Is there a difference

[robdavis305]

Is one better than the other. Im looking at Sigma and Tameron lenses and was wondering if one is better than the other and im shooting a Nikon D90

 

[davebmck]

Depends on the specific lens. Both manufacturers make some very good lenses and some not so good lenses. I always look at multiple reviews when considering a new lens. Here's a good site to see reviews and compare manufacturers: http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/index.php

 

[Plato]

Is one better than the other. Im looking at Sigma and Tameron lenses and was wondering if one is better than the other and im shooting a Nikon D90

Well, I switched to Nikon because I wanted Nikon glass.

 

[Garbz]

OP it changes between various lenses. For instance Sigma's 50mm f/1.4 outperforms even Nikon's new f/1.4 in several areas. But their 70-200 on the other hand...

Plato true, but what glass? Nikons f/2.8 zoom lenses for instance are quite a bit more expensive than Sigmas or Tamerons. Given that the OP shoots a D90 and not a D3 I'd say they may be someone price conscious While I admit I am a bit of a Nikon fan and bias towards it when choosing lenses, there are some very excellent quality choices from the third parties these days.

 

[Plato]

OP it changes between various lenses. For instance Sigma's 50mm f/1.4 outperforms even Nikon's new f/1.4 in several areas. But their 70-200 on the other hand...

Plato true, but what glass? Nikons f/2.8 zoom lenses for instance are quite a bit more expensive than Sigmas or Tamerons. Given that the OP shoots a D90 and not a D3 I'd say they may be someone price conscious While I admit I am a bit of a Nikon fan and bias towards it when choosing lenses, there are some very excellent quality choices from the third parties these days.

Well, among a half-dozen lenses, my favorites are the 50mm f/1.4 (D version) and the 85mm f/1.8. My point is my own personal laziness. I figure that Nikon is not about to put out junk glass for their SLRs so even the lower-priced lenses should be respectable.

 

[kundalini]

Well, I switched to Nikon because I wanted Nikkor glass.

:thumbup: Mee tooo. I couldn't afford Nikon back in the '70's, but I can now. I realize there are some good 3rd party glass out there, buuutttt.............................

 

[ashleykaryl]

It depends on your needs really but for professional work I have come to the conclusion that you should really stick to Canon's or Nikon's own lenses. For a hobby photographer it's not really so critical.

A while back I purchased a couple of Tamron lenses in the hope of saving some money but it didn't work out and they were both disappointing. I don't think Sigma would be any better though, so my suggestion would be to look for good second hand lenses from the camera makers if budget is an issue.

 

[IgsEMT]

For pro purposes, many people won't go with third party lenses, HOWEVER, I know of few photographers who shoot Tamron on Canon body. I also know of few enthusiasts who swear by Tamron and Sigma lenses. Few weeks ago, I spoke with B&H guys regarding 3rd party lenses and they said that Tokina (I think I spelled it correctly) recently recruited lots of Nikon engineers thus it might be a brand of choice.
Personally, I used to own 18-200 Tamron 3.5-6.3 and although it was a great lens for outdoors, it sucked indoors.

 

[ashleykaryl]

I recently wrote a blog post on my experience with the Tamron 28-75 v Canon 24-105L at:

Canon 24-105L | Nude Photo Pro

 

[Garbz]

It depends on your needs really but for professional work I have come to the conclusion that you should really stick to Canon's or Nikon's own lenses. For a hobby photographer it's not really so critical.

Nikon Professional membership + some Nikon lenses is basically like an insurance ticket too. When I consider it took me 6 weeks to get my 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5 back, and it took only 5 days for a architectural photographer I know to get his lens back it made me feel really cheap.

I figure that Nikon is not about to put out junk glass for their SLRs so even the lower-priced lenses should be respectable.

Spoken like someone who has never used a Series III Nikkor AI-S 55mm f/1.2. After using that lens I almost want to go touch a Canon. ... Almost .... And I'd definitely wash after.

 

[skieur]

Is one better than the other. Im looking at Sigma and Tameron lenses and was wondering if one is better than the other and im shooting a Nikon D90

In some cases there is, such as the 70mm to 200mm f. 2.8 Tamron lens is better than the Sigma equivalent, according to the lab tests conducted by Popular Photography magazine.

skieur

 

[Plato]

I figure that Nikon is not about to put out junk glass for their SLRs so even the lower-priced lenses should be respectable.

Spoken like someone who has never used a Series III Nikkor AI-S 55mm f/1.2. After using that lens I almost want to go touch a Canon. ... Almost .... And I'd definitely wash after.

I still figure that the odds are in my favor.

 

[Joves]

I figure that Nikon is not about to put out junk glass for their SLRs so even the lower-priced lenses should be respectable.

Spoken like someone who has never used a Series III Nikkor AI-S 55mm f/1.2. After using that lens I almost want to go touch a Canon. ... Almost .... And I'd definitely wash after.

I remember reading about that one and, the review said it made a really pretty paper weight.

 

[Derrel]

There NEVER was a 55mm f/1.2 Nikkor made in Ai-S mount. Never. The original 55mm f/1.2 was introduced in 1965. At the time, the 55mm f/1.2 S.C. Nikkor was the fastest Nikkor prime lens. Focusing on this lens is ultra-critical, and at 0.6 meters, there is around six millimeters of depth of field wide open. Admittedly, the 55mm f/1.2 was not one of the absolute best lenses, but somebody here is complaining that a world-class "speed lens" designed almost fifty years ago, and which hasn't been produced since 1977, wasn't a very good lens? (Regardless....that same lens will mount and shoot on a D40 or D60,without modification.)

In July of 1978, the 55mm f/1.2 lens was replaced by the economy model 50mm f/1.2 in the then-new Ai-S mount. AND of course, the 1977 introduction of the 58mm f/1.2 Noct~NIKKOR, the lens that now sells for $3,500 to $3,800 on e-Bay because it's one of the world's best low-light and astrophotography lenses. Yeah, Nikon lenses suck; 10- to 40-year old manual focus lenses people line up to pay $3.5k for? They must suck!

Nikkor 55mm f/1.2 Standard Lenses - Version History - Part III

As far as Sigma versus Tokina...it's a lens by lens decision. Sigma has made a few truly fine lenses; their 15-30 and 10-20 wide zooms have been very highly regarded, as have their 70,105,150,and 180 APO macro lenses. Tokina has long had good build quality, but in my opinion, has put out about as many turkeys as good models. Their 100/2.8 macro tests out very well. Again, the 3rd party lenses have to be judged on a model by model basis,not as a brand in total. Tamron's 90mm f/2.8 macro has had a sort of cult-like following since the 1970's; I own one,and it is a fine macro lens! Tamron's 24-135 is a wide-to-tele zoom lens that has reputation as a strong performer. Tamron's 200-500mm has a good reputation too. The images their 180 macro puts out look stellar to me.

Same with Canon versus Nikon; both companies have a few dogs in their lineups.