Tamron 18-200 vs Sigma 18-125 & 18-200

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Bill Tuthill, Aug 29, 2005.

  1. Bill Tuthill

    Bill Tuthill Guest

    One semi-frequently asked question is whether the Tamron or Sigma 18-200
    is better. Over the weekend I looked at back issues of Popular Photography
    and recorded SQF scores for these two lenses, and the Sigma 18-125 as well.
    Here are grades for 20x enlargements. Although the Tamron scores better
    at 50/16,22 and at 100/11, the Sigma 18-200 has better numerical grades
    throughout its range, especially wide open (where it counts).

    The 18-125 is the best of the three lenses, mostly on the strength of its
    excellent scores at 50mm wide open (if you can call f/4.5 wide), which
    performance probably extends to focal lengths near 50. Furthermore its
    numeric scores within a single grade are almost always higher than the
    other two lenses. Grades for 18-125, Sigma 18-200, Tamron 18-200:

    18mm 50mm 125 100mm 200mm
    3.5,4 B B C+
    4.5 B B C+ A B+ B+
    5.6 B B C+ A B B+ B B B x D D
    8 B B C+ A B B+ B B B x C C
    11 B B C+ B+ B+ B+ B B B+ x C C
    16 C+ C+ C+ B+ B B+ B B B x C C
    22 C+ C+ C+ C+ C+ B C+ C+ C+ x D D

    Personally I don't like to even use lenses that yield poor results
    at some focal length, so for me the 126-200 range is less than useless
    in both the Tamron 18-200 and Sigma 18-200. It's hard to know where
    between 100 and 200mm the performance trails off so much.

    I hope Pop Photo tests the Minolta 18-70 for comparison with the above.
    Seems like a test of the Canon 17-85 EFS IS is due shortly.

    (Apologies for not posting in r.p.d.slr-systems, still don't get it.)
     
    Bill Tuthill, Aug 29, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Bill Tuthill

    Guest

    Who gives a damn?

    This kind of stuff is all crap. Which is better: brown rear shit or
    black bear shit?

    Bill Tuthill wrote:
    > One semi-frequently asked question is whether the Tamron or Sigma 18-200
    > is better. Over the weekend I looked at back issues of Popular Photography
    > and recorded SQF scores for these two lenses, and the Sigma 18-125 as well.
    > Here are grades for 20x enlargements. Although the Tamron scores better
    > at 50/16,22 and at 100/11, the Sigma 18-200 has better numerical grades
    > throughout its range, especially wide open (where it counts).
    >
    > The 18-125 is the best of the three lenses, mostly on the strength of its
    > excellent scores at 50mm wide open (if you can call f/4.5 wide), which
    > performance probably extends to focal lengths near 50. Furthermore its
    > numeric scores within a single grade are almost always higher than the
    > other two lenses. Grades for 18-125, Sigma 18-200, Tamron 18-200:
    >
    > 18mm 50mm 125 100mm 200mm
    > 3.5,4 B B C+
    > 4.5 B B C+ A B+ B+
    > 5.6 B B C+ A B B+ B B B x D D
    > 8 B B C+ A B B+ B B B x C C
    > 11 B B C+ B+ B+ B+ B B B+ x C C
    > 16 C+ C+ C+ B+ B B+ B B B x C C
    > 22 C+ C+ C+ C+ C+ B C+ C+ C+ x D D
    >
    > Personally I don't like to even use lenses that yield poor results
    > at some focal length, so for me the 126-200 range is less than useless
    > in both the Tamron 18-200 and Sigma 18-200. It's hard to know where
    > between 100 and 200mm the performance trails off so much.
    >
    > I hope Pop Photo tests the Minolta 18-70 for comparison with the above.
    > Seems like a test of the Canon 17-85 EFS IS is due shortly.
    >
    > (Apologies for not posting in r.p.d.slr-systems, still don't get it.)
     
    , Aug 29, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. In article <>,
    <> wrote:

    > Who gives a damn?
    >
    > This kind of stuff is all crap. Which is better: brown rear shit or
    > black bear shit?


    Agreed. Depending on Popular Photography for anything
    intelligent...uh...it just ain't there.
     
    Randall Ainsworth, Aug 30, 2005
    #3
  4. Bill Tuthill

    Bill Tuthill Guest

    Are any small-circle DSLR zooms worth buying?

    In another thread Randall Ainsworth <> wrote:
    >>

    > uraniumcommittee:
    >> This kind of stuff is all crap. Which is better: brown bear shit
    >> or black bear shit?

    >
    > Agreed. Depending on Popular Photography for anything intelligent...
    > uh...it just ain't there.


    Could anyone say something intelligent then about which DSLR zooms,
    if any, are worth buying? Or is it best to wait for full-frame?
     
    Bill Tuthill, Aug 30, 2005
    #4
  5. Re: Are any small-circle DSLR zooms worth buying?

    On 30 Aug 2005 08:34:01 -0700, Bill Tuthill <> wrote:

    >In another thread Randall Ainsworth <> wrote:
    >>>

    >> uraniumcommittee:
    >>> This kind of stuff is all crap. Which is better: brown bear shit
    >>> or black bear shit?

    >>
    >> Agreed. Depending on Popular Photography for anything intelligent...
    >> uh...it just ain't there.

    >
    >Could anyone say something intelligent then about which DSLR zooms,
    >if any, are worth buying? Or is it best to wait for full-frame?
    >


    What is a "small-circle DSLR zoom"? My Canon 24-70L works just fine
    on my 20D and was well worth buying as was the 17-40L.


    ******************************************************

    "I have been a witness, and these pictures are
    my testimony. The events I have recorded should
    not be forgotten and must not be repeated."

    -James Nachtwey-
    http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/
     
    John A. Stovall, Aug 30, 2005
    #5
  6. Re: Are any small-circle DSLR zooms worth buying?

    John A. Stovall wrote:
    > On 30 Aug 2005 08:34:01 -0700, Bill Tuthill <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>In another thread Randall Ainsworth <> wrote:
    >>
    >>>uraniumcommittee:
    >>>
    >>>>This kind of stuff is all crap. Which is better: brown bear shit
    >>>>or black bear shit?
    >>>
    >>>Agreed. Depending on Popular Photography for anything intelligent...
    >>>uh...it just ain't there.

    >>
    >>Could anyone say something intelligent then about which DSLR zooms,
    >>if any, are worth buying? Or is it best to wait for full-frame?
    >>

    >
    >
    > What is a "small-circle DSLR zoom"? My Canon 24-70L works just fine
    > on my 20D and was well worth buying as was the 17-40L.


    I have the Sigma 18-200 that I use on a 300D. I have found it to be a
    very capable lens considering its range and price. Here's a link to
    some photos taken with this lens: http://tinyurl.com/atfjh Granted it
    is not the quality of "L" glass but it is no slouch either. It is a
    good choice for many on a budget, not requiring/wanting the absolute
    best lenses or needing a light, extremely versatile zoom.
     
    Michael Johnson, PE, Aug 30, 2005
    #6
  7. Randall Ainsworth wrote:
    > In article <>,
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>Who gives a damn?
    >>
    >>This kind of stuff is all crap. Which is better: brown rear shit or
    >>black bear shit?

    >
    >
    > Agreed. Depending on Popular Photography for anything
    > intelligent...uh...it just ain't there.


    Uh, if you don't give a damn, why get in the discussion?
     
    Bartshumandad, Aug 31, 2005
    #7
  8. Bill Tuthill

    RichA Guest

    Re: Are any small-circle DSLR zooms worth buying?

    On 30 Aug 2005 08:34:01 -0700, Bill Tuthill <> wrote:

    >In another thread Randall Ainsworth <> wrote:
    >>>

    >> uraniumcommittee:
    >>> This kind of stuff is all crap. Which is better: brown bear shit
    >>> or black bear shit?

    >>
    >> Agreed. Depending on Popular Photography for anything intelligent...
    >> uh...it just ain't there.

    >
    >Could anyone say something intelligent then about which DSLR zooms,
    >if any, are worth buying? Or is it best to wait for full-frame?
    >


    Only if you are old, a sheep, and for some reason think the 35mm
    format is some kind of God-given "standard" instead of what it started
    out as; 70mm motion picture film, split down the middle around 1920.
    For any thinking person, 1.5-1.6's are perfectly good DSLRs.
    -Rich


    "Bittorrents are REFUNDS for all the BAD movie products Hollywood
    never gave us refunds for in the past"
     
    RichA, Aug 31, 2005
    #8
  9. Bill Tuthill

    Skip M Guest

    Re: Are any small-circle DSLR zooms worth buying?

    "RichA" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On 30 Aug 2005 08:34:01 -0700, Bill Tuthill <> wrote:


    >>
    >>Could anyone say something intelligent then about which DSLR zooms,
    >>if any, are worth buying? Or is it best to wait for full-frame?
    >>

    >
    > Only if you are old, a sheep, and for some reason think the 35mm
    > format is some kind of God-given "standard" instead of what it started
    > out as; 70mm motion picture film, split down the middle around 1920.
    > For any thinking person, 1.5-1.6's are perfectly good DSLRs.
    > -Rich
    >
    >


    Or, if you think for yourself, have wide angle lenses that you would like to
    have behave like wide angle lenses, and think that 35mm is indeed a standard
    for miniature cameras. (Hint, Pop Photo's original name was MiniCam.)

    --
    Skip Middleton
    http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
     
    Skip M, Aug 31, 2005
    #9
  10. Bill Tuthill

    bmoag Guest

    Take PopPhoto results with a grain of advertiser paid for salt.
    They gave a good review to the Nikon 55-200 lens which, after personal
    experience, I would consider possibly the worst lens ever issued by Nikon
    and virtually unusable. For one thing, you can time how long it takes on
    average to autofocus with your wristwatch. One look through this lens at a
    high contrast area or any point light source will tell you that this lens
    has fatal optical flaws.

    The Sigma and Tamron digital only 18-whatever lenses are not Leica single
    focal length lenses and if you obsess over those kinds of numbers you should
    not consider this type of lens. They are made for convenience, for example
    travelling. It is foolish to look for the kind of performance from these
    lenses that you would expect from shorter range zooms or single focal length
    lenses.

    These newer digital only lenses are much better than the 28-200/300 genre
    for 35mm cameras in terms of contrast, sharpness and distortion probably
    because they only have to cover the smaller digital sensor.

    Having used the Sigma I can tell you it performs excellently at the 55-200
    range for practical use, far better than the Nikon. I would agree with the
    PopPhoto review that the Sigma has distortion at the widest focal length,
    but it is not much worse than the Nikon kit lens and easily dealt with in
    Photoshop if it bothers you.
     
    bmoag, Aug 31, 2005
    #10
  11. Bill Tuthill

    Bill Tuthill Guest

    bmoag <> wrote:
    > Take PopPhoto results with a grain of advertiser paid for salt.
    > They gave a good review to the Nikon 55-200 lens which, after personal
    > experience, I would consider possibly the worst lens ever issued by Nikon
    > and virtually unusable. For one thing, you can time how long it takes on
    > average to autofocus with your wristwatch. One look through this lens at a
    > high contrast area or any point light source will tell you that this lens
    > has fatal optical flaws.


    Interesting personal experience! I *was* surprised by the high scores
    of the 55-200. Another problem: changing DSLR lenses is an open invitation
    to dust particles on the sensor. Welcome, come on in, make white specks!

    > The Sigma and Tamron digital only 18-whatever lenses are not Leica single
    > focal length lenses and if you obsess over those kinds of numbers you should
    > not consider this type of lens. They are made for convenience, for example
    > travelling. It is foolish to look for the kind of performance from these
    > lenses that you would expect from shorter range zooms or single focal length
    > lenses.


    It remains interesting to see how much better two lenses are than one,
    optically. The Sigma 18-125 paired with Tamron 70-300 (both have the same
    size 62 filter thread) is far superior to an 18-200.

    > These newer digital only lenses are much better than the 28-200/300 genre
    > for 35mm cameras in terms of contrast, sharpness and distortion probably
    > because they only have to cover the smaller digital sensor.


    Right, that's my theory. Despite the lack of interest in Pop Photo,
    one of their recent issues compared equivalent focal lengths of these
    new 18-200 lenses with the slightly older full-circle 28-300s.

    > Having used the Sigma I can tell you it performs excellently at the 55-200
    > range for practical use, far better than the Nikon. I would agree with the
    > PopPhoto review that the Sigma has distortion at the widest focal length,
    > but it is not much worse than the Nikon kit lens and easily dealt with in
    > Photoshop if it bothers you.


    Yikes, that's not what the SQF said. (Back to uranium comments on SQF)
     
    Bill Tuthill, Sep 1, 2005
    #11
  12. Bill Tuthill

    Bill Tuthill Guest

    Re: Are any small-circle DSLR zooms worth buying?

    Skip M <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>Could anyone say something intelligent then about which DSLR zooms,
    >>>if any, are worth buying? Or is it best to wait for full-frame?

    >>
    >> Only if you are old, a sheep, and for some reason think the 35mm
    >> format is some kind of God-given "standard" instead of what it started
    >> out as; 70mm motion picture film, split down the middle around 1920.
    >> For any thinking person, 1.5-1.6's are perfectly good DSLRs. -Rich

    >
    > Or, if you think for yourself, have wide angle lenses that you would like to
    > have behave like wide angle lenses, and think that 35mm is indeed a standard
    > for miniature cameras. (Hint, Pop Photo's original name was MiniCam.)


    Lucky thing I do "imaging" instead of photography. I'm such a tyro.
    (The worst thing about the new Pop Photo & Img is all the Photoshop BS,
    which is more boring than business news.)

    Now that Canon has announced a new 70-300 IS to replace their slow-AFing
    75-300 IS, and assuming it AFs faster, maybe it's worth buying an 18-55 EFS
    so as to share size 58 filters. Actually the 24-105/4 seems like the most
    serious offering in quite some time, and that's not small-circle (EFS).

    The Pentax 16-45/4 is worth buying, but I'm not sure what Pentax owners do
    for a long zoom, and Pentax has no IS or antishake.
     
    Bill Tuthill, Sep 1, 2005
    #12
    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.
Similar Threads
  1. Bill Tuthill

    Sigma 18-125 DC

    Bill Tuthill, Nov 3, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    355
    Dr. Joel M. Hoffman
    Jan 3, 2005
  2. Gautam Majumdar

    Question about Sigma 18-125

    Gautam Majumdar, Jan 8, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    18
    Views:
    437
    Mark B.
    Jan 9, 2005
  3. Gautam Majumdar

    An almost useless feature of Sigma 18-125

    Gautam Majumdar, Jan 28, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    320
    Pete D
    Jan 29, 2005
  4. Bernard Rother

    Sigma 18-125 vs Tamron 18-200

    Bernard Rother, Jun 16, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    673
    Bill Tuthill
    Jun 17, 2005
  5. friglob
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    515
    Michel Souris
    Feb 6, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page