Going to give Tamron / Sigma a go

As nice as the Nikon and Canon lenses are, are they really worth twice sometimes three times the cost of Tamron/Sigma lens?

I have seen some absolutely amazing pictures taken with the Tamrons and Sigmas... so think I am going to give them a shot I like the look of the 17/18-50 F2.8s to begin with

Any of you have Tamron/Sigma lens? What do you think of em?

Azz

I have the Sigma 170-500mm and the Tamron 90mm macro lens and I am perfectly happy with both. A friend of mine has the 70-200mm Sigma lens and he is delighted with it, so on that basis I would suggest trying out the one you want in a local shop.

Make sure you don't go into the butchers and ask to see that lens ( just a quick tip)

Bazza

Some pictures I posted on here not long ago were taken with my sister's (Fudgeley's) Sigma lens. They were with her camera too actually - a 400D.

I can't remember what the lens is though (away to check - edit to follow)

No experience of Tamron but I'd say (and I could be wrong) from the reviews I've read Sigma tend to fair better than Tamron when considered as Canon / Nikon alternatives.

Have to agree with Phil, I would put Sigma above Tamron on most lenses, That Tamron I have did come top in a mag review for macro lens at that time.

Bazza

When I started with SLR Photogrpahy (about 4 years ago) I bought a 300D and a couple of cheap Canon Lenses (18-55 and 70-300)

The 18-55 performed remarkably well, while is suffered a bit from barrel distortion, and wasn't particularly fast, optically it performed well.

The 70-300 was ok, I mean it was only a couple of hundred (its about £130 new now) and I only had it about a month before I got a bit fed up with it.

I then bought the Sigma 170-400. This lens was good for the money, but it wasn't very good construction (compared to Canon L lens) and it did get dusty very quicky. Although optically it worked very well.

I then bought the Sigma 28-70 F2.8, this lens is noisy, slow to focus, misses the focus point a lot, it's really not a great lens, my mate has the same lens and his has been back 3 times. All in all, this lens doesn't take pictures that justify its price (it was £350)

Then there is the chps in Sigmas, Basically Sigma won't pay Canon the License fee, so Canon every now and then change their firmware, and then Sigma lenses stop working (has this with a Sigma 170-400).

Since then I have only purchased Canon L series lenses. And yes, they are worth the two or three times price increase. They are optically superior and construction is second to none.

Buying lenses is where your image quality comes from, the body is almost irrelevant now, its what goes on the end that is going to give you good or back quality shots.

Alan.

I tend to agree with Alan as I have fallen foul of the outdated chip problem in the past. The lens does not come in as such a bargain if one has to renew it when you upgrade your camera body.

Also in some circumstances (50mm f1.4 for example) the Sigma's are the same or more money than the marque equivalent.

Steve.

I have Sigma lens, the one we were talking of yesterday the 28 - 300 and also a wide-angle prime 24 f2.8 macro, and 55 - 200. Have in the past purchased a Tamron but was not that happy with it, however it was some time ago and they may now be better.

My opinion may not be worth as much as those who are pro or semi pro but I do notice how a lens performs and there is no such thing as a perfect lens and in most the shots one sees it is the photographers skill that will be what you notice not the performance of the lens unless it is very poor. Have seen some very distorted white blotches in the backgrounds (can’t remember what it is called) of people using marqué lens so I think sometimes it is the luck of the draw and that in the case of lens you do not always get what you pay for.

Wildwalker - it's a bit unfair saying they don't compare to Canon L lenses.

I think we all know L lenses are the best.

Despite them having their own expensive models - The likes of Sigma and Tamron tend to pitch their range as a lower cost alternative.

Phil, although I didn't say so, I was really replying to Azz's original question on his post.

"As nice as the Nikon and Canon lenses are, are they really worth twice sometimes three times the cost of Tamron/Sigma lens?"

I know I didn't quote him, but my post was really an answer to the above question.

SteveL, I agree, if you are unlucky enough to buy a new body and find none of your Sigma/Tamron lenses work, then you just as we have paid for the Canon ones in the first place.

Alan.

If you are not shooting pro, then no, the lenses are not worth the extra cash. I find that its mostly seasoned photographers can see a clear distinction in the quality of glass.

I have a Tamron, and being honest, i hate it. The quality is poor, the lens is awfully slow and the build isnt the best. However if i posted a shot, most people would think the quality was good. If you dont understand or know how to spot Distortion, Vignitting, CA and dont mind build quality, then its pointless going for pro glass.