Sigma and Tamron

[bschneider5]

Eventually, I'll be buying some faster lenses and wonder what the drawbacks are , if any with the Sigma and Tamron lenses. Specifically, something like a Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 IF EX DG HSM

 

[flea77]

I have the Sigma 24-70 2.8, nice lens. It isn't like my Nikon 80-200 2.8 in that it is not as sharp, not as heavy, not built like a tank. But it is acceptably sharp and does a pretty good job.

Allan

 

[Shooter1]

Make a list of the lenses that interest you and then read the on-line reviews by their owners. It's really the only way to sort out the one(s) that would fit your needs without actually buying, renting or borrowing the lens. Everyone looks for or expects different results.

 

[BTilson]

One thing to keep in mind is that 99.8% of the time, it's not the lens resulting in a loss of sharpness. It's less than optimum conditions, settings, photographer skill, lighting, etc, that result in a less than tack sharp picture.

If you aren't a true professional who actually NEEDS the true best of the best, I think any of the "higher end, but off brand" lenses (Sigma, Tamron f/2.8 lenses) will be wonderfully sufficient for most any photographer.

I shoot a Canon Rebel T1i, still just have the 18-55 variable aperture kit lens. By taking my time and setting things up right, I've pulled some VERY sharp shots out of it.

Just my two cents, hope it helps a bit!

 

[Big Mike]

Eventually, I'll be buying some faster lenses and wonder what the drawbacks are , if any with the Sigma and Tamron lenses. Specifically, something like a Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 IF EX DG HSM

The benefits are usually that you can get some pretty good quality glass for a lot less than buying a Nikon/Canon lens.
A drawback might be that the quality probably isn't quite as good as the top of the line Canon/Nikon lenses.
I usually say that you can get 90% of the quality, for 50% of the price. But some people just need/wand that last 10% of quality.

It's hard to make these generalizations though, you really should compare lenses on a case by case basis.

 

[eric-holmes]

I hear that Sigma and Tamron are both good 3rd party lenses but the question is, which is better? Sigma or Tamron?

 

[Overread]

As Mike said its a lens by lens basis and there really is no hard fast rule that divides them. Sigma (because I tend to follow htem a little more) have lenses that are worse, equal to and better than (eg sigma 50mm f1.4) Canon glass and I am sure the story is the same with Nikon as well.
You can't just say Sigma is this or that - you have to break it down into groupings of lenses and compare them against each other to find the best overall performers - whilst also considering important factors like weight, design and cost.

 

[Dallmeyer]

I hear that Sigma and Tamron are both good 3rd party lenses but the question is, which is better? Sigma or Tamron?

Define your criteria for ''better'' and nominate a Tamron candidate for comparison. You'll get more useful feedback. My bias is towards Tamron. I own Tamrons and like them so there's a superficial answer to your question.

 

[jon595]

I have both the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 HSM II and the Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 HSM lenses. Bottom line, I love them both.

The Sigma 24-70 I really like for the smaller size than the Nikon and it's less than half the price. Is it as sharp or well built as the Nikon? No, it is not. However, for my needs, it is perfectly suitable.

The Sigma 70-200 is really nice too. I have used it alongside the Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 VI (version 1) and must say that, with the exception of the VR, I have not noticed a big difference. The new Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 with their OS really interests me.

Now onto the biggest problem with Sigma. Quality Control. I have sent my 70-200 back twice to Sigma. This was a little over a year of me buying it. In both cases the autofocus simply stopped working. The first time they replaced some gear or something and a month after I got it back, the AF stopped again. This time they put a new HSM motor in and has been good ever since (little over a year). The fixes were under warranty, so it didn't cost me anything. I'm not trying to scare you, and I still love the lens, but it's something to think about.

Rather long story short, I haven't used any Tamron lenses, but I will stick with Sigma for most of my lens needs as their HSM is fast and quiet and I'm getting great images with the lenses. I just hope they hold up in the long term.