I've never tried any Tamron lenses and was considering trying a 28-75 f/2.8
or even the 28-300 since it seems the magazines rate them so highly (not too
bad on Fred Miranda dot com, too).


My take on it is that Sigma make a lot of lens models, and Tamron fewer. Sigma
have a few decent lenses; Tamron have a higher % of decent lenses.

Another way to say it is if looking for a third party lens, I would examine
Tokina and Tamron lenses before looking at the equivalent Sigma and I'd make
sure the Sigma was better before selecting it over the other two.

The 28-75 f/2.8 is likely to perform close to the 28-70 f/2.8 from Canon (which
is a fine lens, and should be at over $1100). The Canon is better (and 3x the
price).

The 28-300 is a stay away lens except perhaps for travel where you want memories
but not necessarily the sharpest phots. (I did see a travelogue slide
presentation done with a 28-300 (Sigma or Tamron) and I was impressed. But the
photographer was much above average.)

Were I you, I'd consider something with more range than the 28-75 and better
optics than the 28-300 such as the Canon 28-135 IS.

Cheers,
Alan


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.

Zach wrote:

The only [Tamron] lens I've had at 2.8 was the 90mm and it was tack
sharp at any aperture.

I suggest you photograph your tacks nearer to the center than the edges of the
frame:
http://www.photodo.com/pix/lens/mtf/TASPAF9028MACR.gif

and indeed it is sharper closed down a couple/few stops... for sharper tacks.

(Or get a real tack shooter:
http://www.photodo.com/pix/lens/mtf/MIAF10028MACR.gif
from Minolta (100 f/2.8 macro)).

I'll grant that the Tamron probably has slightly smoother out of focus
background properties than the Minolta.

Cheers,
Alan.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...
Zach wrote:

The only [Tamron] lens I've had at 2.8 was the 90mm and it was tack sharp
at any aperture.

I suggest you photograph your tacks nearer to the center than the edges of
the frame:
http://www.photodo.com/pix/lens/mtf/TASPAF9028MACR.gif

and indeed it is sharper closed down a couple/few stops... for sharper
tacks.

(Or get a real tack shooter:
http://www.photodo.com/pix/lens/mtf/MIAF10028MACR.gif
from Minolta (100 f/2.8 macro)).

I'll grant that the Tamron probably has slightly smoother out of focus
background properties than the Minolta.

Cheers,
Alan.

I've got to learn to read these someday. Lower scores are better?

you know who maybe wrote:
I've got to learn to read these someday. Lower scores are better?

er, no, http://www.photodo.com/art/Unde7.shtml

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...
Zach wrote:

The only [Tamron] lens I've had at 2.8 was the 90mm and it was tack sharp
at any aperture.

I suggest you photograph your tacks nearer to the center than the edges of
the frame:
http://www.photodo.com/pix/lens/mtf/TASPAF9028MACR.gif

and indeed it is sharper closed down a couple/few stops... for sharper
tacks.

(Or get a real tack shooter:
http://www.photodo.com/pix/lens/mtf/MIAF10028MACR.gif
from Minolta (100 f/2.8 macro)).

I'll grant that the Tamron probably has slightly smoother out of focus
background properties than the Minolta.

Cheers,
Alan.

--

Could be a little problematic getting that Minolta lens to fit on his Canon
camera...G

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

Skip M wrote:


--


Could be a little problematic getting that Minolta lens to fit on his Canon
camera...G

I was referring to the sharpness, not the applicability. Plugging Minolta
again... what's the matter with me!?



--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.