18 - 200 Lens: Tamron Vs Sigma

I'm looking to purchase a new lens to replace my 18-55 kit lens. I've had my eye on the Tamron and Sigma 18-200 lenses, but I can't seem to make my mind up. Can anybody shed some light on this for me...Tamron or Sigma?

Thanks,
Lewis

 

I think you're trying to find a one lens does all solution which usually means a compromise somewhere. Do you really need 320mm?
Neither lens tests very well SIGMA or TAMRON.

My advice for what it's worth would be to save a bit more and buy THIS.

 

I`ve used both Tamron and Sigma on my Nikons over the years, but to be honest I only use Nikkor lenses these days, the extra money does appear to make a difference in quality

 

I have a Sigma 70-300mm lens, a cheap one but you do get what you pay for. It comes with a macro mode with can only be switched on after 200mm, and to be fair this mode is quite good. However, after only 9 months of use it already needs to go into repair! The autofocus jams and makes a horrendous noise, much to the delight of some cameramen at the SVR Autumn Gala just gone! Woops.
Henners

 

I reckon 18-200 is probably pushing it a little too.

If it helps, I've found the Sigma 17-70mm to be a very worthwhile upgrade over the kit Canon 18-55mm lens though. I also carry a Sigma 55-200mm which isn't bad (though definitely softer than the 17-70mm and not as bright), and on occasion a Tokina 80-400mm (useful for unexpected low flying aircraft, but it weighs a ton).

All three work very well with both the EOS 350D and 550D, but the 17-70mm is by far the best of the lot.

 

I had a Sigma 18-200mm lens once. Awful. Truly awful. It was only of any use between 50-100mm. Above or below that the images were very poor. Massive barrel distortion at wide angle, and not sharp when zoomed in. Like Stuart said, save a bit more and buy something decent. If you feel you need the full 18-200mm, consider buying 2 or even 3 lens. Personally I stick with a 24-105mm lens, and there are very few situations where I felt the need for a wider or longer lens.

 

I went from the 18-55mm Canon lens to the 17-85mm F4-5.6 IS USM which I use for my night shots extensively and have found it to be an excellent purchase. A 2nd hand one would cost just over £200.

 

According to his Flickr site the last shots from Lewis were taken with a Sony DSLR-A350 so a Canon lens will be no use.

 

I agree with the general sentiment that a do-it-all 18-200 lens is something of a compromise, and you probably need to go with the big players to get anything reasonable. I know the Nikon one does the job, but it isn't thought to provide as good image quality as the 18-55 / 55-200 combination that can be had for less money. As ever, it depends how fussy you are and whether you like to make big prints or just post images on the web.

The Tamron 28-75 f2.8 is a very well-regarded lens and Sony sell it rebranded under their own name as well. I think the Sony version is not far off double the price, but optically they're the same. It also covers full frame in case you go that way at some point in the future. It also provides quite a nice range for normal railway subjects on a APS sized sensor.

 

Good spot, I hadn't noticed.

 

After much deliberation I have chosen not to go for either of the above lenses, but instead look into the Sigma 17-70mm and Tamron 28-75mm...anybody use one or have any advice?

Thanks,
Lewis

 

What lenses have you got now ?

I have a Nikon D40 and i generally work with the kit 18-55 lens and the Sigma 70-300 which HennerJames mentions, both of which seem to work well with no really complaints in my eyes, though on the Sigma you need to rack the F number up a bit to get depth of field above 200mm but that's no real suprise.

As other have mentioned i reckon two lenses of similar range to mine is the way to go, lenses with big variables are jack of all trades and master of none and can compromise what otherwise would be a good shot.

I know some have an aversion to frequent lens changing (fear of dust and other nasties getting in), but in 3 years all i've needed was one of the lenses having some moisture wiped away one time.

 

At the moment I have a Tamron 70-300 Macro lens which is excellent, accompanied by the Sony 18-55 kit lens, which is the one I want to replace, as compared to the Tamron, in my opinion it's not very good.

Thanks,
Lewis

 

It may be an expensive solution - short term - but in the long term it would be best to buy marque lenses produced by your camera body maker. When I bought my first DSLR in 2002 my marque lenses were Nikon and I bought both the 35-70 f2.8 and 80-200 f2.8 at the time. They were expensive in their day [£680:00 and £890:00 respectively] but they still provide good service and I see no need to replace them any time soon; in that respect they have proved to be a cheap lens on a cost per annum basis.