Sigma vs. Tamron for EOS?

you know who maybe wrote:

 > Since that last thread was so popular
 >
 > In general is Tamron glass better, worse or the same as Sigma?
 >
 > I've never tried any Tamron lenses and was considering trying a 28-75 f/2.8
 > or even the 28-300 since it seems the magazines rate them so highly (not too
 > bad on Fred Miranda dot com, too).


My take on it is that Sigma make a lot of lens models, and Tamron fewer. Sigma
have a few decent lenses; Tamron have a higher % of decent lenses.

Another way to say it is if looking for a third party lens, I would examine
Tokina and Tamron lenses before looking at the equivalent Sigma and I'd make
sure the Sigma was better before selecting it over the other two.

The 28-75 f/2.8 is likely to perform close to the 28-70 f/2.8 from Canon (which
is a fine lens, and should be at over $1100). The Canon is better (and 3x the
price).

The 28-300 is a stay away lens except perhaps for travel where you want memories
but not necessarily the sharpest phots. (I did see a travelogue slide
presentation done with a 28-300 (Sigma or Tamron) and I was impressed. But the
photographer was much above average.)

Were I you, I'd consider something with more range than the 28-75 and better
optics than the 28-300 such as the Canon 28-135 IS.

Cheers,
Alan


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm" target="_blank">http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm</a>
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm" target="_blank">http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm</a>
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.pbase.com/shootin" target="_blank">http://www.pbase.com/shootin</a>
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Sigma vs. Tamron for EOS? 

"Zach" <zsmith.DeleteThis@cox.net.nospam> wrote in message
news:ovotd.70847$GN4.1794@okepread02...
 > you know who maybe wrote:
  >> Since that last thread was so popular
  >>
  >> In general is Tamron glass better, worse or the same as Sigma?
  >>
  >> I've never tried any Tamron lenses and was considering trying a 28-75
  >> f/2.8 or even the 28-300 since it seems the magazines rate them so highly
  >> (not too bad on Fred Miranda dot com, too).
 > I can't comment on the Sigma lenses (I've never owned one but had used one
 > or two a long time ago); I've used Tamron lenses on both film and digital
 > and they are absolutely terrific. I currently have the 28-300, the 19-35
 > and 24-135 and couldn't be more pleased with the results. I'm looking to
 > buy the 90mm portrait/macro after my funds start building back up a bit
 > . I owned the "film" version of it about 18 years ago and it was one
 > of the best pieces of glass in my arsenal. You can't go wrong with Tamron
 > glass but as I said earlier, I haven't used Sigma in many years but I was
 > still more impressed with Tamron back then. Don't really know what their
 > [Sigma's] quality is like now.
 >
 > By the way, all are currently being used on a Canon 20D.

Of my L glass (17-40, 70-200, 100-400) I've got nothing faster than f/4
except a Sigma 15mm fisheye which is pretty soft at max aperture f/2.8 so I
was wondering if the Tamron was like the Sigma in that it's not very good at
f/2.8, and a general comparison of the company and their standards.

Thanks<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Sigma vs. Tamron for EOS? 

you know who maybe wrote:
 > "Zach" <zsmith RemoveThis @cox.net.nospam> wrote in message
 > news:ovotd.70847$GN4.1794@okepread02...
 >
  >>you know who maybe wrote:
  >>
   >>>Since that last thread was so popular
   >>>
   >>>In general is Tamron glass better, worse or the same as Sigma?
   >>>
   >>>I've never tried any Tamron lenses and was considering trying a 28-75
   >>>f/2.8 or even the 28-300 since it seems the magazines rate them so highly
   >>>(not too bad on Fred Miranda dot com, too).
  >>
  >>I can't comment on the Sigma lenses (I've never owned one but had used one
  >>or two a long time ago); I've used Tamron lenses on both film and digital
  >>and they are absolutely terrific. I currently have the 28-300, the 19-35
  >>and 24-135 and couldn't be more pleased with the results. I'm looking to
  >>buy the 90mm portrait/macro after my funds start building back up a bit
  >>. I owned the "film" version of it about 18 years ago and it was one
  >>of the best pieces of glass in my arsenal. You can't go wrong with Tamron
  >>glass but as I said earlier, I haven't used Sigma in many years but I was
  >>still more impressed with Tamron back then. Don't really know what their
  >>[Sigma's] quality is like now.
  >>
  >>By the way, all are currently being used on a Canon 20D.
 >
 >
 > Of my L glass (17-40, 70-200, 100-400) I've got nothing faster than f/4
 > except a Sigma 15mm fisheye which is pretty soft at max aperture f/2.8 so I
 > was wondering if the Tamron was like the Sigma in that it's not very good at
 > f/2.8, and a general comparison of the company and their standards.
 >
 > Thanks
 >
 >
The only [Tamron] lens I've had at 2.8 was the 90mm and it was tack
sharp at any aperture. The ones I own now are either 3.5 or 4.0 but
still just as sharp although the view is slightly dimmer than with 2.8
on down (of course, that'll be the scenario w/ any make of lens). I
don't quite understand what you mean about the general comparison of the
company and their standards. I've never had a problem with any lens
from them either now or from 18 years ago (I just took up photography
again after that time lapse) so I can't speak for customer service or
other entities within the company. You can go to their web site to find
out more about them and what their business practices may entail.
<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.tamron.com/" target="_blank">http://www.tamron.com/</a>

Zach<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Sigma vs. Tamron for EOS? 

Zach wrote:

 > The only [Tamron] lens I've had at 2.8 was the 90mm and it was tack
 > sharp at any aperture.

I suggest you photograph your tacks nearer to the center than the edges of the
frame:
<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.photodo.com/pix/lens/mtf/TASPAF9028MACR.gif" target="_blank">http://www.photodo.com/pix/lens/mtf/TASPAF9028MACR.gif</a>

and indeed it is sharper closed down a couple/few stops... for sharper tacks.

(Or get a real tack shooter:
<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.photodo.com/pix/lens/mtf/MIAF10028MACR.gif" target="_blank">http://www.photodo.com/pix/lens/mtf/MIAF10028MACR.gif</a>
from Minolta (100 f/2.8 macro)).

I'll grant that the Tamron probably has slightly smoother out of focus
background properties than the Minolta.

Cheers,
Alan.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm" target="_blank">http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm</a>
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm" target="_blank">http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm</a>
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.pbase.com/shootin" target="_blank">http://www.pbase.com/shootin</a>
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Sigma vs. Tamron for EOS? 

"Alan Browne" <alan.browne RemoveThis @freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
news:cp5co3$e6c$1@inews.gazeta.pl...
 > Zach wrote:
 >
  >> The only [Tamron] lens I've had at 2.8 was the 90mm and it was tack sharp
  >> at any aperture.
 >
 > I suggest you photograph your tacks nearer to the center than the edges of
 > the frame:
<font color=purple> > <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.photodo.com/pix/lens/mtf/TASPAF9028MACR.gif</font" target="_blank">http://www.photodo.com/pix/lens/mtf/TASPAF9028MACR.gif</font</a>>
 >
 > and indeed it is sharper closed down a couple/few stops... for sharper
 > tacks.
 >
 > (Or get a real tack shooter:
<font color=purple> > <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.photodo.com/pix/lens/mtf/MIAF10028MACR.gif</font" target="_blank">http://www.photodo.com/pix/lens/mtf/MIAF10028MACR.gif</font</a>>
 > from Minolta (100 f/2.8 macro)).
 >
 > I'll grant that the Tamron probably has slightly smoother out of focus
 > background properties than the Minolta.
 >
 > Cheers,
 > Alan.
 >
 > --

Could be a little problematic getting that Minolta lens to fit on his Canon
camera...<G>

--
Skip Middleton
<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com" target="_blank">http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com</a><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Sigma vs. Tamron for EOS? 

"Alan Browne" <alan.browne RemoveThis @freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
news:cp5co3$e6c$1@inews.gazeta.pl...
 > Zach wrote:
 >
  >> The only [Tamron] lens I've had at 2.8 was the 90mm and it was tack sharp
  >> at any aperture.
 >
 > I suggest you photograph your tacks nearer to the center than the edges of
 > the frame:
<font color=purple> > <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.photodo.com/pix/lens/mtf/TASPAF9028MACR.gif</font" target="_blank">http://www.photodo.com/pix/lens/mtf/TASPAF9028MACR.gif</font</a>>
 >
 > and indeed it is sharper closed down a couple/few stops... for sharper
 > tacks.
 >
 > (Or get a real tack shooter:
<font color=purple> > <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.photodo.com/pix/lens/mtf/MIAF10028MACR.gif</font" target="_blank">http://www.photodo.com/pix/lens/mtf/MIAF10028MACR.gif</font</a>>
 > from Minolta (100 f/2.8 macro)).
 >
 > I'll grant that the Tamron probably has slightly smoother out of focus
 > background properties than the Minolta.
 >
 > Cheers,
 > Alan.

I've got to learn to read these someday. Lower scores are better?<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Sigma vs. Tamron for EOS? 

you know who maybe wrote:
 > I've got to learn to read these someday. Lower scores are better?

er, no, <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.photodo.com/art/Unde7.shtml" target="_blank">http://www.photodo.com/art/Unde7.shtml</a>

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm" target="_blank">http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm</a>
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm" target="_blank">http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm</a>
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.pbase.com/shootin" target="_blank">http://www.pbase.com/shootin</a>
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Sigma vs. Tamron for EOS? 

Skip M wrote:


  >>--
 >
 >
 > Could be a little problematic getting that Minolta lens to fit on his Canon
 > camera...<G>

I was referring to the sharpness, not the applicability. Plugging Minolta
again... what's the matter with me!?



--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm" target="_blank">http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm</a>
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm" target="_blank">http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm</a>
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.pbase.com/shootin" target="_blank">http://www.pbase.com/shootin</a>
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Sigma vs. Tamron for EOS? 

this is an anti Sigma group, you should go ask on dpreview.com forums
instead.


"you know who maybe" <nguser2u.RemoveThis@spamnotAOL.com> a écrit dans le message de
news:T3ntd.9960$_3.116995@typhoon.sonic.net...
 > Since that last thread was so popular
 >
 > In general is Tamron glass better, worse or the same as Sigma?
 >
 > I've never tried any Tamron lenses and was considering trying a 28-75
f/2.8
 > or even the 28-300 since it seems the magazines rate them so highly (not
too
 > bad on Fred Miranda dot com, too).
 >
 ><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Sigma vs. Tamron for EOS? 

Chuck wrote:

 > this is an anti Sigma group, you should go ask on dpreview.com forums
 > instead.

Compared to some people, not at all...

<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.pbase.com/davenit/image/34335656" target="_blank">http://www.pbase.com/davenit/image/34335656</a>
Looks like a Sigma 15-30mm f3.5-4.5 EX Aspherical DG DF

Cheers,
Alan


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm" target="_blank">http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm</a>
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm" target="_blank">http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm</a>
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.pbase.com/shootin" target="_blank">http://www.pbase.com/shootin</a>
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Sigma vs. Tamron for EOS? 

from the photographer:

From: Dave Nitsche Date: 07-Oct-2004 11:41
With me the simplest answer is usually the answer. I dropped my lens and
shattered the back elements. So I took a 12" spike and broke the front
element. I then cut an arrow in two and placed it in the lens. Used tissues
to stick the arrow into the back element to support is.

I really loved that lens. Thanks for looking... Dave

http://www.pbase.com/davenit/image/34335656

bottom of the page
 >> Stay informed about: Sigma vs. Tamron for EOS? 

Alan Browne wrote:
<font color=purple> > <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.pbase.com/davenit/image/34335656</font" target="_blank">http://www.pbase.com/davenit/image/34335656</font</a>>
 > Looks like a Sigma 15-30mm f3.5-4.5 EX Aspherical DG DF

No.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Sigma vs. Tamron for EOS? 

Juergen . wrote:

 > Alan Browne wrote:
 >
  >>http://www.pbase.com/davenit/image/34335656
  >>Looks like a Sigma 15-30mm f3.5-4.5 EX Aspherical DG DF
 >
 >
 > No.

Then what is it chief?

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm" target="_blank">http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm</a>
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm" target="_blank">http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm</a>
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.pbase.com/shootin" target="_blank">http://www.pbase.com/shootin</a>
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Sigma vs. Tamron for EOS?