Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Sony Alpha dSLR / Konica Minolta dSLR, Sony SLT

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old May 20, 2011, 10:03 PM   #1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 239
Default Sigma 18-200mm vs Tamron 18-200mm?

I just bought a new Sigma 30mm f/1.4 lens, and am loving it. I also have a kit lens, but the think I'm lacking is an all in one lens. So I decided to buy one with a 18-200mm+ focal length. I am looking at both the Tamron and Sigma models. Has anyone had any experience with them? Currently B&H has the Tamron on sale for $240, while the Sigma is $270. I was looking on Flickr, and it seemed to me that the colors and the pictures themselves were more "vibrant" with the Sigma lens. IS means nothing to me since my a55 has it built it. Any help would be appreciated!! Thanks

Adam
__________________
60D w/ Grip. Canon 24-70L. Canon 50 f/1.8. Speedlite 430EX II. Macbook Pro.
adamvk is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old May 24, 2011, 5:45 AM   #2
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,543
Default

These jack-of-all-trades-and-masters-of-none lenses can do a lot of things, but they do few things well. The only thing you get is the convenience of not having to change lenses very often, but what you give up is image quality. These lenses have a lot of distortion at the wide end, a lot of chromatic aberration at the long end, and they're not very sharp anywhare. Where their ranges overlap, neither of the ones you're looking at is as good as the 18-55 you already have.

Perhaps you'd be better served by one of the 55-200 lenses that are available.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 24, 2011, 5:22 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Australia, New South Wales central coast
Posts: 2,891
Default

G'day adam

2-sides to my response ...
a) as someone who enjoys the versatility of the superzoom lenses, I can comment favourably about them & their versatility, and
b) to take TCs comments above - yes those views may be 'technically correct' but I feel they are too harsh - I for one choose versatility over the fractionally lower IQ that other, different & more expensive lenses may offer

You or I can certainly go out and spend 3x or 6x or 10x the amounts you are quoting for 'that super-perfect' lens that overcomes the issues TC raises - but will it give you any better images??

I would suggest that 'if your style of photography can benefit from a superzoom' then by all means go and get one - remembering that 'there is no such thing as a free lunch' and accepting that versatility is the name of the game for you [and me] at a slight 'cost' when compared to other lenses

As to Sigma vs Tamron ~ both makers get good reviews from the industry, so I would suggest that [if possible] you handle both and see which feels better to your fingers

Regards, Phil
__________________
Has Fuji & Lumix superzoom cameras and loves their amazing capabilities
Spends 8-9 months each year travelling Australia
Recent images at http://www.flickr.com/photos/ozzie_traveller/sets/
Ozzie_Traveller is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 24, 2011, 10:00 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 239
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TCav View Post
These jack-of-all-trades-and-masters-of-none lenses can do a lot of things, but they do few things well. The only thing you get is the convenience of not having to change lenses very often, but what you give up is image quality. These lenses have a lot of distortion at the wide end, a lot of chromatic aberration at the long end, and they're not very sharp anywhare. Where their ranges overlap, neither of the ones you're looking at is as good as the 18-55 you already have.

Perhaps you'd be better served by one of the 55-200 lenses that are available.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozzie_Traveller View Post
G'day adam

2-sides to my response ...
a) as someone who enjoys the versatility of the superzoom lenses, I can comment favourably about them & their versatility, and
b) to take TCs comments above - yes those views may be 'technically correct' but I feel they are too harsh - I for one choose versatility over the fractionally lower IQ that other, different & more expensive lenses may offer

You or I can certainly go out and spend 3x or 6x or 10x the amounts you are quoting for 'that super-perfect' lens that overcomes the issues TC raises - but will it give you any better images??

I would suggest that 'if your style of photography can benefit from a superzoom' then by all means go and get one - remembering that 'there is no such thing as a free lunch' and accepting that versatility is the name of the game for you [and me] at a slight 'cost' when compared to other lenses

As to Sigma vs Tamron ~ both makers get good reviews from the industry, so I would suggest that [if possible] you handle both and see which feels better to your fingers

Regards, Phil
Yea, thanks for the replies. I am aware that the all in one zoom lens wont be as good as individual lenses, but I'm still a college student, so I don't have a lot of money to spend on photography gear, plus I have a good prime lens that will work in most cases. And as mentioned by Ozzie Traveller, the versatility would be nice. I did consider a Sigma 70-300 and a Sigma 18-50 f2.8, but then I would be changing lenses a lot, and I don't want to be doing that.
__________________
60D w/ Grip. Canon 24-70L. Canon 50 f/1.8. Speedlite 430EX II. Macbook Pro.
adamvk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 24, 2011, 10:40 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: California
Posts: 2,274
Default

I actually believe that there's an advantage to taking only 1 lens, especially if it covers 18mm to 200mm. You never have to worry about having the wrong lens on when that moment happens.

I have a larger then average selection of lenses available and I find that my super zoom see's the most action out of any of my lenses.

Looking at your gear I would sell the 18-55 and put that money towards the Sony 18-250, Tamron 18-270 or the Sigma 18-250HSM and a decent tripod.

If you don't make print's larger then 8.5 X 11 I doubt you will see any difference with the super zoom.
__________________
A-mount
E-mount
Canon S95
lomitamike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 25, 2011, 4:12 AM   #6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Australia, New South Wales central coast
Posts: 2,891
Default

G'day again adam

Another thought ...
Every week there are large numbers of dSLRs AND 12x-18x superzoom cameras sold ober the country. If hundreds / thousands?? of people are happy with a fixed-lens 12x - 18x superzoom, it shows that large numbers of people are "voting" for convenience ahead of theoretical Image Quality.

Regards, Phil
__________________
Has Fuji & Lumix superzoom cameras and loves their amazing capabilities
Spends 8-9 months each year travelling Australia
Recent images at http://www.flickr.com/photos/ozzie_traveller/sets/
Ozzie_Traveller is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 25, 2011, 5:01 AM   #7
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,543
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozzie_Traveller View Post
You or I can certainly go out and spend 3x or 6x or 10x the amounts you are quoting for 'that super-perfect' lens that overcomes the issues TC raises - but will it give you any better images??
Quote:
Originally Posted by adamvk View Post
I am aware that the all in one zoom lens wont be as good as individual lenses, but I'm still a college student, so I don't have a lot of money to spend on photography gear, ...
Where their ranges overlap, the $165 Tamron 70-300 Di LD and the $199 Sony 55-200 outperform any superzoom lens.

And, of course, there's the great Minolta AF lenses that are available on the used market. The venerable Minolta 70-210mm f/4.0 "Beercan" is available for less than you'd pay for a superzoom.

So, if money is an issue, a superzoom lens may not be the best choice.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 26, 2011, 2:05 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 239
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lomitamike View Post
I actually believe that there's an advantage to taking only 1 lens, especially if it covers 18mm to 200mm. You never have to worry about having the wrong lens on when that moment happens.

I have a larger then average selection of lenses available and I find that my super zoom see's the most action out of any of my lenses.

Looking at your gear I would sell the 18-55 and put that money towards the Sony 18-250, Tamron 18-270 or the Sigma 18-250HSM and a decent tripod.

If you don't make print's larger then 8.5 X 11 I doubt you will see any difference with the super zoom.
Exactly what I'm thinking.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozzie_Traveller View Post
G'day again adam

Another thought ...
Every week there are large numbers of dSLRs AND 12x-18x superzoom cameras sold ober the country. If hundreds / thousands?? of people are happy with a fixed-lens 12x - 18x superzoom, it shows that large numbers of people are "voting" for convenience ahead of theoretical Image Quality.

Regards, Phil
True, true.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TCav View Post
Where their ranges overlap, the $165 Tamron 70-300 Di LD and the $199 Sony 55-200 outperform any superzoom lens.

And, of course, there's the great Minolta AF lenses that are available on the used market. The venerable Minolta 70-210mm f/4.0 "Beercan" is available for less than you'd pay for a superzoom.

So, if money is an issue, a superzoom lens may not be the best choice.
So what are you recommending then?
__________________
60D w/ Grip. Canon 24-70L. Canon 50 f/1.8. Speedlite 430EX II. Macbook Pro.
adamvk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 26, 2011, 4:07 PM   #9
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,543
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by adamvk View Post
So what are you recommending then?
Get the Sony 55-200, the Tamron 70-300 Di LD, or the Minolta "Beercan" instead.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 26, 2011, 10:11 PM   #10
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 239
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TCav View Post
Get the Sony 55-200, the Tamron 70-300 Di LD, or the Minolta "Beercan" instead.
Well, I actually just sold my kit lens though, so I also need something wide angle since my 30mm prime lens just isn't wide enough for a lot of things.
__________________
60D w/ Grip. Canon 24-70L. Canon 50 f/1.8. Speedlite 430EX II. Macbook Pro.
adamvk is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:34 PM.