Sigma or Tamron?
Jun 23, 2012 11:57:12 #
I was wondering what your thoughts are on a Sigma or Tamron 17-55 mm f/2.8 lens would be, what is the best of the two. I have a kit lens but I want a lower F stop also.
Thanks
Thanks
Jun 24, 2012 00:16:57 #
cherylpeters wrote:
I was wondering what your thoughts are on a Sigma or Tamron 17-55 mm f/2.8 lens would be, what is the best of the two. I have a kit lens but I want a lower F stop also.
Thanks
Thanks
You might check dpreview.com
I have a Sigma 150-500 and find it awesome. I have read mixed reviews on Tamron.
My next lens is a wide angle. I'd like the Tokina but so far it doesn't have focusing motors in the lens which is what I need. I'm waiting.
Jun 24, 2012 01:02:30 #
cherylpeters wrote:
I was wondering what your thoughts are on a Sigma or Tamron 17-55 mm f/2.8 lens would be, what is the best of the two. I have a kit lens but I want a lower F stop also.
Thanks
Thanks
My experience with both brands is that they made some great lenses and some dogs. I went back three times before I got a Tamron 28-300 I was satisfied with. A friend had the same experience with a Sigma 100-400. BUT this was years ago. I would like to believe that both companies have survived in today's market because they improved both manufacturing consistency and quality control. Right now I don't know which I'd get, but based on the feedback from people on this forum, I'd probably try the Sigma first. I would also try to find a dealer who would be willing to a trade or two or three if you are unhappy with a particular lens.
Jun 24, 2012 01:10:00 #
Might depend on your camera. If Sony (and others) that have image stabilization in the camera, you woud not need that built into the lens. I have two lens from each. It seems that Sigma is more durable. I do not have any complaints about these lenses, however they are not the lenses you asking about.
Jun 24, 2012 05:17:56 #
Jun 24, 2012 07:47:44 #
I have a Nikon D3000 and there is no motor in lense. I have been comparing the Sigma 17-55 2.8 with the Tamron 17-55 2.8. I see the Tamron was more expensive.just wondering why. Thanks for your reply's.
Jun 24, 2012 08:52:49 #
Jun 24, 2012 09:54:37 #
I love my Tamron 18-270. Working with no problem with Nikon D5100
Photo was taken from hotel 15th floor.
Jun 24, 2012 10:16:31 #
i just bought a sima 30mm 1.4 and it is awesome.
a short time ago i bought a sigma 70-200mm2.8 with OS and it is so awesome.
i also have a canon 24-70mm2.8 L lens so i have high quality to compare sigma to.
i have a friend that has the tamron 24-70 with VC and it is an awesome lens.
i wouldn't be afraid of either brand. just buy them from a dealer that gives you 30 days to return if you don't like it.
a short time ago i bought a sigma 70-200mm2.8 with OS and it is so awesome.
i also have a canon 24-70mm2.8 L lens so i have high quality to compare sigma to.
i have a friend that has the tamron 24-70 with VC and it is an awesome lens.
i wouldn't be afraid of either brand. just buy them from a dealer that gives you 30 days to return if you don't like it.
Jun 24, 2012 10:24:03 #
I also have the a Tamron 17-50 2.8 non VC on a Nikon D7000 and can't recommend it enough.
Jun 24, 2012 12:07:37 #
I shoot with a Nikon D80 and Nikon D300s. I have a Sigma 70-200mm 2.8 that takes great pictures. it works well in low light. I have 2 kids that both ice skate and the lighting is always tough but the sigma is well capable of sharp pictues at the rink. I also have a Tamron 28-75mm 2.8 that takes great all around pictures and is always on my D300s. I hope this helps.
Jun 24, 2012 12:21:38 #
This might help.
Lens Reviews
http://kenrockwell.com
http://photozone.de/
http://dpreview.com
Info:
http://photonotes.org/articles/beginner-faq/lenses.html
Lens Reviews
http://kenrockwell.com
http://photozone.de/
http://dpreview.com
Info:
http://photonotes.org/articles/beginner-faq/lenses.html
Jun 24, 2012 12:49:31 #
I have been using the Tamron Aspherical, LD, XR, DiII, SP,
17-50mm 1:2.8 and the Tamron Asperical, XR, DiII, LD (IF)
28-75mm 1:2.8mm Macro lenses for about a year. They provide very good image quality in low light at a very affordable price. Here is a very good review link! You may have to copy and paste. I am a strong believer in this lens and would purchase another with few questions asked. http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Tamron-17-50mm-f-2.8-XR-Di-II-Lens-Review.aspx
17-50mm 1:2.8 and the Tamron Asperical, XR, DiII, LD (IF)
28-75mm 1:2.8mm Macro lenses for about a year. They provide very good image quality in low light at a very affordable price. Here is a very good review link! You may have to copy and paste. I am a strong believer in this lens and would purchase another with few questions asked. http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Tamron-17-50mm-f-2.8-XR-Di-II-Lens-Review.aspx
Jun 24, 2012 13:06:26 #
I just got the Tamron 17-55 for my Pentax k-5 at $378.00 on ebay. The comparable one in Pentax is $1000.00 locally at the burn out camera store. I find it excellent. Sharp, clean, relatively noise free. I can't speak for the Sigma. I have a 55-200 sigma zoom which leaves something to be desired.
Jun 24, 2012 15:37:37 #
Thanks, for the info. It will be helpful. I have been taking pic's for three years now. I get alot of it. I just was questioning these two lenses.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.