F2.8-4.5 vs F3.5-5.6

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Joel Dorfan, Aug 15, 2005.

  1. Joel Dorfan

    Joel Dorfan Guest

    I have narrowed my lens choice down to the Tamron 24-135/3.5-5.6 as a leave
    on the camera lens.
    I was about to buy and then noticed the Sigma 24-135/2.8-4.5 which excited
    me as on paper it appears to be faster and overcomes the comments that the
    Tamron was a little slow.
    Then I looked at the prices. The Sigma is significantly cheaper than the
    Tamron ($350 vs $400) and the reviews are not as as good as for the Tamron.
    Everyone has said that with lenses, you get what you pay for. Has Sigma
    sacrificed optical quality for speed?

    If I buy the Tamron, in low light ,will I be sorry that I dont have the
    Sigma or will the picture quality in all other situations make up for this?

    TIA

    Joel
    Joel Dorfan, Aug 15, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. In article <>, Joel Dorfan
    <> wrote:

    > I have narrowed my lens choice down to the Tamron 24-135/3.5-5.6 as a leave
    > on the camera lens.
    > I was about to buy and then noticed the Sigma 24-135/2.8-4.5 which excited
    > me as on paper it appears to be faster and overcomes the comments that the
    > Tamron was a little slow.
    > Then I looked at the prices. The Sigma is significantly cheaper than the
    > Tamron ($350 vs $400) and the reviews are not as as good as for the Tamron.
    > Everyone has said that with lenses, you get what you pay for. Has Sigma
    > sacrificed optical quality for speed?
    >
    > If I buy the Tamron, in low light ,will I be sorry that I dont have the
    > Sigma or will the picture quality in all other situations make up for this?


    Do yourself a favor and by the equivalent focal length lens made by the
    manufacturer of your camera.
    Randall Ainsworth, Aug 15, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Joel Dorfan

    Joel Dorfan Guest

    Why would I be doing myself a favour by doing this?

    I have read comparison reviews of the Canon 28-135 IS vs the Tamron 24-135.
    The reviewers were not very complimentary about the Canon lens but had very
    little bad to say about the Tamron.

    Joel


    "Randall Ainsworth" <> wrote in message
    news:150820050521074898%...
    > In article <>, Joel Dorfan
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> I have narrowed my lens choice down to the Tamron 24-135/3.5-5.6 as a
    >> leave
    >> on the camera lens.
    >> I was about to buy and then noticed the Sigma 24-135/2.8-4.5 which
    >> excited
    >> me as on paper it appears to be faster and overcomes the comments that
    >> the
    >> Tamron was a little slow.
    >> Then I looked at the prices. The Sigma is significantly cheaper than the
    >> Tamron ($350 vs $400) and the reviews are not as as good as for the
    >> Tamron.
    >> Everyone has said that with lenses, you get what you pay for. Has Sigma
    >> sacrificed optical quality for speed?
    >>
    >> If I buy the Tamron, in low light ,will I be sorry that I dont have the
    >> Sigma or will the picture quality in all other situations make up for
    >> this?

    >
    > Do yourself a favor and by the equivalent focal length lens made by the
    > manufacturer of your camera.
    Joel Dorfan, Aug 15, 2005
    #3
  4. Joel Dorfan

    birdman Guest

    While I would not advise you specifically as to whether or not to buy the
    Tamron or the Sigma I would advise you not to swallow the myth that
    independent lens maker products are inherently inferior to lenses sold under
    camera manufacturer name plates.

    One should not accept many camera/lens reviews at face value.
    Magazines in particular will never ever bite the advertising hand that feeds
    them. They lie. Shocking but true. They also publish tests of hand selected
    lenses given them by the manufacturer and not randomly purchased samples off
    the street. This is generally the case for all hi tech gear tested in
    consumer magazines, whether photo, audio, computer or whatever.
    Individual websites that purport to independently test equipment are in no
    way verifiable as to reliability and accuracy (unless their posted opinions
    jibe with one's own preconceptions).
    Web sites that accumulate member's opinions are the statistical equivalent
    of meta-analyses: no matter how unreliable the original data if you sample
    enough of it supposedly you arrive at some reliable conclusion so that
    garbage in does not equal garbage out.
    Many wirters to these newsgroups have axes to grind, blame their own
    aesthetic shortcomings on equipment and are hopelessly addicted to test
    bench numbers rather than real world use of the equipment.
    Ergo one must synthesize info from many sources, actually get out there and
    use stuff and then understand what you are looking at in the final images in
    terms of what is important to you and how the stuff handled. Unfortunately
    to some degree you can only do the hands on in a store with a salesperson
    breathing down your neck. Unless you can make liberal use of the return
    policy.
    While camera manufacturer lenses in the past could generally be counted on
    to be of reasonably good quality and construction this is no longer the
    case, particularly with long zooms in the ranges you are interested in. For
    one thing the optical demands and the number of glass elements required for
    this type of zoom inherently limit optical quality no matter who designs and
    builds the lens.
    There are many instances where third party lenses are a much better value
    for most users. Increasingly the name brand camera makers have outsourced
    lens manufacture to another company. You may or may not believe that
    Nikon/Canon/et al "quality standards" are being met when camera and lens
    manufacture (omitting issues pertaining to design) are increasingly
    contracted out to the cheapest labor sources throughout Asia. Look at the
    latest digital slr only lenses from Canon and Nikon. If these do not
    disabuse one of the myth of the camera manufacturer lens nothing will.
    Caveat emptor.
    birdman, Aug 15, 2005
    #4
  5. Joel Dorfan

    Joel Dorfan Guest

    Thanks for the wise words birdman.

    Unfortunately, here in South Africa, the exchange/return policy is very
    poor. No such thing as returning a product if there is nothing wrong with
    it.
    So, we have to be very careful with our research before handing over cash.

    Joel

    "birdman" <> wrote in message
    news:UH2Me.2505$...
    >
    > While I would not advise you specifically as to whether or not to buy the
    > Tamron or the Sigma I would advise you not to swallow the myth that
    > independent lens maker products are inherently inferior to lenses sold
    > under camera manufacturer name plates.
    >
    > One should not accept many camera/lens reviews at face value.
    > Magazines in particular will never ever bite the advertising hand that
    > feeds them. They lie. Shocking but true. They also publish tests of hand
    > selected lenses given them by the manufacturer and not randomly purchased
    > samples off the street. This is generally the case for all hi tech gear
    > tested in consumer magazines, whether photo, audio, computer or whatever.
    > Individual websites that purport to independently test equipment are in no
    > way verifiable as to reliability and accuracy (unless their posted
    > opinions jibe with one's own preconceptions).
    > Web sites that accumulate member's opinions are the statistical equivalent
    > of meta-analyses: no matter how unreliable the original data if you sample
    > enough of it supposedly you arrive at some reliable conclusion so that
    > garbage in does not equal garbage out.
    > Many wirters to these newsgroups have axes to grind, blame their own
    > aesthetic shortcomings on equipment and are hopelessly addicted to test
    > bench numbers rather than real world use of the equipment.
    > Ergo one must synthesize info from many sources, actually get out there
    > and use stuff and then understand what you are looking at in the final
    > images in terms of what is important to you and how the stuff handled.
    > Unfortunately to some degree you can only do the hands on in a store with
    > a salesperson breathing down your neck. Unless you can make liberal use of
    > the return policy.
    > While camera manufacturer lenses in the past could generally be counted on
    > to be of reasonably good quality and construction this is no longer the
    > case, particularly with long zooms in the ranges you are interested in.
    > For one thing the optical demands and the number of glass elements
    > required for this type of zoom inherently limit optical quality no matter
    > who designs and builds the lens.
    > There are many instances where third party lenses are a much better value
    > for most users. Increasingly the name brand camera makers have outsourced
    > lens manufacture to another company. You may or may not believe that
    > Nikon/Canon/et al "quality standards" are being met when camera and lens
    > manufacture (omitting issues pertaining to design) are increasingly
    > contracted out to the cheapest labor sources throughout Asia. Look at the
    > latest digital slr only lenses from Canon and Nikon. If these do not
    > disabuse one of the myth of the camera manufacturer lens nothing will.
    > Caveat emptor.
    >
    Joel Dorfan, Aug 15, 2005
    #5
  6. Joel Dorfan

    Skip M Guest

    "Joel Dorfan" <> wrote in message
    news:ddq4kj$d80$...
    > Why would I be doing myself a favour by doing this?
    >
    > I have read comparison reviews of the Canon 28-135 IS vs the Tamron
    > 24-135. The reviewers were not very complimentary about the Canon lens but
    > had very little bad to say about the Tamron.
    >
    > Joel
    >
    >


    Where did you see these reviews? All I've ever seen were fairly
    complimentary of the Canon, and the ones I'd read about the Tamron were,
    too. But, since it's the same speed lens, it does lack IS, which can be a
    big help in some situations. I've shot a lot with the Canon, a friend had
    the Tamron (on my recommendation, by the way,) and we found images I shot
    to be a little sharper than his, but not by much, and not by enough not to
    be attributable to the IS, since we were comparing hand held shots...

    --
    Skip Middleton
    http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
    Skip M, Aug 16, 2005
    #6
  7. Randall Ainsworth <> writes:

    > In article <>, Joel Dorfan
    > <> wrote:
    >
    > > I have narrowed my lens choice down to the Tamron 24-135/3.5-5.6 as a leave
    > > on the camera lens.
    > > I was about to buy and then noticed the Sigma 24-135/2.8-4.5 which excited
    > > me as on paper it appears to be faster and overcomes the comments that the
    > > Tamron was a little slow.
    > > Then I looked at the prices. The Sigma is significantly cheaper than the
    > > Tamron ($350 vs $400) and the reviews are not as as good as for the Tamron.
    > > Everyone has said that with lenses, you get what you pay for. Has Sigma
    > > sacrificed optical quality for speed?
    > >
    > > If I buy the Tamron, in low light ,will I be sorry that I dont have the
    > > Sigma or will the picture quality in all other situations make up for this?

    >
    > Do yourself a favor and by the equivalent focal length lens made by the
    > manufacturer of your camera.


    I find this a strange reaction. I got my first zoom in 1975, and my
    second around 1984 -- and my feeling is that it's generally not a good
    idea to buy zooms from the camera manufacturers, because they don't
    seem to understand zooms very well.

    These days, I hear about good lenses from both sides, and bad. But
    I've never actually owned a zoom made by a body manufacturer.
    --
    David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
    RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
    Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
    Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/> Much of which is still down
    David Dyer-Bennet, Aug 16, 2005
    #7
  8. "Joel Dorfan" <> wrote in message
    news:ddqdkb$4md$...
    > Thanks for the wise words birdman.
    >
    > Unfortunately, here in South Africa, the exchange/return policy is very
    > poor. No such thing as returning a product if there is nothing wrong with
    > it.
    > So, we have to be very careful with our research before handing over cash.
    >
    > Joel


    Is there any way to bring in your camera and try both lenses and then go
    home and view the results on your computer?
    Dave R knows who, Aug 18, 2005
    #8
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.

Share This Page