Sigma 18-35 1.8 or Tamron 15-30 2.8

[goingback]

Alright, let me explain this:

I recently bought a D7100, lovely camera for sure, but I'm still looking for the "perfect" lens.
I mostly shoot landscapes and a little bit of architecture (well, more like cityscape, to be honest).
Coming from a D200 I started with a 18-55, then switched to my little dust collector (Nikon 18-70) and bought a 50mm 1.8.
After going through the EXIFs of my pictures I found that I took most of them in the range of 18-30mm. I then borrowed an ultra-wide-angle from a friend (Sigma 10-20), but found myself mostly sticking to the 16-20mm range or cropping in afterwards on those 10-12mm shots.

Therfore I'm looking for a wide-angle to midrange zoom, that gives me better image quality as well as a bigger aperture, especially to do a portrait here and there or a close-up of some flowers and what not.

Now I'm torn between the Sigma 18-35 1.8 and the Tamron 15-30 2.8. What I found so far:

Pros Sigma:
• f 1.8
• excellent sharpness
• lighter
• 300 EUR cheaper
• ability to use 72mm filters

Cons Sigma:
• not weather sealed
• no image stabilization
• DX-only
• may have some autofocus issues

Pros Tamron:
• image stabilization
• weather sealed
• 3mm more wide-angle
• "full-frame-ready"

Cons Tamron:
• heavier
• 300 EUR more expensive
• no filter thread
• not quite as sharp (at least according to what I found, not necessarily a Con)

Correct me, if I forgot something/you have any additions.


I made this list now, but it doesn't really help me. I'm not sure about the filter thing, because I've actually never used any and haven't missed them so far.
What I'm also not sure about is the aperture/VR point. How much of a difference does f 1.8 really make, especially when it comes to Bokeh (let's say I want to do some street photography/close ups/etc.)?
The VR: How much does it help? The last VR lens i used was the Nikon 18-55, but that's not necessarily a good example and it's been quite some time...I plan on also doing some video with the new lens, would a VR version be better or would I enjoy the f1.8 more?

And: Is it worth it for FX compatibility? I will upgrade to full frame one day for sure, but it won't be within the next 3 years or so.


Last but not least: This will be the lens I use the most, so I could use the extra 3mm wide angle of the Tamron, but I also wouldn't miss them, because I'm used to 18mm.


Help!

 

[D-B-J]

Alright, let me explain this:

I recently bought a D7100, lovely camera for sure, but I'm still looking for the "perfect" lens.
I mostly shoot landscapes and a little bit of architecture (well, more like cityscape, to be honest).
Coming from a D200 I started with a 18-55, then switched to my little dust collector (Nikon 18-70) and bought a 50mm 1.8.
After going through the EXIFs of my pictures I found that I took most of them in the range of 18-30mm. I then borrowed an ultra-wide-angle from a friend (Sigma 10-20), but found myself mostly sticking to the 16-20mm range or cropping in afterwards on those 10-12mm shots.

Therfore I'm looking for a wide-angle to midrange zoom, that gives me better image quality as well as a bigger aperture, especially to do a portrait here and there or a close-up of some flowers and what not.

Now I'm torn between the Sigma 18-35 1.8 and the Tamron 15-30 2.8. What I found so far:

Pros Sigma:
• f 1.8
• excellent sharpness
• lighter
• 300 EUR cheaper
• ability to use 72mm filters

Cons Sigma:
• not weather sealed
• no image stabilization
• DX-only
• may have some autofocus issues

Pros Tamron:
• image stabilization
• weather sealed
• 3mm more wide-angle
• "full-frame-ready"

Cons Tamron:
• heavier
• 300 EUR more expensive
• no filter thread
• not quite as sharp (at least according to what I found, not necessarily a Con)

Correct me, if I forgot something/you have any additions.


I made this list now, but it doesn't really help me. I'm not sure about the filter thing, because I've actually never used any and haven't missed them so far.
What I'm also not sure about is the aperture/VR point. How much of a difference does f 1.8 really make, especially when it comes to Bokeh (let's say I want to do some street photography/close ups/etc.)?
The VR: How much does it help? The last VR lens i used was the Nikon 18-55, but that's not necessarily a good example and it's been quite some time...I plan on also doing some video with the new lens, would a VR version be better or would I enjoy the f1.8 more?

And: Is it worth it for FX compatibility? I will upgrade to full frame one day for sure, but it won't be within the next 3 years or so.


Last but not least: This will be the lens I use the most, so I could use the extra 3mm wide angle of the Tamron, but I also wouldn't miss them, because I'm used to 18mm.


Help!

Personally, I'd want the Tamron. I'm biased, as I shoot lots of landscapes, but that lens is a beautiful beast. 15-30? Killer range (not that bad on DX, but it's not as wide as you might wish), full-frame compatible (it was DAMNED expensive when I made the switch and had to buy all new gear... so keep that in mind), optical stabilization (i'm sick of people saying it's not needed on wide angle lenses; I've relied on the VR of my 16-35 more than I care to mention), 2.8 aperture (awesome for astro-work, good for separation at wide angles if you get close).

That being said, Sigma's art line is incredible. I have their 35 1.4, and it's an incredible imager. As you said though, it's not weather sealed, and there's no optical stabilization. BUT, of you like a good walk around that provides you with awesome separation (the 1.8 is great for that) and some purty bokeh, the Sigma might be the answer. I can say that I've yet to yearn for optical stabilization on my 35--it's so mind-blowingly sharp at 1.4 that I often am shooting wide open or at 1.6, which lets in a lot of light.

Does that help, probably not... but what do YOU want? A great wide angle that's FX compatible? Or a great walk-around lens that will give you good sharp shots and pretty bokeh?

Jake

Re-read your post--in terms of portraits, the 18-35 will be a bit short for any close-up type shots. It'll be good for those "scene" style shots that are shot wider.

 

[goingback]

Alright...So you think VR might be important more than I think?

Regarding sharpness: Is the Sigma really THAT much better than the Tamron?

Re-read your post--in terms of portraits, the 18-35 will be a bit short for any close-up type shots. It'll be good for those "scene" style shots that are shot wider.

I guess my phrasing wasn't right: By "close-up" I didn't mean actual close-ups, but rather "being close to my subject" (unlike shooting landscape).

 

[D-B-J]

Alright...So you think VR might be important more than I think?

Regarding sharpness: Is the Sigma really THAT much better than the Tamron?

Re-read your post--in terms of portraits, the 18-35 will be a bit short for any close-up type shots. It'll be good for those "scene" style shots that are shot wider.

I guess my phrasing wasn't right: By "close-up" I didn't mean actual close-ups, but rather "being close to my subject" (unlike shooting landscape).

I don't know about either of those lenses, as I myself haven't actually used them.

Here's a 35 1.4 shot though, to show how impressive the Art series lenses are.

Shot at 1.4
_RSP0690 by f_one_eight, on Flickr

 

[hamlet]

The crop factor on the d7100 will turn the tamron 15-30 into a 22-45mm equivalent. You've owned the 18-55, you should be able to discern if 22mm is wide enough for you to get your shot.

 

[jaomul]

The crop factor on the d7100 will turn the tamron 15-30 into a 22-45mm equivalent. You've owned the 18-55, you should be able to discern if 22mm is wide enough for you to get your shot.

This information is wrong.

 

[jaomul]

Op, you say most shots are in 16-20 range so that rules out the sigma 18-35. If you feel the sigma 10-20 is overkill at the wide end you are looking at a fx lens that starts at 16 ish. The tamron looks great, but if you don't need f2.8 there is the Nikon 16-35 f4 or indeed the tokina 16-28 f2.8 which are both smaller, lighter and on a crop camera like a d7100 will only use the centre of the lens, not the edges which in theory should mean you get to use the best part of the lens.

 

[goingback]

The crop factor on the d7100 will turn the tamron 15-30 into a 22-45mm equivalent. You've owned the 18-55, you should be able to discern if 22mm is wide enough for you to get your shot.

Yes, I know and yes, usually 22mm were enough, but sometimes I did wish to have a little more "space".

Op, you say most shots are in 16-20 range so that rules out the sigma 18-35.

No. Most of my shots overall are 18-30mm. 16-20 only applies for the Sigma 10-20mm. My point there was, that I usually don't need the ultra-wide-angle of 10-14mm.

The tamron looks great, but if you don't need f2.8 there is the Nikon 16-35 f4 or indeed the tokina 16-28 f2.8 which are both smaller, lighter and on a crop camera like a d7100 will only use the centre of the lens, not the edges which in theory should mean you get to use the best part of the lens.

Actually, I want at least f2.8 for the new lens as I will also use it to take some portraits and stuff like that where a wider aperture comes in handy and f4 wouldn't be enough. (+ the Nikon 16-35 is even more expensive than the Tamron).

 

[jaomul]

Ok got prices wrong. Looked at a site and thought Nikon was cheaper, but was looking at wrong lens

You should look at the sigma 17-50 f2.8 os. It might fit your criteria

 

[hamlet]

Sometimes i regret buying the 18-35. It is a awesome lens, but it isn't wide enough for my taste. The way i get around getting shots that are too big to fit into my frame is that i do a composition shot and stitch it together later in photoshop.

 

[D-B-J]

The crop factor on the d7100 will turn the tamron 15-30 into a 22-45mm equivalent. You've owned the 18-55, you should be able to discern if 22mm is wide enough for you to get your shot.

This information is wrong.

No, the information is correct. The 15-30 on a nikon crop sensor (1.5) will act as a 22.5-45mm lens, as the 15-30 is for full-frame systems.

 

[jaomul]

The crop factor on the d7100 will turn the tamron 15-30 into a 22-45mm equivalent. You've owned the 18-55, you should be able to discern if 22mm is wide enough for you to get your shot.

This information is wrong.

No, the information is correct. The 15-30 on a nikon crop sensor (1.5) will act as a 22.5-45mm lens, as the 15-30 is for full-frame systems.

Read it again.

Indeed it is correct that on a crop the tamron gives a field of view 22.5 to 45, but it then states that op owned a 18-55 and should be able to figure out if 22 is wide enough, but the 18-55 gives fov 27-82, so the statement is comparing focal lengths of two different lenses, but only taking the crop factors into account on one of them

 

[Solarflare]

Hmm.

I'm baffled anyone would contemplate to buy a huge heavy expensive FX wide zoom to use it as a DX normal/wide zoom... that would have never occured to me.

Then again, maybe people got used to huge massive zooms from the Sigma 18-35mm f1.8 ...

The crop factor on the d7100 will turn the tamron 15-30 into a 22-45mm equivalent. You've owned the 18-55, you should be able to discern if 22mm is wide enough for you to get your shot.

Say what ?!?

The 15-30mm will be a 22.5-45mm equivalent

The 18-55mm will be a 27-82.5mm equivalent

So how does the experience with the 18-55mm help in the descision making about 22.5mm here ? It didnt provided that focal length.

 

[hamlet]

Why is the crop factor being applied to the 18-55?

 

[Solarflare]

Why is the crop factor being applied to the 18-55?

Why is that a question?

The focal length is a property of the LENS. A lens always does the exact same thing to light. It doesnt care the least bit how big or small the sensor is, or if there even is a sensor in place.

The crop factor is a property of the SENSOR. It describes how large the sensor is, relative to small format 36x24mm.

The equivalent focal lenght is the actual focal length of the LENS multiplied by the crop factor of the SENSOR, specifying what viewing angle the sensor sees if it was as large as a small format sensor.

Thus ANY focal length has to be multiplied by the crop factor, no matter what image circle it provides, i.e. no matter if it is DX or FX or medium format or whatever, in order to get the equivalent focal length.

If you use a DX lens with a FX sensor, you still will see the same focal length. Since there will be no crop factor, the equivalent focal length will be the same as the actual focal length. The lens might simply vignette up to the degree of getting completely dark, since it usually doesnt provide an image circle of FX.