Home News Buyers Guide About Advertising
 
 
 
   
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 32
  1. #21
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Johnson City, Tennessee
    Posts
    193
    Steadi, when you get a chance, can you post some of those test shots and maybe even some of the theatre shots. I am having same dilema. I've seen shots with Tamron lens and they were actually quite good. Thanks.

  2. #22
    PerfectPitch Guest

    Sigma vs Tamron 18-200

    Hello all,

    I just ordered copies of both the Sigma & Tamron 18-200 zooms to try out with my Digital Rebel XT. I spent yesterday shooting semi-scientific comparison series outdoors (tripod, controlling for aperture, shutter speed, framing, focal length, etc.). To my chagrin, I found out afterward that my camera had been reset at the shop--where it was recently checked out--with "medium high" boosts in contrast, saturation, and sharpening. But the settings were the same for both lenses.

    In short: I found the two to be very close optically. The Tamron made images that are ever so slightly less saturated and a little deficient in the red hues. Sigma images look just slightly underexposed in comparison. Purple fringing was equivalent in both, but slightly more noticeable in the Tamron because of a slightly "harder" feel to the contrast.

    The important differences echo what I've read elsewhere. Tamron zooms both wider and tighter than Sigma, auto-focuses more quietly and sometimes more quickly, and feels smoother going onto the camera. Both show vignetting at 18-24mm wide open, but Sigma is noticeably worse. And Sigma intermittently mis-focuses badly. From beyond a track circling a football field, I focused on a marker on the near 30-yard line with the XT's center AF point. At f6.3, Tamron hit it right on, but Sigma focused on the near end zone, about 1/3 of the way below the focal point to the bottom of the image. In 200mm shots of a distant cell phone tower and the moon, Sigma missed and caught nothing as sharply as Tamron.

    I took a few pictures today after setting the camera's processing parameters to neutral. Details of branches against the sky looked noticeably blue in Tamron but not Sigma. Tamron's comparative softness was more evident, as was a slight greenish cast and lower saturation. But at f6.3 135mm, Sigma missed focusing on a roof ridgeline some 50 feet away, catching the middle of the slope instead, and 5-dollar bill shot at 18 inches, 200mm f6.3 was unfocused in the middle but clearer around the edges than Tamron's best details.

    Sigma at its best looks better than Tamron, but many of my shots include momentary situations (wildlife, sunsets) that won't wait for me to get the right focus. I'm going with Tamron and saving my pennies for something sharper and perhaps faster.

    If I can figure out how and find the time, I'll post some sample shots. Not art, for sure, but evidence.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    2
    Thanks for that review PerfectPitch.
    Time for some opinions though. Is it worth it to upgrade to the Tarmon from the (350XT) kit lense? Increased range is a large bonus, but I'm looking for some image quality increase as well. What do you say?

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Northern Colorado, USA
    Posts
    2,225

    Is it just me...

    ... or does Sigma just not have Canon cameras figured out? You occasionally hear about a good experience, but so many more seem to be difficult.

    - Eric

  5. #25
    Ash Guest

    Question

    Quote Originally Posted by trae
    Thanks for that review PerfectPitch.
    Time for some opinions though. Is it worth it to upgrade to the Tarmon from the (350XT) kit lense? Increased range is a large bonus, but I'm looking for some image quality increase as well. What do you say?
    That's exactly my question too. I bought an EOS350D (or Rebel if you like) and don't have bags of cash to upgrade my lens with but would like to step up a grade or two for around 300. The extra zoom range of the Tamron 18-200 sounds great, but if I'm going to spend 270 I would also like to see noticeably sharper images in a range of situations from landscapes to portraits (I can't afford multiple lenses right now) than the 18-55 lens Canon bundled with my camera (which, compared to a Nikkor series lens my father recieved in a bundle with his Nikon D50 is noticeably inferior). Who's going to help us out here? Will the Tamron deliver?

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    2,175
    Quote Originally Posted by erichlund
    ... or does Sigma just not have Canon cameras figured out? You occasionally hear about a good experience, but so many more seem to be difficult.

    - Eric
    It's because they are too "cheap" to pay Canon for the information they need to create properly compatible lenses. Instead, they "guess" it out and reverse engineer Canon's lenses.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by PerfectPitch
    Hello all,

    I just ordered copies of both the Sigma & Tamron 18-200 zooms to try out with my Digital Rebel XT. I spent yesterday shooting semi-scientific comparison series outdoors (tripod, controlling for aperture, shutter speed, framing, focal length, etc.). To my chagrin, I found out afterward that my camera had been reset at the shop--where it was recently checked out--with "medium high" boosts in contrast, saturation, and sharpening. But the settings were the same for both lenses.

    In short: I found the two to be very close optically. The Tamron made images that are ever so slightly less saturated and a little deficient in the red hues. Sigma images look just slightly underexposed in comparison. Purple fringing was equivalent in both, but slightly more noticeable in the Tamron because of a slightly "harder" feel to the contrast.

    The important differences echo what I've read elsewhere. Tamron zooms both wider and tighter than Sigma, auto-focuses more quietly and sometimes more quickly, and feels smoother going onto the camera. Both show vignetting at 18-24mm wide open, but Sigma is noticeably worse. And Sigma intermittently mis-focuses badly. From beyond a track circling a football field, I focused on a marker on the near 30-yard line with the XT's center AF point. At f6.3, Tamron hit it right on, but Sigma focused on the near end zone, about 1/3 of the way below the focal point to the bottom of the image. In 200mm shots of a distant cell phone tower and the moon, Sigma missed and caught nothing as sharply as Tamron.

    I took a few pictures today after setting the camera's processing parameters to neutral. Details of branches against the sky looked noticeably blue in Tamron but not Sigma. Tamron's comparative softness was more evident, as was a slight greenish cast and lower saturation. But at f6.3 135mm, Sigma missed focusing on a roof ridgeline some 50 feet away, catching the middle of the slope instead, and 5-dollar bill shot at 18 inches, 200mm f6.3 was unfocused in the middle but clearer around the edges than Tamron's best details.

    Sigma at its best looks better than Tamron, but many of my shots include momentary situations (wildlife, sunsets) that won't wait for me to get the right focus. I'm going with Tamron and saving my pennies for something sharper and perhaps faster.

    If I can figure out how and find the time, I'll post some sample shots. Not art, for sure, but evidence.
    emm...how come the test photos in page 1 showing Sigma is having better image quality? after read your review, i am really not sure which 1 to buy.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by philipcs
    emm...how come the test photos in page 1 showing Sigma is having better image quality? after read your review, i am really not sure which 1 to buy.
    'cause everyone has a different experience when it comes to lenses it seems.
    although i've seen more good sigma pictures than tamrons. this makes me sad, because i can get a tamron 18-200 for a good price. dammit.

  9. #29
    variable Guest
    I have a love/hate relationship with the 18-55 that came with my 300D. It produces wonderful images but the stupid external focus thing is a royal pain. I ended up hacking apart one of those adjustable polarizers so that I could put my flip open cap at the end and not have the autofocus rotate the cap to block the flash. I picked up the tamron 18-200 and I havent made up my mind whether or not I like it. I didn't read the reviews, I just went and looked at it. Right off the bat, the minimum focusing distance is much larger than the 18-55 that came with the camera. Admitedly I don't know much about optics so this may be perfectly normal. Anyway. I noticed the zoom has quite a bit of resistance to it compared to the one I tried in the shop, though i suppose that should be expected...

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Monterey Bay
    Posts
    6,018
    Quote Originally Posted by Rex914
    It's because they are too "cheap" to pay Canon for the information they need to create properly compatible lenses. Instead, they "guess" it out and reverse engineer Canon's lenses.
    I'm pretty sure that Sigma, Tokina, Tamron, Vivitar, and etc. must all reverse engineer OEM lenses, not so much by choice, but because it's the only option.

    I don't think that OEM lens manufacturers license or sell their lens and camera interface IP to competitors. Lenses are a cash cow, and I think that Canon is just better at making reverse engineering difficult.

    I certainly could be wrong about this, but from what I've read over the years (sorry I don't have a pointer to information this time) I'm not sure that pointing the fickle finger of fate at 3rd party lens makers applies.
    D7000, D70, CP990, CP900, FE.
    50mm f/1.8, Sigma 18-125, Sigma 24-70 f/2.8, Nikon 18-105 VR, Nikon 55-200 VR, Nikon 43-86 f/3.5 AiS, Vivitar 28-90 F/2.8-3.5 Macro, Vivitar 75-205 F/3.8-4.8, SB800.
    Ha! See, I can change...


    http://d70fan.smugmug.com/

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •