Tamron, Sigma...they are still here.

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 68495
  • Start date Start date
D

Deleted member 68495

Guest
I have never bought a third party lens probably because I am a Nikon snob -- sorry, but I am. However both Sigma and Tamron have been around since I started photography in the 70's and looking at their history, I see they have been around for many years before that. While, as I said, I am a Nikon snob I am beginning to wonder if I have missed out on a lot of really good lenses as no one is going to stay in business that long without a seriously strong foundation.

I am thinking of going from Nikon DX (D7000) to FX (D750) and want a super wide-angle lens; if I went Sigma or Tamron what's the best, IYHO of course.
 
Sounds like you're being a Sigma and Tamron snob now. :p Just buy the lens that suits your needs and budget. If that's a Nikon, Sigma, Tamron... whatever, who cares?

People used to buy the Sigma 12-24 in droves, because there wasn't a great deal of competition. Supposedly a decent lens for the price as well - not that I ever paid much attention to it. (I'm sure there are a lot of newer lens about in that range now as well).

Sigma have made a lot of press in the last 18 months with their rejigged branding, and their Art Series lenses. Recently picked up their 35 1.4 myself, and I think I prefer it to the Canon 35mm (quite enjoying having three times as much money left in my bank account after buying it as well).
 
sigma got serious recently, thier new stuff is probably best in class
the 12 24 predates that, but you could check dyxum.com for reviews
 
For a wide angle, don't discard lenses like the Bower/Rokinon/Samyang (all the same) 14mm f/2.8. It's a manual lens but the optical quality of the lens is excellent and they are so cheap. You can use the hyperfocal distance to focus or use Liveview.
 
One of my favourite lenses in years gone by was my Vivitar Series 1 200mm F3 with 77mm filter. A beast of a lens but some of my best B&W film pictures were taken with this one.
 
ShinySideUp said:
I am thinking of going from Nikon DX (D7000) to FX (D750) and want a super wide-angle lens; if I went Sigma or Tamron what's the best, IYHO of course.
Click to expand...
Well that's an easy one. Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8. No question.

Up until recently, there were basically two reasons for buying third-party lenses: because they are cheaper, or because they offer functionality which the OEMs don't. (For example the Sigma 4.5mm Fisheye and the Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8.) It's been quite unusual for an independent to produce lenses which are actually better than the OEMs. Of course there have been some, but they've been rare.

So up until recently, being a Nikon snob won't have cost you much, except money.

But Sigma have changed that. Some of the lenses in their new ART range seem to be at least as good as, if not better than, their OEM equivalents. So for example if you want a sharp 35mm f/1.4, the sharpest one on the market right now is the Sigma ART. It might not be the best in every dimension - it doesn't have the AF speed of the Canon, it doesn't have the build quality of the Zeiss, and it's handling of OOF backgrounds may be not be the smoothest - but it definitely bears comparison as an equal to the more prestigious brands, not just as a quite-good-but-cheap alternative.

But they don't have anything to match the Nikon 14-24 yet.
 
Last edited:
I've used many a Canon and Sigma lens and to be honest, while the Canons do always produce the goods, I've found that sometimes the Sigmas quality can be varied. Generally speaking though, Sigma make amazing lenses for a fraction of the Canon counterpart.

I've used the Sigma 120-300 2.8 DG, Sigma 24-70 2.8 HSM, Sigma 50mm 1.4, Sigma 85mm 1.4, Sigma 15-30mm, Sigma 50-500mm OS, and a few others. Every one I've used has been a match for the Canon in real world usage and sometimes better.

Example: the Sigma 50mm 1.4 I always found gave me better images than the Canon 50mm 1.2 which I was a bit underwhelmed by. The Sigma 85mm 1.4 was almost as good optically as the Canon 85L (although not quite) and the autofocus was infintely better. The Canon 300 2.8 IS was a stunning lens but the versatility of the zoom was really useful too in the Sigma 120-300mm.

The only Sigma lens I never got on with was the 24-70 HSM. No idea why but I just couldn't get the images to be as sharp as the Canon alternatives. Leading me to believe it was possibly a duff copy but it got returned anyway.

I've yet to even try the new Sigma lenses since they've gone all fancy, but from what I've seen they look amazing. I'll look forward to picking up my first one.
 
pingu666 said:
sigma got serious recently, thier new stuff is probably best in class
the 12 24 predates that, but you could check dyxum.com for reviews
Click to expand...
The 12-24 mk2 is out now.

And for the record, the Sigma 105mm OS HSM Macro is best in class by a long way.
 
Last edited:
The Sigma 10-20mm is okay but by no means predictable. The sharpness and focus can be a let down if not precise in the first place. It was in my budget and on canon, so happy enough, just got to know its weak points which annoyingly can be softness around f13.
 
My main reason for being a nikon snob is build quality
I've not had a lot of luck with the few sigma lenses I've had, but my nikon lenses
take all the knocks and drops I throw at them (y)
 
But Sigma have changed that. Some of the lenses in their new ART range seem to be at least as good as, if not better than, their OEM equivalents. So for example if you want a sharp 35mm f/1.4, the sharpest one on the market right now is the Sigma ART. It might not be the best in every dimension - it doesn't have the AF speed of the Canon, it doesn't have the build quality of the Zeiss, and it's handling of OOF backgrounds may be not be the smoothest - but it definitely bears comparison as an equal to the more prestigious brands, not just as a quite-good-but-cheap alternative.
Click to expand...

I shoot primes as much of the time that I can, and I'm changing all three over to the sigmas, they're fantastic. The 35 especially is *astonishingly good*

I'm sure that sigma still makes a lot of soft and slow and cheap lenses, but they've always had their gems - and the entire ART range is them seriously stepping up their game.
 
Over the years I have owned a few Sigma and Tamron lenses and if I was being honest they were okish, did the job but not as good as the Canon equivalent which were out of my price range back then.

Now that I am lucky enough to afford the Canon version I chose the Sigma 35mm f1.4 art. Why, simple really, it's as good if not better than the Canon for a lot less money.

At the end of the day, it's your money your choice but don't dismiss third party lenses, give them a go you might be pleasantly surprised.
 
I've never been disappointed with a Sigma lens and of the ones I've owned (including 12-24mm, 20mm f1.8, 30mm f1.4, 50mm f1.4, 85mm f1.4 and 150mm f2.8) each is arguably better then the Canon (I had Canon DSLR's) alternative. I'm not a Sigma fan boy, I'm just not a badge snob and if I thought that a Canon, Sigma or Tamron lens was the best for me then that's what I bought.

I also owned a Sigma 28-300mm and although it was optically... ordinary, putting it kindly, it did offer great flexibility and made a great day out lens and as that's what I bought it for I was never disappointed with it. Canon make rather ordinary lenses too and so, I'm sure, do Nikon.

With Sigma and others now bringing out very good lenses I personally think it's silly to be a camera brand lens snob and the latest Sigma Art lenses in particular should IMVHO be considered by anyone looking at a lens at their respective focal lengths and price points.
 
ShinySideUp said:
I can't help it, it's what I do:whistle::banana::cow::nikon:
Click to expand...

Well, there's nothing wrong with buying / collecting whatever you like regardless of if it's the absolute best or not :D as in the real world I'm sure there's very little difference.

At the moment I love my old Zuiko, Rokkor and FD manual lenses. I know they're not as good as modern lenses but I just like them :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top