Sigma 18-200 vs Tamron 18-200

[S230]

Anyone with experience with any of these lens? Which one is better Tamron or Sigma?

[Paul Carpentier]

http://www.pixagogo.com/0280105208 - Samples Sigma 18-200mm F3.5-6.3 DC + comparisons

http://www.pixagogo.com/6255155219 - New Samples Sigma 18-200 DC

**Very** pleased with the Sigma!

Paul

[MrChad]

I've never had the chance to compare these lenses side by side, but I had the opertunity to do so with the older full frame 28-200mm models. I'd have to assume both lenses are of average optical quality, however build wise I give the Sigma much higher marks.

Knowing how well constructed my 18-125mm DC is (it has more metal in it then you would think) and that the Tamron saves weight by using a fair amount of plastic I would be biased toward the Sigma. Many of the older gen 1 and 2 Tamron 28-200's I got to use felt gritty and chaulky on the zoom ring b/c of all the plastic. Optically the lenses seemed fine but I didn't much care for dragging the lenses around.

[S230]

Thank for the info... Over the time I am moving more towards Sigma because their quality seems to have improved. The Lens I am going for is the Canon 28-105 and the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 EX.
This is because for standard everyday shots, the Canon would be great while the sigma would be excellent for portraits and wildlife and sports..

[chris clements]

Today's 'Amateur Photographer' magazine has a comprehensive back-to-back technical comparison.
Almost a dead heat - Sigma rated 84%, Tamron 85%.
Tamron shades it on resolution and actual focal length span (18.1 - 193, against 18.4 - 182)
Sigma shades it on build quality and shorter lens barrel (130mm against 152mm)

[MrChad]

I find these hyperzooms just a blast to carry around. I have a Canon 28-105mm and optical it compares very well with my Sigma 18-125mm, but the reach of the Sigma makes it so much more fun to carry around. I wish I would have just ignored my friends when I got my first EOS film body and purchased a 28-300 or 28-200mm I had a blast barrowing copies from other buddies when I shot film.

The best part I think with the drebel's higher flash and the compact size of these new DSLR hyperzooms is that I can use the built in flash and the lens. I went on a short business trip/conference to the caribean last spring. I took my Drebel, the Sigma 18-125mm, 1G Sandisk Ultra II CF and the BP511 charger and I had a great time--and a light load. Never once regretted leaving the other Canon glass at home, didn't need my 420EX either since the pop-up flash could clear the Sigma without the hood.

Optically there are trade offs but I find these hyperzooms worth it many times. I'm very glad I went with the 18-125mm over the 18-55 kit lens, they didn't even have the 18-200mm versions when I got my Drebel, I'm sure those are just a completely awesome hoot!

If they make an 18-300mm f3.5-6.3 that might push me over the edge :D And if Tamron makes one first I may even purchase it.

I know some folks don't recommend these as a first lens, but I sure do.

[Saudidave]

Has anyone any comments regarding the quality of the sigma/tamron 18-200's or even 28-300's, compared with a Canon 28-135 IS?

[buze]

I have a 18-200 Sigma for some time, I think it is terrific. In daylight, out for a walk etc it is just absolutely awesome. The build quality is excellent, even tho the AF is qualified as "noisy" (it IS noisier than the USM of course) it is actualy considerably quieter than my 50mm f1.8 mII :D
So no it's not "noisy" it's "audible".
I had to stand in the same place on monday (shooting a procession of sort) and quite frankly I had massive fun. I was also asked by a few people (and two secret service personel) if I was in fact a professional. If only they knew :D
My next lens is probaly the Sigma 18-50 f2.8, to complement the 50mm f1.4 and 85mm f1.8. And I KNOW it won't overlap with my Sigma 18-200 in usage terms. I was trying to decide between the 28mm f1.8 prime, the 17-40L or the Sigma, but monday with the 18-200 just pushed me over the Sigma way.

[TheObiJuan]

After a bit of pixel peeping I found the sigma to be sharper, have better contrast, have almost no CA versus the tamron, and also much less vignetting.

It is a better buy.

[raylks]

After a bit of pixel peeping I found the sigma to be sharper, have better contrast, have almost no CA versus the tamron, and also much less vignetting.

It is a better buy.

Yap we need to consider their performance in terms of contrast, CA, and vignetting too.

[whchan]

How does Sigma 18-125 compared to Sigma 18-200 in terms of sharpness, contrast, quality of pictures... I would prefer to buy the 18-200 (becasue of the range) but just want to make sure I am not giving up the picture quality.

Thanks!!

[Saudidave]

Further to my earlier post, I went in to my local Jessops photo store at lunchtime today and fired off a few shots with both a Canon 28-135IS and a Tamron 18-200DI.
In terms of image quality the Canon has a very (and I mean very!) slight edge, but obviously has the IS advantage. The Tamron has obviously got better range.

Since I already have a Canon 75-300 to cover the long end and the kit lens the wide end, I am going the 28-135 route. I also figure that if I want to sell in future, the Canon will get higher bids on ebay!. There are people out there bidding more for secondhand than you can get one for new at 7dayshop on the net!

Regards, Dave

[lhurd]

In terms of image quality the Canon has a very (and I mean very!) slight edge, but obviously has the IS advantage. The Tamron has obviously got better range.

Since I already have a Canon 75-300 to cover the long end and the kit lens the wide end, I am going the 28-135 route.

Regards, Dave

Dear Dave, did you consider or compare the Sigma 18-200, which seems to have better ratings head to head with the Tamron 18-200. I cannot find anyone that has compared it with the Sigma 18-200 vs. the Canon 28-135 I.S. lens. I'm an airline pilot that only wants to carry a single lens, but do not want to give up picture quality in the process. I like the range of the Sigma, but I feel the Canon quality in the 28-135 I.S. would be a better choice especially considering the I.S. feature. I shot a lot of shots while flying across the country from the cockpit window.

[Saudidave]

Hi

Further to my original offering on this post, I have had time to look carefully at the images and do some cropping in photoshop.

There is no doubt that the canon 28-135 IS is streets in front of the Tamron 18-200 in terms of image quality. I took a picture of a signpost @ 135 mm which was originally about 1% of the image originally and cropped and zoomed until it was filling the frame, printed at A4

The Canon lens is so superior it is hard to comprehend. The Tamron is blurred at the edges and has significant CA. The Canon is sharp and doesn't.

Enough said! I will be buying the 28-135 as soon as Canon return my EOS 350D (crap on the focussing screen - don't ask!)

[tim1286]

I had a sigma 28-200 & it was ok!?!?:rolleyes: I had it only 13 months and the gears or motor in the auto focus went out.:( :( {still waiting to see it they will warranty it} I have now bought a TAMRON 18-200 Di II for my canon. I haven't had it long but so far I am very happy with it.:D :D :D As far as comparisons go I can't tell very much difference in the two EXCEPT the Tamron seems to auto focus QUITE, slightly FASTER & SHARPER than my sigma did. But I don't have the sigma in house to side-by-side test with. hope that helps
Tim

[bang]

I am stuck between these decisions too and i am gonna go with the Sigma after looking at this thread.

http://www.dcresource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7524

[Keiffer]

Good Lord that link shows the Sigma beating the Tamron by a mile in quality. No brainer looking at that.I am stuck between these decisions too and i am gonna go with the Sigma after looking at this thread.

http://www.dcresource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7524

[mrk]

I have the sigma and it is an amazing sharp lens, see my samples in people photography forum :p

[Keiffer]

You have the 18-200 or the 18-125? Just want to make sure were talking about the same lense. Because I'm real close to otdering that 18-200(Sigma)I have the sigma and it is an amazing sharp lens, see my samples in people photography forum :p

[mrk]

18-200

[Keiffer]

Cool beans, Thanks Robbie.

[Keiffer]

By the way, IS the 18-200 sharper than the infamous Tamron 28-75?

[Redstorm]

By the way, IS the 18-200 sharper than the infamous Tamron 28-75?

No way. I have seen pics taken using both lenses. The Tamron 28-75 is definitely streets ahead of the 18-200 in term of image quality. The 28-75 is not known as a legendary lens for nothing.

[stetsonaw]

picked up the tamron today, compared it side by side with the tamron, PQ better in midrange, same at wide and tele, and the tammy went wider and narrower than the sigma.