| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/26/2004 04:29:50 AM · #1 |
I'm assuming that you get what you pay for and the Tamron is the better lens (about twice the price)... I just wanted to hear any personal experiences with either lens... especially in comparison to each otehr.
Sigma Zoom Telephoto 70-300mm f/4-5.6 APO Zoom Macro Super II versus Tamron 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di LD Aspherical IF Macro Autofocus Lens
Is there a better option in the $200-400 range?
-Dan
Edit: Also, thoughts on the Sigma Zoom Telephoto 135-400mm f/4.5-5.6 APO Aspherical Autofocus... worth the $530?
Message edited by author 2004-10-26 04:45:23. |
|
|
|
10/26/2004 04:58:50 AM · #2 |
I have the Tamron lens, it's practical to have this zoom range but images are somehow soft at 300mm. I have no idea for the Sigma, but probably you get what you pay. You can look also the Tokina AF 24-200mm f/3.5-5.6 AT-X, it seems to be good.
(For comparison a good link is //www.photozone.de/2Equipment/easytxt.htm)
Message edited by Manic - ur-ifying :o). |
|
|
|
10/26/2004 07:05:27 AM · #3 |
I don't have much experience with those lenses. From what I've gathered from visiting quite a few web sites where they've tested lenses, the more range in the zoom, the poorer the overall performance. The gain in range of use for the lenses seems associated to a slight loss in image quality.
I may be wrong, but this is how I generally see things when considering image quality produced by lenses:
prime lenses 
medium range zooms (70-300, 28-75, 28-135) 
wide range zooms (28-300) 
But of course, this is just my very subjective scale for consumer grade glass and does not consider professional grade glass (most Canon L lenses) 
|
|
|
|
10/26/2004 07:56:26 AM · #4 |
I have that Sigma 75-300 and it's soft up near 300 as well. I bought a Sigma 105 macro so that I wouldn't need the 75-300 or macro purposes, and now I really wish I had bought the Canon 70-200 L lens instead, either the f/4 or f/2.8. The f/4 is just barely out of your price range, but my friend has one and the difference between our shots is very noticeable and, I think, worth the extra money.
I don't know anything about that Tamron lens, but if you can find a sharp lens that goes from 28-300mm, buy it. My carrying around lens is the Canon 28-135 IS and it's the best glass for the money that I have. I only switch to the Sigma 75-300 very rarely, such as when I'm at the zoo or a sports event.
|
|
|
|
10/26/2004 08:50:20 AM · #5 |
i have the sigma (for my nikon) and i like it. for the money it's a great lense. however, it's already pretty slow, and has a small max aperture... the complaints i've heard about that tamron are the even smaller aperture (6.3 at 300mm) and image softness. I think for the money, the sigma 70-300 APO Super II is a good deal.
|
|
|
|
10/26/2004 08:55:33 AM · #6 |
My research (internet) on the "superzooms" like the Tamron you cite is that they are not as good as lower range zooms.
The most objective testing you can find is photodo, though it is "frozen in time" in the past.
//www.photodo.com/nav/prodindex.html
and then if you want user ratings/opinions on the glass, go to
//www.photozone.de/
There's a positive review of the Tokina at: //www.vividlight.com/articles/910.htm
I would have gone for that, but I wanted more range on the bottom end for a walk-around lens (and I have the Canon 70-200mm/F4L) for more reach.
I personally went for the Sigma 18-125 for a walk around lens. It has gotten some really good reviews, there's a forum thread at dpreview with some tests which compare it favorably to the new 17-85 Canon lens.
Also of interest, when looking up the links for you, I just found that Tamron will have a new 18-200mm lens in Spring 2005:
//www.tamron.com/news/35mm/18200di2.asp
I should have added that I have found the Sigma lens to be very good to excellent so far. It's noisy--high pitch whine--though when it focuses, but it's pretty quick. Color and contrast appears to be excellent. I took some foliage pics the other day and they appear to be very good--not as good as my L 70-200 lens, but that's not a fair comparison since the Sigma cost me $249 (Hunts Camera on the web). The latest pic in my portfolio is from that shoot (looking up at 18mm hence the perspective distortion)
Message edited by author 2004-10-26 08:59:24. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 01/12/2025 06:44:22 AM EST.
