Sigma/Tamron

[aam1234]

Which lens of the above would you prefer, and would be nice if you can state the reason.

Thanks

[tim]

Tamron, since I already own it and it has an excellent reputation.

[aam1234]

Thanks Tim.

I should've pointed out that the Sigma is the new one.

[gcogger]

I went with the Tamron because it was lighter and uses smaller filters (and was available!). If the weight was less important to me, I would have gone with the Sigma to get the 24mm. I'm seriously impressed with the Tamron :) I don't think you'd be disappointed with either (unless you get a duff copy).

[Jon]

Sigma, for the 24 mm. But I just got the Canon 24-70 L, which zooms the right way ;{)#

[nemesis099]

I have to say I'm in teh same situation between these 2 lenses. I will probably end up with the Tamron simply because of how people on here seem to be shocked at how sharp it is. But I'll have to wait till after the holidays anyhow.

[khiromu]

Sigma for 1.6x or 1.3x bodies because it go down to 24mm. On full frame, both sound good.

[chops]

I took the Tamron because of the reviews and because we had the only one left in stock. Oh yeah, and because I was able to get it at cost, which is still about 50 bucks cheaper than I have seen online anywhere. :cool:

[ScottE]

Neither, because neither of them has full time manual focus over-ride, a feature I consider essential to my style of photography.

Sigma has HSM technology which make that possible, but apparently didn't bother to use it on the 24-70/2.8. Too bad, it might have been a cost effective alternative to the Canon 24-70/2.8.

[aam1234]

Neither, because neither of them has full time manual focus over-ride

That's an interesting point!

Thanks.

[tim]

I've found that full time manual is handy, but maybe over-rated. You have to wait until the lens seeks and can't lock focus before you can adjust it manually, otherwise it tries to seek itself and moves from where you put it. For me the speed of USM is more of a drawcard.

[ScottE]

I've found that full time manual is handy, but maybe over-rated. You have to wait until the lens seeks and can't lock focus before you can adjust it manually, otherwise it tries to seek itself and moves from where you put it. For me the speed of USM is more of a drawcard.

On my EOS3 D60 and 20D I use CF 4-1 or 4-3 to assign auto-focus to the * (AE) button on the camera back. Pressing the shutter button does not effect auto-focus. The camera will only auto-focus when you press the AE button.

This allows you to quickly use auto-focus. If happy with the setting you can take the shot. If not, you can adjust focus manually without having to try to hold the shutter half way down while focusing.

I am used to being able to contol focus this way and hate having a camer that adjusts focus every time you touch the shutter button.

The reason I don't like lenses without manual over-ride is that after using the AE button to auto-focus I often touch up focus a bit without thinking. If I forget that the lens does not have that capablility it can damage the lens. (That's why my Sigma 105 macro lens won't auto-focus at all any more.)

[ron chappel]

I don't have either of those two lenses but i can honestly say that i have never seen any sigma that can compete with a top of the range canon or nikon glass.
At least the tamron is proven to be close to an L lens.

I've heard many claims that such and such model sigma is as good as the canon but time and again i see proof that shoots these down
The only lens models that may be as good (or better!) than the canon's are the 50 macro and possibly the 120-300/2.8 (but what can it be compared to...?)
What i'm trying to say is that sigma consistantly underperform even with their best lenses,i can't see the Di version being much of an improvement on the old model