Professional Web Applications Themes

Sigma vs. Tamron for EOS? - Photography

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)....

  1. #1

    Default 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 Guest

  2. #2

    Default Re: Sigma vs. Tamron for EOS?

    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 nal. 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 Guest

  3. #3

    Default Re: Sigma vs. Tamron for EOS?


    "Zach" <zsmithcox.net.nospam> wrote in message
    news:ovotd.70847$GN4.1794okepread02...
    > 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 nal. 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 Guest

  4. #4

    Default Re: Sigma vs. Tamron for EOS?

    you know who maybe wrote:
    > "Zach" <zsmithcox.net.nospam> wrote in message
    > news:ovotd.70847$GN4.1794okepread02...
    >
    >>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 nal. 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.
    [url]http://www.tamron.com/[/url]

    Zach
    Zach Guest

  5. #5

    Default Re: Sigma vs. Tamron for EOS?

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

  6. #6

    Default Re: Sigma vs. Tamron for EOS?

    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:
    [url]http://www.photodo.com/pix/lens/mtf/TASPAF9028MACR.gif[/url]

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

    (Or get a real tack shooter:
    [url]http://www.photodo.com/pix/lens/mtf/MIAF10028MACR.gif[/url]
    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: [url]http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm[/url]
    -- r.p.d.slr-systems: [url]http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm[/url]
    -- [SI] gallery & rulz: [url]http://www.pbase.com/shootin[/url]
    -- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.
    Alan Browne Guest

  7. #7

    Default Re: Sigma vs. Tamron for EOS?


    "Alan Browne" <alan.brownefreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
    news:cp5co3$e6c$1inews.gazeta.pl...
    > 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:
    > [url]http://www.photodo.com/pix/lens/mtf/TASPAF9028MACR.gif[/url]
    >
    > and indeed it is sharper closed down a couple/few stops... for sharper
    > tacks.
    >
    > (Or get a real tack shooter:
    > [url]http://www.photodo.com/pix/lens/mtf/MIAF10028MACR.gif[/url]
    > 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 Guest

  8. #8

    Default Re: Sigma vs. Tamron for EOS?

    you know who maybe wrote:
    > I've got to learn to read these someday. Lower scores are better?
    er, no, [url]http://www.photodo.com/art/Unde7.shtml[/url]

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

  9. #9

    Default Re: Sigma vs. Tamron for EOS?

    "Alan Browne" <alan.brownefreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
    news:cp5co3$e6c$1inews.gazeta.pl...
    > 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:
    > [url]http://www.photodo.com/pix/lens/mtf/TASPAF9028MACR.gif[/url]
    >
    > and indeed it is sharper closed down a couple/few stops... for sharper
    > tacks.
    >
    > (Or get a real tack shooter:
    > [url]http://www.photodo.com/pix/lens/mtf/MIAF10028MACR.gif[/url]
    > 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
    [url]http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com[/url]


    Skip M Guest

  10. #10

    Default Re: Sigma vs. Tamron for EOS?

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

  11. #11

    Default Re: Sigma vs. Tamron for EOS?

    this is an anti Sigma group, you should go ask on dpreview.com forums
    instead.


    "you know who maybe" <nguser2uspamnotAOL.com> a écrit dans le message de
    news:T3ntd.9960$_3.116995typhoon.sonic.net...
    > 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).
    >
    >

    Chuck Guest

  12. #12

    Default Re: Sigma vs. Tamron for EOS?

    Chuck wrote:
    > this is an anti Sigma group, you should go ask on dpreview.com forums
    > instead.
    Compared to some people, not at all...

    [url]http://www.pbase.com/davenit/image/34335656[/url]
    Looks like a Sigma 15-30mm f3.5-4.5 EX Aspherical DG DF

    Cheers,
    Alan


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

  13. #13

    Default Re: Sigma vs. Tamron for EOS?

    Alan Browne wrote:
    > [url]http://www.pbase.com/davenit/image/34335656[/url]
    > Looks like a Sigma 15-30mm f3.5-4.5 EX Aspherical DG DF
    No.
    Juergen . Guest

  14. #14

    Default Re: Sigma vs. Tamron for EOS?

    from the photographer:

    From: Dave Nitsche Date: 07-Oct-2004 11:41
    With me the simplest answer is usually the answer. I dropped my lens and
    shattered the back elements. So I took a 12" spike and broke the front
    element. I then cut an arrow in two and placed it in the lens. Used tissues
    to stick the arrow into the back element to support is.

    I really loved that lens. Thanks for looking... Dave

    [url]http://www.pbase.com/davenit/image/34335656[/url]

    bottom of the page




    Chuck Guest

  15. #15

    Default Re: Sigma vs. Tamron for EOS?

    Juergen . wrote:
    > Alan Browne wrote:
    >
    >>[url]http://www.pbase.com/davenit/image/34335656[/url]
    >>Looks like a Sigma 15-30mm f3.5-4.5 EX Aspherical DG DF
    >
    >
    > No.
    Then what is it chief?

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

  16. #16

    Default Re: Sigma vs. Tamron for EOS?

    Alan Browne wrote:
    > Juergen . wrote:
    > > Alan Browne wrote:
    > >>[url]http://www.pbase.com/davenit/image/34335656[/url]
    > >>Looks like a Sigma 15-30mm f3.5-4.5 EX Aspherical DG DF
    > > No.
    > Then what is it chief?
    28-70/2,8 EX.

    Hugh! ;-)
    Juergen . Guest

  17. #17

    Default Re: Sigma vs. Tamron for EOS?

    Juergen . wrote:
    > Alan Browne wrote:
    >
    >>Juergen . wrote:
    >>
    >>>Alan Browne wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>[url]http://www.pbase.com/davenit/image/34335656[/url]
    >>>>Looks like a Sigma 15-30mm f3.5-4.5 EX Aspherical DG DF
    >>>
    >>>No.
    >>
    >>Then what is it chief?
    >
    >
    > 28-70/2,8 EX.
    See Chuck's posts. I believe the lens reffered to is the lens that gets "shot".
    I may be wrong, trying to id a lens from its look via the Sigma webpage is not
    that easy.

    Cheers,
    Alan

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

  18. #18

    Default Re: Sigma vs. Tamron for EOS?

    Alan Browne wrote:
    > Juergen . wrote:
    > > Alan Browne wrote:
    > >>Juergen . wrote:
    > >>>Alan Browne wrote:
    > >>>>[url]http://www.pbase.com/davenit/image/34335656[/url]
    > >>>>Looks like a Sigma 15-30mm f3.5-4.5 EX Aspherical DG DF
    > >>>No.
    > >>Then what is it chief?
    > > 28-70/2,8 EX.
    > See Chuck's posts. I believe the lens reffered to
    > is the lens that gets "shot".
    > I may be wrong, trying to id a lens from its look
    > via the Sigma webpage is not that easy.
    The lens pictured at
    [url]http://www.pbase.com/davenit/image/34335656[/url]
    is a Sigma EX 2,8/28-70. Period.


    Juergen
    Juergen . Guest

  19. #19

    Default Re: Sigma vs. Tamron for EOS?

    Juergen . wrote:
    > The lens pictured at
    > [url]http://www.pbase.com/davenit/image/34335656[/url]
    > is a Sigma EX 2,8/28-70. Period.
    Say what it is (or you believe it is) without the condescending "period" crap.

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

  20. #20

    Default Re: Sigma vs. Tamron for EOS?

    Alan Browne wrote:
    > Juergen . wrote:
    > > The lens pictured at
    > > [url]http://www.pbase.com/davenit/image/34335656[/url]
    > > is a Sigma EX 2,8/28-70. Period.
    > Say what it is (or you believe it is) without the condescending "period" crap.
    Are you drunken or what??


    Juergen

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

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. The Sigma EX 12-24
    By PDW in forum Photography
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: January 26th, 11:45 PM
  2. Lens suggestions: Tamron, Canon, Sigma, Tokina?
    By Voice Only in forum Photography
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: November 22nd, 05:51 PM
  3. Tamron 28 - 300
    By Warren Prasek in forum Photography
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: August 6th, 09:28 PM
  4. Tamron sp 90 1:1 macro
    By AArDvarK in forum Photography
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: July 23rd, 12:11 PM
  5. Tamron sp 90 f2/8 macro
    By Eyron in forum Photography
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: July 18th, 02:38 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139