lense opinions on Tamron AF70-300MM & Sigma 70-300mm

[Tyger]

Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 APO Macro Super
Tamron AF70-300MM F/4-5.6 LD Macro

(for my Cannon 350D)


First of all I just wanted to say that I've read almost all the threads on this forum and others about these 2 lenses. I'm well aware they are "consumer" lenses, but i am on a budget and it fits my needs. I've read many reviews but wanted to hear first hand from any of you who may have used these lenses.

I was just wondering if anyone has any comparison shots handy or links to ones where i can compare. both lenses are similar in its class and i've seen a few examples of both and the Sigma looks a little better in terms of quality.

The Sigma is about $379CAD at Henry's (though i know it's cheaper if i look around)

The Tamron is $279CAD.

My thinking is if the lenses are not that different that i could go for the
Tamron and use the extra money to buy a tripod. Or is the Sigma worth the extra $100?

Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated.

[ron chappel]

Note that sigma has released a 'DG' version that may (?) be slightly better...and that the normal version is now selling abit cheaper until it's sold out

I have used both the tamron and the non DG sigma.
I found out the hard way that the rumours of dodgey quality control for the sigma are true.Mine was totally unusable at 300mm wide open-yes it was that bad!!!
At shorter distances it was extremely good though.

I've seen results that show this model lens can be stunning at all focal lengths but most say it's normal for it to give soft results at 300mm.The following seems to be a good example of that-
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/...ighlight=sigma


-and the easiest other result i could find showing a bad example-
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/...ighlight=sigma

The tamron seems to have good consistancy between lenses from the little i've heard from other owners.
The characteristics of the tamron are: extremely sharp at the long end and moderately sharp at the short end ( in comparison to other consumer lenses),very good contrast,slow focus and strong purple fringing (in images where that is a factor)


I'm not sure which one you should buy but i can recommend that you only buy the sigma from somewhere that allows easy exchanges because you might need to!

[tim]

The Sigma takes good photos within it's limitations (ie F5.6 @ 300mm). Make sure to get the APO version.

[Tyger]

thanx ron and Tim,

I guess it always boils down to personal tests at the store. I forget which magaizine i saw it on, i'll check again later, but i think it was photography living, anyway they tested 5 low budget lenses and gave the Sigma the highest review. The test shots they showed against the canon 75-300mm were nothing like the above Ron. In fact the Sigma had better quality than the Tamron and Canon.

[ron chappel]

Yes,the sigma can be the best overall ! Just be sure you get a good one

[Tyger]

thanx again for your input Ron, you said that the sigma was unusable at 300mm, is that hand held? I expect these lenses to be soft from 200mm-300mm that's a given for the price.

[lordjim]

Tyger - FYI, there is a Tamron 70-330 for sale at:

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/260005

Thought you may be interested.

Disclaimer: I do not know the lens (probably better than the Canon 75-300 anyway) and I do not know the seller.

[Tyger]

thanx lordjim, i'll check it out. I'm hesitant though to buy used. I rather pick it up new. After a few more searching the net, i've decided to go with the Sigma. I'll probably get it some time this week and let you guys know how it goes.

[mijbril]

Keep in mind that both these lenses are just starter lenses & stepping stones to better ones.

With that in mind, for the 124 euros I paid for my Tamron (new, delivered, with insurance too), it's brilliant value for the outlay & quality of the shots. One day I will have enough money for Satans' own zoom, but until then, the Tamron will do me just fine

If you go the Tamron route though, shop around, you should be able to do better than $279 CAD, it seems to be paying way over the odds.....

[ron chappel]

Originally Posted by Tyger

...... the sigma was unusable at 300mm, is that hand held? I expect these lenses to be soft from 200mm-300mm that's a given for the price.

Even with a strong tripod, remote release and no focus errors it was still horrible-yes mine that bad unfortunately

[Tyger]

ok so now there is a newer Sigma 70-300mm

http://www.ephotozine.com/news/fullnews.cfm?NewsID=2167

So would it be better to get this one instead of the SUPER II APO MACRO model? considering I have the XT the APO MACRO DG is really just an upgraded SUPER II.

Man this could get confusing.

[ron chappel]

I don't think there has been any discusion/examples given on the new model as yet.
The difference is likely to be that they only improved the rear element multicoating and changed the cosmetic design of the lens
In practice most people cant tell the difference it seems allthough i know of at least one new DG lens that seems to be significantly better than the non DG version -(the 105mm macro EX DG)
So who knows?

[condyk]

The DG lenses all (that I've seen, not quite all where released when I last looked) feature more streamlined body design and new coatings. When I compared the old and new 105mm Macro the DG had different lens arrangement. So, if it matters to you, check each lens on the SIgma site to see what the differences are. Coating I am not too bothered about, while different lens arrangement or numbers would make me do more investigation of user feedback.

I would be confident the DG Sigma would be as good as the APO and because it's newer the resale value will be a tad higher should you sell on later. I had the APO and was impressed with it given the price. What makes the big difference at this level is the shooter: a poor lens in one persons hands can turn into a stellar performer in someone elses. Also, a monopod will help.

Seems you have your priorities right and expectations are aligned with price, so best of luck in your choice. I normally recommend the Sigma or 100-300mm USM Canon, but sounds like the Tamron is worth a look. The close up capabilities of the Sigma are a bonus for some people. You'll be the biggest difference most likely so dunno if you can lose.

[mijbril]

I think when it comes to lens like the Sigma or the Tamron consumer range, neither is really going to be something that you will use forever if that type of photography is what you want to get into.

eg, if you like stuff where the 300mm+ zoom is called for, there will come a time when you'll go for Canon's L something or other f/2.8 or better (ie, Satan's own zoom). But you would keep say Canon's 50mm f/1.8 as your "handy to have portrait lens", not the best available, but more than useful & brillantly COST EFFECTIVE for your purposes. You would not spend your money on Satan's 85mm f/1.2 for example...

But if you really like portrait stuff that say the Canon 50mm f/1.8 can do, then there's not a lot of point spending $XXXX on Satan's own zoom, no, you want Satan's own 85mm f/1.2 or 50mm f/1.4 & vice versa, you would keep the Tamron or the Sigma 70-300mm f/4.0 - 5.6 etc your "handy to have" zoom, aware that the picture is not going to compare realistically to Satan's equivalent but brilliant & COST EFFECTIVE for your purposes.

That said, I can't really see a day when I will buy better than 50mm f/1.8 (unless I suddenly come into a truckload of money), but the Tamron I have is but a stepping stone to Satan's own zoom....

Whatever you choose, if the type of shots the Tamron or Sigma 70-300mm are capable of is the type of photography you like, remember it is just a stepping stone to bigger & better things

[IdanShechter]

what about the Tamron 70-300m Di version