A&P Tamron v. Sigma

Discussion in 'Lifestyle' started by famous, Dec 1, 2006.

  1. famous

    famous OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2004
    Messages:
    16,735
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Denver
    So i was looking at getting a standard zoom lens to replace the kit 17-55.
    I have a 70-200 f/4L, so i figured i would get a 24-70 f/2.8, and later get the 10-22 canon. Basically, ive heard a lot of talk about the tamron option(28-75 f/2.8), but my cousin whos a professional photographer(shoots for a newspaper in SD) says tamron quality is nothign close to canon, but the sigma(24-70 f/2.8 macro) is much better build and uses better glass than the tamron.
    So what do i get?
    I'm leaning towards the Sigma now

    what do you think?
     
  2. mandarin orange

    mandarin orange OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2006
    Messages:
    9,863
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    NOVA
    I heard only a FEW Tamron lenses are good. The Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 option and the 17-55 f/2.8 one i believe. The majority of the Tamron lenses aren't that great.. but of course.. neither are all the canon lenses. When most people think of Canon lenses they think of the "L" series. But a lot of the Canon lenses are crap too. I had the Canon 28-75 f/2.8L and sold it and got the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8.. not a major different in image quality.. but a huge difference in price. I have the Canon 70-200 f/2.8L and the Canon 10-22 wide angle lens. As far as wide angle lenses go I heard the Canon version (10-22) is by far a lot better than the Tokin and Sigma version.
     
  3. ohknaks

    ohknaks New Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2003
    Messages:
    1,458
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    WA
    I have the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8. I can't say enough good things about this lens. It's fast and the picture quality is amazing. For the price you cannot beat it.
     
  4. famous

    famous OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2004
    Messages:
    16,735
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Denver
    still no response on the sigma though...anyone with one of those?

    mandarin orange...you sound like you have my set up--about 6 months from now... im gonna get the use i can out of my f4L, and then upgrade to the 2.8-not sure if i want IS or not though.
    how do you like your canon 10-22? any shots from it?
     
  5. Derrict

    Derrict No, I am not Amish OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,484
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Amish Country, PA
    I've got the IS and it's worth every penny, especially for all the automotive panning shots I take, but it's also great when the sun starts to set and I use shutter speeds around 1/60, which is usually tough to hand hold on an 8" length/3.5 lb lens @ 200 mm.
     
  6. mandarin orange

    mandarin orange OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2006
    Messages:
    9,863
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    NOVA
    The 10-22 is an amazing lens. Great for landscape.. great for weddings.. great for everything if used correctly.

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
     
  7. Nullius

    Nullius New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2005
    Messages:
    8,259
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Maranda
    you from NYC? 130th signing in. great shots btw, looking into a 10-22 myself. any ideas where to buy beside B&H?
     
  8. NSX

    NSX OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2004
    Messages:
    8,957
    Likes Received:
    19
    Location:
    none yo'
    Canon and Nikon optics will always be better than 3rd party lenses. But you also have to pay their steep prices.

    Certain Sigma lenses are better than Tamron. Then there are also Tamron lenses that are better than Sigma.

    Best lenses reviewed from each side:
    1. Sigma 10-20mm
    2. Tamron 17-50 f/2.8
    3. Tamron 28-75 f/2.8
    4. Tamron 90mm macro
    5. Sigma 105mm macro
    6. Sigma 50-500mm "Bigma"
    7. Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8
     
  9. Schproda

    Schproda New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2006
    Messages:
    442
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Memphis, TN
    x2 I have the 17-50 f/2.8 also

    I know people with the Canon L who say they can't see enough difference to justify the price.
     
  10. ohknaks

    ohknaks New Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2003
    Messages:
    1,458
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    WA
    when I was looking at purchasing the Tamron I tried some of the L glass at the time and when it came down to it there wasn't a huge difference in picture quality. The L felt better built, but the Tamron wasn't bad and there was an $800 price difference between the two so I said screw it and got the Tamron.

    Now I'm looking at between the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 and the Canon 70-200 F4L. Not entirely sure which one I want to get.
     
  11. Derrict

    Derrict No, I am not Amish OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,484
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Amish Country, PA
    get a used 70 200 2.8L non IS
     
  12. Nullius

    Nullius New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2005
    Messages:
    8,259
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Maranda
    i'd rather go with a 70-200 f4 IS than have the 2.8 non IS. when you're shooting at 200 with a 3lb lense the shake is going to be crazy imirite?
     
  13. NSX

    NSX OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2004
    Messages:
    8,957
    Likes Received:
    19
    Location:
    none yo'
    not with a monopod.
     
  14. Derrict

    Derrict No, I am not Amish OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,484
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Amish Country, PA
    1 full stop difference between the 2.8 and 4, I'd still take the 2.8. More background blur, faster indoors, better autofocus. IS only helps camera shake reduction but won't stop motion blur.
     
  15. Nullius

    Nullius New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2005
    Messages:
    8,259
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Maranda
    agreed but doesn't IS allow you to handhold shoot up to 3 stops slower than a non IS lens? or so they say.
     
  16. NSX

    NSX OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2004
    Messages:
    8,957
    Likes Received:
    19
    Location:
    none yo'
    In the end, there is no substitute for fast glass for stopping action. Unless you want to use flash with slower lenses.
     
  17. Derrict

    Derrict No, I am not Amish OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,484
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Amish Country, PA
    IS is nice but there are better lenses for handholding indoors. Most will opt for a 1.8 or fast lens.
     
  18. Nullius

    Nullius New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2005
    Messages:
    8,259
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Maranda
    so say i'm taking Tomash style voyeur shots out on the street in the city, where there's normally a decent amount of light even at night, the F4 70-200 IS would be a decent lens for the price?

    EDIT: the Tomash reference was a joke, the girls would be of legal age (to the best of my detection)
     
  19. Supadoggie

    Supadoggie I ♥ my doggah

    Joined:
    May 22, 2000
    Messages:
    32,484
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    NYC
    Adorama

    J&R has some lenses but I'm not sure about their prices
     
  20. Snowballer

    Snowballer - Blissfully Insane -

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2002
    Messages:
    9,311
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Tampa, Florida
    I love my sigma glass, yet never tried tamron. :hs:
     
  21. Derrict

    Derrict No, I am not Amish OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,484
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Amish Country, PA
    200mm isn't much reach for voyeur shots. You'll want a 300 or 400mm.
     
  22. famous

    famous OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2004
    Messages:
    16,735
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Denver
    now, im just all confused.
    started looking at other lenses last night, and since im selling my bike(means an extra $1600 in the pocket), i'm starting to look more and more at L glass.

    Right now, im thinking about getting the 17-40 f/4L, and 24-105 F/4L IS, and then i'll have those two ,and hte 50 1.8, and 70-200 f/4L.

    those two lenses worth the $1600?(double rebate make more glass very tempting:noes: ) should i just get both tamron 2.8 lenses? i figured they arnt that sharp at 2.8, and would be stopped down to f4 most of the times anyways...and that 24-105 f4L IS sounds like my ultimate all around lens...maybe the 24-105, and a Tokina 12-24? thats only 50 bucks cheaper then the 17-40, with no double rebates...maybe a canon 10-22?
     
  23. famous

    famous OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2004
    Messages:
    16,735
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Denver
    I think i got it...
    im going with the 24-105 F4L IS, a BG-E2, and 580EX.
    pocket wizards soon, then canon 10-22.
     
  24. Schproda

    Schproda New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2006
    Messages:
    442
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Memphis, TN
    Fast Glass ownz
     

Share This Page