Sigma 28-300 v Tamron 28-300 (1 Viewer)

[Quacker]

I want the one-lens-does-all for days when the whole lens kit isn't going to be used.

I appreciate it is foolish to ask opinion simply because not many (if any) will use or have used both lenses. I believe they are similarly priced (Sigma slightly cheaper - though not an issue).

Anyone got the link for a comparison site? - I know there is one, but not sure if includes Tamron lenses. Yes - I know I should have bookmarked it!

S

 

[Henry B]

Quacker, I think we are looking for same info on these lenses, hope someone will come up trumps with details..hb

 

[Henry B]

Quacker, try this www.photography-on-the-.net/forums the lens I was thinking of selling is regarded more than the ones I was thinking on buying. hb.

 

[christineredgate]

I use the Tamron 28-300,and it is a great little lens.A take anywhere jobbie.But,it produces the best images when used outdoors in full light.Not very good indoors with flash.I have taken some excellent portrait shots out of doors.Not very good for birds when used at its max.

 

[Quacker]

I use the Tamron 28-300,and it is a great little lens.A take anywhere jobbie.But,it produces the best images when used outdoors in full light.Not very good indoors with flash.I have taken some excellent portrait shots out of doors.Not very good for birds when used at its max.

Thanks Christine.

Firstly nice to hear a report from someone who uses one as theory and in-practice are completely different things.

I fully accept it is a compromise (£200ish for a lens) and would not be used indoors or for birding for that matter. Today in awful rain, I discovered the 55-200mm (88-320 equiv) not wide enough. 28-300 will be approx 45-480 equivalent - more than adequate for an all-in-one lens.

I'll check out the website posted Henry. I saw your earlier posting re 18-200 which I considered a completely different request because of the wider lower end....perhaps 18-300 ;-)

 

[Quacker]

Quacker, try this www.photography-on-the-.net/forums the lens I was thinking of selling is regarded more than the ones I was thinking on buying. hb.

Duff link henry - even without the . in the middle

 

[Henry B]

Quacker , it,s Canons own site, I,ll try to find another link..yes I was looking for something a bit wider than 70mm.. hb

 

[Quacker]

Found what I was looking for - I knew I had the link(s) somewhere.

Sigma

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=183&sort=7&cat=37&page=1

Tamron

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=247&sort=7&cat=43&page=1

The Sigma gets an awful press - though in fairness some do point out the lens is what it is.

The Tamron is better, or scores higher to be more accurate.

My soul reason for the initial question was so I can take my 350D to Florida next year with one lens and a spare batter & memory card to travel relatively light.

I'm now thinking about a smaller zoom ;-)


The most interesting comment I found was the one that suggests instead of spending so much on a poor "superzoom" that purchasing a 12x digital camera would be as useful! - I've already got one, but where's the fun in that? lol.

 

[Quacker]

Finally after much deliberation settle for Canon's own 28-105mm EF f3.5-4.5 USM

It should cover the "non-birding" scenarios, holidays, trips, normal use etc.

Not quite the reach of the so-called superzooms, but then again, from what i read, they were not as good value as this lens. I suppose time will tell of course.

Anyone else contemplating a zoom in place of the 18-55 & 55-200 kit lenses may well at some point in the future have a similar dilemna.

Canon 28-105 EF f3.5-4-5 USM (please note this is the USM model)

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=206&sort=7&cat=27&page=2