Is one a better brand between the two, or is it a personal preference? I'm looking into a relatively cheapish macro lens, and these two came up. I've not done a whole lot of research yet, but just thought I'd ask here before!
I have a Tamron macro lens, and it is fabulous. I just purchased the new Tamron 70-300mm zoom - haven't had a opportunity to use it yet, but it's big and sturdy, and I have high hopes for it :-)
Both have quality control issues. Some Sigmas are great, as are some tamron. I'd say by and large sigma is a tad better, but I hear some tamron lenses are great providing you get a good copy.
I have a Sigma and to be honest, I am not happy with it. I will use auto focus when first approaching a bug and switch to manual if the bug proves patient and sticks around to be photographed. Forget that with my sigma, the autofocus just doesn't work. I wind up using a cheap Quantaray add on more often than I attempt to go back to my sigma. Maybe I just got a bum one. But I wish I hadn't relied on the camera store for advice. Lesson learned.
Depends on the lens. I like Tamron's 17-50mm f/2.8 (non vc) a lot better than Sigma's 18-50mm f/2.8. I like Sigma's 10-20mm a lot better than Tamron's 10-24mm. Look at the reviews on the individual lenses, don't lump them all together. Even Nikon has lenses that aren't very good.
Stay clear of any Sigma that is not 'EX'. lenses with a huge zoom range (18-200mm, 28-300mm) usually aren't very good either.
I've had several sigmas. I love the sigma 50mm f/1.4 EX, it's the lens that's on my camera most of the time. I also really like the sigma 12-24mm f/4.5 - 5.6 EX. It's the widest non-fisheye lens you can get for a full frame camera, and at F8, it's pretty sharp. I really liked the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 EX before I went full frame. And I love my Tamron 90mm f/2.8 di Macro.
@jezza - Some Tamron lenses have VC (Vibration Compensation) and some Sigma lenses have OS (Optical Stabilization). On the Tamron SP 17-50mm f/2.8 Di II, the non VC version is significantly sharper than the VC version, so for that specific lens, I'd stay away from the VC.
But again - you can't take the brand as a whole, you've gotta compare specific lens to specific lens.
Tweets ahoy!
Join the Group
Pin With Me
Either or will work and if you are after a cheapish macro have you considered extention tubes and not buying a new lens?
Stay clear of any Sigma that is not 'EX'. lenses with a huge zoom range (18-200mm, 28-300mm) usually aren't very good either.
I've had several sigmas. I love the sigma 50mm f/1.4 EX, it's the lens that's on my camera most of the time. I also really like the sigma 12-24mm f/4.5 - 5.6 EX. It's the widest non-fisheye lens you can get for a full frame camera, and at F8, it's pretty sharp. I really liked the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 EX before I went full frame. And I love my Tamron 90mm f/2.8 di Macro.
I've got nothing Tamron, but I have the Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 EX DG APO Macro HSM II and ABSOLUTELY love it! (it's not really macro though)
I'm leaning towards Tamron, though (Only because they have the whole VC happening, whereas Sigma's lens doesn't.)
Thanks again for all your help! :D
But again - you can't take the brand as a whole, you've gotta compare specific lens to specific lens.
Would you notice a huge difference (As all my photo's are hand held) if there was no VC on the Tamron, or OS with the Sigma?