Sigma or Tamron

[chris02]

Hi


I think I have narrowed my choice down to the Sigma 70-300mm F/4-5.6 APO DG Macro or the Tamron AF 28-300mm XR Di LD Aspherical Macro IF f3.5-6.3.
HELP, which should I go for and why?

Chris

[Canis Vulpes]

Sigma 70-300 seems a little faster so better in lower light but the Tamron 28-300 is wider with internal focusing. As for what you should go for depends what you wish to photograph, will you be using mainly at the 300mm end or wider? If you are mainly at the tele end then I would choose the Sigma for its maximum aperture but if you may find 28mm useful then the Tamron is the obvious choice.

I suggest you visit a camera shop who stocks both and try them out taking a few test shots of highly detailed scenes outside then compare on your own computer back home, sleep on it and decide in the morning after looking again with a fresh pair of eyes.

[chris02]

Many thanks Stephen, I will take you advise.

Chris

[Canis Vulpes]

I should add that most camera bodies' autofocus module will work properly to f5.6. Auto focus may be operable beyond f5.6 but could be slower and/or less accurate. However f6.3 is only 1/3 stop darker and should be okay but check autofocus at f5.6 and f6.3 on that Tamron.

[Christine]

Chris,here is a shot taken with the Tamron 28-300.Not the best of shots,if I had have been able to get down to ground level it would have been even closer.It was taken using a 300d camera.I find this lens very versatile and does take amazingly good portrait type shots,very clear and sharp.

[robski]

Here is a review on the 28-300

http://bobatkins.com/photography/rev...00_review.html

Unfortunately very few people review sigma lens to such a technical level.
As Stephen mentioned a lot depends on your range of subjects.

The 28-300 is trying to be a one lens solution and if you need that range and don't like changing lens in the field it is very versatile. But as a rule cheap X10 zoom lens are best avoided as they tend to be very soft. So if your subject always fill the frame it should be OK. Expensive X10 zoom lens are better but are no match for x3 zoom or Primes lens in the same price range.

The x3 zoom 70-300mm on paper should a bit sharper and cheaper as the design is less complex than a x10 zoom lens.

Other factors to consider are built quaility, weight, Max aperture, Image stabilizer and Auto focus speeds.

Simple Lens facts of life.

With lens you do tend to get what you pay for and often needs more consideration than the camera body. In the scheme of things both of these lens are considered to be budget lens. If you always fill the frame they should be acceptable. It is when you start to use only a fraction of the frame the poor lens quaility starts to show.

Broadly speaking lens review (rating) sites group lens into 3 bands. There are a few exceptions to this but the general rule of thumb is well tried and tested.


1) Budget Lens ( Kit or starter lens)- upto £200 - £300
Pros - Can give very acceptable results when stopped down to f11 and you fill the frame. light weight.
Cons - Tend to colour fringe on the edge of the frame on high contrast scenes. Slow AF, Very soft at wide apertures, Needs good light, Build can be very flimsy.

2) Prosumer Lens ( often bought as an upgrade from Budget to over come some of the budget lens problems) between £200 - £500
Pros - Give very acceptable results when stopped down to f8. Improved sharpness allows tighter crops. a more ruggled build quaility, Faster AF and a wider Max Aperture.

Cons - A bit heavier and it's not a Pro lens.

3) Pro Lens over £450
Pro - Most will give excellent pin sharpness wide open or stopped down one stop.
Some have very fast AF. Built like a tank. Wider aperture for shallow DOF and low light shots.
Cons - Price, weight


Zoom lens - Cheap zoom lens tend to become much softer than higher priced lens at the long end of the range. There is no doubt that with modern design some of the zooms can match a prime. But overall the good primes still have the edge and are cheaper than equivalent zooms.

Personally I think too much is made of the versatilily of zooms especially if you are doing a final crop in Post processing. I tend to have a 300mm Prime attached for most of my shots. I miss only a few potential shots because the lens is too long.

You may find upgrading the camera to a higher resolution model start to showup the weak points of a lens.

If anybody can find any omissions or flaws in the above general lens guide feel free to chip in.

[Stephen]

Originally Posted by robski

If anybody can find any omissions or flaws in the above general lens guide feel free to chip in.

Seems like a pretty comprehensive summary of the pros & cons Rob, nicely done

[sassan]

I have the tamron you mentioned and am familiar with the sigma though have not shot with it myself.
Tamron is the widest, smallest, lightest lens in the world for the focal length it offers and that awesome X10.7 optical range. It does grow to very Long impressive length at 300mm that you would wonder where all these parts were hidden.

Sigma surely has much less optical range of X4.3 and I believe is heavier and longer (More space consuming).
The other side of story is that Tamron tends to be very soft (At time not acceptable in my opinion) at higher focal range, above 200mm especially with diaphragm wide open. The sigma you mentioned, formerly known as Quantaray (With the same optics and techs) on the other hand is a very sharp lens, hate to say, at times indistinguishable or very close to legendary Canon's L series quality.

I leave the price factor for yourself to figure out as I tend to find things at much lower price most people pay for so think this is a variable you need to figure out for yourself.

I look at Tamron 28-300 Di put on Canon's XT (Or 350 for non-USA) as the marathon runner photographer. The lightest smallest most powerful gadget, yet cheap with good functionality that should makes one successful photographer in Iraq, Lebanon, South America or anywhere else with turbulence, that between picture and photographers life, there is not much safety zone also considering that fact that tools can vanish at any moment. Out of this discussion but at higher demand levels, surprisingly I see the real Photojournalist even in these situations, still going for heavier 1D / 5D body and L 70-200 IS and L 17-40mm or L16-35 all the time.

I am not sure what your main need for these lenses are, but hope this helped.

[Christine]

The Tamron has my vote.Yes,as Sassan has said when used with the 350D,is light ,easy to use and in good outdoor light does produce some excellent portrait shots.But in low light not very good.I have just been outside to take some shots of the Swans on the river,all a disaster.Lots of red eye,and lots of noise.But as an all round versatile ,take anywhere lens,it is good.

[chris02]

Sorry slow to reply, been away. Based on the fact that I have the std D50 kit lens I think I will go for the Sigma 70-300 based on the feedback and the reviews. However, I still have not gone into the shop and tried either of them out for myself yet as suggested by Stephen.

Once again many thanks for all your detailed contributions, when I eventually part with the money I will post some pics.
Chris