Sigma or Tamron - Canadian TV, Computing and Home Theatre Forums

docted · 2010-04-21, 08:42 AM

I have a small sensor Nikon D5000. I plan to buy 3 lenses, f2.8 where possible f3.5/4.5 otherwise. The lenses I am looking to are 10-20 mm., 17-50/70, 70-200.
I want built in motors (HSM?) and vibration control.
I did have a D300 that I sold because it was too large and too heavy. Photography has been a hobby for over 50 years. At one point I had a full wet colour darkroom.
My question is which system you recommend: Sigma or Tamron. I'm leaning toward Sigma because of their auto focusing. Image quality is also important. I currently have 5 lenses that I will sell.

OldScotch · 2010-04-21, 11:57 AM

Both Sigma and Tamron have hits and misses in their lineups, I think it's a Tamron 17-50 that I've seen praised a lot, for the 70-200 I think they're both comparable and I'm not sure about the really wide zooms.

probak118 · 2010-04-24, 02:37 PM

Back 20 yrs ago I had no second thoughts of buying Tamron lenses for my Cannon F1 and S10 SLR. That was all Tamron made, lenses and did a fine job doing it. Sold all manual lenses a long time ago so can't comment much about now. But, if they remained commited as they were previously the performance quality was there and at a lower price.

ScanMan · 2010-04-25, 03:45 PM

docted,

It appears that we're on the same page as far as bulky equipment goes. I've enjoyed my Nikon D80 for several years now and have resisted upgrading because that simply meant moving to a heavier camera. I too found the D300 to be a brick.

For walk-around shooting in RAW, I've recently owned a Canon G10 and S90 (both disappointed), and have recently picked up an Olympus E-PL1, which I'm delighted with so far. To me, it's a fine combination of image quality and portability.

That said, here are the three lenses I use with the D80:
- Nikon 18-70 ED. It's on the camera 90% of the time. Nice and sharp with little CA or distortion. It's my walk-around lens, but if I had the money, I'd put on the 16-85.
- Nikon 55-200 VR. Don't think twice, just get one. It's the best performer for the money.
- Sigma 10-20 HSM. Not cheap, but tack sharp and WIDE. This lens is addicting, and if you're shooting landscapes, you'll never want to take it off.

David Susilo · 2010-04-25, 09:11 PM

I never own a Tamron so I can't comment on the Tamron. However, I've owned several Sigma and Canon lenses since 1992. Without exception, every single Sigma lens I owned failed (broken) after the first year of usage... this includes lenses I used to use before I went pro. So now I'm afraid of buying Sigma lens.

fooit · 2010-05-01, 09:30 PM

I recently got Tamron 17-50/2.8 nonVC version for my Nikon D40 and there's no way I am going back to the kit lens now - it's very convenient to have F2.8 available across entire range.
Ther are two Flikr groups where people share images from VC and nonVC versions of this lens.

I am not sure Tamron 70-200/2.8 is available with VC, but nonVC version has received some good reviews on photo websites. Eventually when I'll need it I will get it.

gordonb · 2010-05-03, 07:02 PM

I can't comment on Sigma vs. Tamron as I have all Canon glass

But I do know that you won't need VR on the 10-20/24 due to the 1/focal length rule of thumb nor would you (normally) need f/2.8 on a wide-zoom. Presumably if you have a f/2.8 street zoom (a 17-?? or 18-??) then you could use that for any fast & wide shooting.

A friend whose judgment I find sound has a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 VR lens and loves it and the Image Quality compares with that I've seen from the much more expensive Canon reduced image circle lens. I've played with the lens on occasion and find the build not quite as robust as the Canon (which is almost "L" quality) but still quite nice.

I find the lens reviews at www.photozone.de to be well done with no overt manufacturer bias but, like anything else, should be tempered with a grain of salt and stirred with your own preferences, knowledge and the experiences of those you trust.

David Susilo · 2010-05-06, 06:19 PM

that's correct, even a lens with essentially thumbs-down rating such as the Canon EF-S18-200 IS is actually supersharp, fast focusing and have extremely good picture quality for a superzoom. I actually tried it for two weeks for a review I was writing for for a magazine overseas.

2010-04-21, 08:42 AM	#1
docted Join Date: May 2004 Location: Guelph,Ont. Posts: 313	Sigma or Tamron I have a small sensor Nikon D5000. I plan to buy 3 lenses, f2.8 where possible f3.5/4.5 otherwise. The lenses I am looking to are 10-20 mm., 17-50/70, 70-200. I want built in motors (HSM?) and vibration control. I did have a D300 that I sold because it was too large and too heavy. Photography has been a hobby for over 50 years. At one point I had a full wet colour darkroom. My question is which system you recommend: Sigma or Tamron. I'm leaning toward Sigma because of their auto focusing. Image quality is also important. I currently have 5 lenses that I will sell.

2010-04-24, 02:37 PM	#3
probak118 Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Windsor ,Ont (Area) Posts: 353	Back 20 yrs ago I had no second thoughts of buying Tamron lenses for my Cannon F1 and S10 SLR. That was all Tamron made, lenses and did a fine job doing it. Sold all manual lenses a long time ago so can't comment much about now. But, if they remained commited as they were previously the performance quality was there and at a lower price. __________________ Sony STR-DA1000ES/KDL46W3000,LG 55 LED 3D, D-Box 12" sub, Klipsch F1,B3,Bell 6131,Harmony880.

2010-04-25, 09:11 PM	#5
David Susilo Veteran Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: in my home theatre Posts: 3,410	I never own a Tamron so I can't comment on the Tamron. However, I've owned several Sigma and Canon lenses since 1992. Without exception, every single Sigma lens I owned failed (broken) after the first year of usage... this includes lenses I used to use before I went pro. So now I'm afraid of buying Sigma lens. __________________ THX, ISF, Control4 Certified Professional; CEDIA Trainer

2010-05-06, 06:19 PM	#8
David Susilo Veteran Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: in my home theatre Posts: 3,410	that's correct, even a lens with essentially thumbs-down rating such as the Canon EF-S18-200 IS is actually supersharp, fast focusing and have extremely good picture quality for a superzoom. I actually tried it for two weeks for a review I was writing for for a magazine overseas. __________________ THX, ISF, Control4 Certified Professional; CEDIA Trainer

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

2010-04-21, 11:57 AM	#2
OldScotch Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Toronto Posts: 194	Both Sigma and Tamron have hits and misses in their lineups, I think it's a Tamron 17-50 that I've seen praised a lot, for the 70-200 I think they're both comparable and I'm not sure about the really wide zooms.

2010-04-25, 03:45 PM	#4
ScanMan Rookie Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Lost in Leaside Posts: 17	docted, It appears that we're on the same page as far as bulky equipment goes. I've enjoyed my Nikon D80 for several years now and have resisted upgrading because that simply meant moving to a heavier camera. I too found the D300 to be a brick. For walk-around shooting in RAW, I've recently owned a Canon G10 and S90 (both disappointed), and have recently picked up an Olympus E-PL1, which I'm delighted with so far. To me, it's a fine combination of image quality and portability. That said, here are the three lenses I use with the D80: - Nikon 18-70 ED. It's on the camera 90% of the time. Nice and sharp with little CA or distortion. It's my walk-around lens, but if I had the money, I'd put on the 16-85. - Nikon 55-200 VR. Don't think twice, just get one. It's the best performer for the money. - Sigma 10-20 HSM. Not cheap, but tack sharp and WIDE. This lens is addicting, and if you're shooting landscapes, you'll never want to take it off.

2010-05-01, 09:30 PM	#6
fooit Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 242	I recently got Tamron 17-50/2.8 nonVC version for my Nikon D40 and there's no way I am going back to the kit lens now - it's very convenient to have F2.8 available across entire range. Ther are two Flikr groups where people share images from VC and nonVC versions of this lens. I am not sure Tamron 70-200/2.8 is available with VC, but nonVC version has received some good reviews on photo websites. Eventually when I'll need it I will get it.

2010-05-03, 07:02 PM	#7
gordonb Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Ottawa (Skyline) Posts: 520	I can't comment on Sigma vs. Tamron as I have all Canon glass But I do know that you won't need VR on the 10-20/24 due to the 1/focal length rule of thumb nor would you (normally) need f/2.8 on a wide-zoom. Presumably if you have a f/2.8 street zoom (a 17-?? or 18-??) then you could use that for any fast & wide shooting. A friend whose judgment I find sound has a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 VR lens and loves it and the Image Quality compares with that I've seen from the much more expensive Canon reduced image circle lens. I've played with the lens on occasion and find the build not quite as robust as the Canon (which is almost "L" quality) but still quite nice. I find the lens reviews at www.photozone.de to be well done with no overt manufacturer bias but, like anything else, should be tempered with a grain of salt and stirred with your own preferences, knowledge and the experiences of those you trust.