Steve's Digicams Forums

Steve's Digicams Forums (
-   Canon EOS dSLR (
-   -   Sigma VS Tamron Lenses (

fporch Dec 14, 2003 6:05 AM

Sigma VS Tamron Lenses
I am using a Tamron 28-300 3.5 XR LD travel lens on a Canon Rebel 300D with very good results, very satisfied. I want to get a 2.8 lens for lowlight shots. On B&H, Sigma has a 2.8 24-75 and Tamron has 28-75 2.8 lens. I know and like Tamron lens, but would like to have the 24 mm offered by the Sigma. What's opinions on Tamron VS. Sigma lenses? Any difference? THX.

ohenry Dec 14, 2003 9:13 AM

I can give high praise of the Tamron 28-75mm F/2.8 XR Di lens. I've had mine for about a month now and am very satisfied with the sharpness of the images, the speed of the focusing, and the overall build quality.

fporch Dec 14, 2003 1:31 PM

THX ohenry - how are the low light images coming out and it is this lens fast in low light?

ohenry Dec 14, 2003 3:19 PM

I'm not quite sure what you're asking. A lens' speed is measured by the largest aperature, so a f/2.8 lens is faster than a f/4.0. But either lens may take a great picture in low light situations; one just requires a slower shutter speed.

fporch Dec 14, 2003 7:52 PM

I guess the question I'm asking is will I see a noticable difference in shutter speed between the Tamron 3.5 28-300 and a Tamron 2.8 28-75 or Sigma 24-75. My thought in adding the a 2.8 to my bag is it will ofer better exposure in low light. My other question is the if there is any quality difference between Sigma and Tamron lenses on a Canon body. THX.

ohenry Dec 14, 2003 9:32 PM


for every stop decrease in aperature, you get a corresponding stop increase in shutter speed (and vice versa). The difference between 2.8 and 3.5 is about 2/3 of a stop, so you could expect a 2/3 stop faster shutter speed. But then again, you have to ask yourself how often you are going to be shooting at wide open aperature. I don't think 2/3 of a stop will make that significant of an issue unless you find yourself continually shooting handheld shots in low light conditions. You can get much better results putting the camera on the tripod, then it doesn't make a hill of beans whether you shoot at 60 seconds or 6 seconds AND you can choose the aperature you want to achieve the effects you want.

Regarding Sigma vs Tamron, I defer you to the following url for a comparison of several lenses that may interest you.

You may find the 24mm wide angle more favorable to you than the extra 2/3 of a stop in aperature. All depends on what you're shooting and what other lenses you carry.

Good luck...and report back to us with feedback on whichever lens you chose and how it works for you.

Frank Doorhof Dec 15, 2003 6:31 AM


I use the new Tamron 28-75 XR Di modelA09 and some....:D.
I compared it in the store with some Sigma EX versions and the Tamron was really a WHOLE other league.

On the net they even compared it to the L version of Canon and the Tamron was slightly better in picture quality (sharpness/color).

I don't have L-lenses but I can say that the Tamron 28-75 performs evenly well as my Sigma 70-210 f2.8 APO which is razor razor sharp.

I also own a Tamron 90mm f2.8 macro lens which is also superb.

Another canditate would be the Tokina Pro in that range, on photozone at the moment above the Tamron which only appeared on the list since this week I believe.

I would test out the Tokina and Tamron, the Sigma in this case can be left untested that difference was really huge.


fporch Dec 15, 2003 12:41 PM

This is very helpful folks, THX. I do regularly shoot lowlight handheld. I have a tripod, but find I often don't have the time or inclination to set it up. I will report back after I study up on this site and make a decision. THX.

fporch Dec 15, 2003 4:30 PM

A photographer my company hires for jobs suggested a 50 mm 1.4 lens for handheld low light shots. Canon has an AF model for around $300. Anyone have any experience with this lens? THX

eric s Dec 15, 2003 10:00 PM

I have the 50 F1.8.

The f1.4 is a very good lens. Personally, the 50 f1.8 is about 50 bucks and is also very good optically. There are differences:

The f1.4 is made of metal, the f1.8 is plastic.

The f1.4 has USM, the f1.8 doesn't. Therefor the f1.4 will focus a lot faster. Personally, I don't find the f1.8 very slow.

For some these matters. For others, they don't. I don't expect to be in many situations where the lens is in danger, so I got the f1.8. If it breaks I can buy many more before being out money. And optically, it's good enough for me.

The f1.4 version might be what you need, but it might be overkill. Only you can decide.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:44 AM.