Tarom/Sigma lenses?

Joshwain

Joshwain

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,379
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi all,
I was just wondering if anybody knows if the Tarom and Sigma made lenses are any good. The reason I ask is because I'm on a student budget which means I can't fork out sums of £300+ on lenses. Anyhow, I look forward to any responses.

:)
 
jessops have a 0% deal on lenses
its the route im going to take to get an L series lens

but i find sigma are quiet goot have 2 and have no problems
not used tamron
 
I'd pay more for better but at this stage in my life I honestly can't :lol:
 
i understand Josh;

Tamron, Sigma and Canon do some great budget lenses, looking at your camera bag (just the kit lens) - most people go for the nifty fifty, the Canon EF 50 f1.8 which is nice cheap way to get a wide aperture prime lens that will do some lovely portraits on a crop body. (£60-90 quid depending on if you go used).

But it really does depend on what you want to shoot and what focal lengths you need.

What you looking for?
 
Last edited:
To be honest, I think I need a longer reach lens. I'm planning on shooting Sunday football and wildlife for the time being. I'd then progress to buy a nice, small lens :) but then after that, I don't know if I should get a bit of experience doing landscapes and what not. I honestly don't know :lol:
 
Canon 55-250mm all day long for a budget lens. Just ask people on here who have one. It's not the fastest aperture but it's only the same as the others in your range.
A bit of a left field suggestion would be the canon 135mm soft focus (soft focus can be turned off!)
 
pooley said:
Canon 55-250mm all day long for a budget lens. Just ask people on here who have one. It's not the fastest aperture but it's only the same as the others in your range.
A bit of a left field suggestion would be the canon 135mm soft focus (soft focus can be turned off!)
Click to expand...

posted at the same time :)
 
I had a Sigma 70-200 f2.8, which would be great for sporting action, giving great results.
 
I think I'm going to go for it when I have some pennies :)
 
I've got no knowledge of Tamron, but some of the sigma lenses are very good. There are some good old Canon classics you can pick up for a bargain. The 70-210mm f4 has great optics although the AF could be a little quicker. I picked one up for £75.
 
Joshwain said:
By budget I mean less than £150, but at any price at the moment I'll have to save up. I'm just researching for the time being :)
Click to expand...
 
I rate sigma glass and love all my sigma bits except for my 24-70. I recently had the opportunity to buy a nice Nikon 70-200 f2.8 but couldn't justify it as my sigma 70-200 is so good. Obviously the Nikon glass had weather sealing but even with that I couldn't justify the 2x price tag.
 
Sigma and tamron make some cracking lenses just like canon/Nikon do. They also make some duffers just like canon/Nikon. The cheaper end of the market is always going to be filled with compromise no matter the manufacturer
 
It all depends on what you are shooting. I had a Tamron 28-300 VC and I found it to be a little soft at the far end. However, I may be doing the lens a disservice as I had a UV filter on it all the time as I did with all my lenses, and it wasn't until I took the UV filters off did I get the best out of all my lenses. I sold it when I got a better lens, but now wish I'd tried it without the filters to see how good it really was.
As for Sigma, I have had an 18-125 which I was impressed with but since sold and have now ordered a 150-500 OS for getting great reach with my 5D2.
 
Joshwain said:
???? :shrug:
Click to expand...

Stupid phone Josh in a moving car:lol::lol::lol: on a more serious note i have a Sigma 10 - 20 and an 18 - 200 both are pretty decent lenses, i also have a Tokina 100mm macro that i love
 
lizzy23 said:
Stupid phone Josh in a moving car:lol::lol::lol: on a more serious note i have a Sigma 10 - 20 and an 18 - 200 both are pretty decent lenses, i also have a Tokina 100mm macro that i love
Click to expand...

I thought I'd gone mad :lol: I'm wanting to get a longer reach lens so I think I'm going to go for something similar to the 18-200 you have :)
 
Joshwain said:
I thought I'd gone mad :lol: I'm wanting to get a longer reach lens so I think I'm going to go for something similar to the 18-200 you have :)
Click to expand...

Josh, i only live in Wakefield, if you like we could meet up sometime, i'm happy to do that so that you could try it before you buy one, i think i paid £199 for it again from MPB, it does have its limitations being a superzoom particularly in low light, but i find its a reasonable walkaround Lens, and to be fair i have had some decent images off it
 
lizzy23 said:
Josh, i only live in Wakefield, if you like we could meet up sometime, i'm happy to do that so that you could try it before you buy one, i think i paid £199 for it again from MPB, it does have its limitations being a superzoom particularly in low light, but i find its a reasonable walkaround Lens, and to be fair i have had some decent images off it
Click to expand...

I need to save some pennies before I start trying stuff out :p But that may sound like a good idea :)
 
stokes said:
I rate sigma glass and love all my sigma bits except for my 24-70. I recently had the opportunity to buy a nice Nikon 70-200 f2.8 but couldn't justify it as my sigma 70-200 is so good. Obviously the Nikon glass had weather sealing but even with that I couldn't justify the 2x price tag.
Click to expand...

why dont you like the 24-70 ?

I've got one on my D90 and love

just interested to know
 
I am new to the forum and about to own a Nikon D90 body. I need a good all-purpose lens to do bit of landscapes, architecture (in low light as well) and portraits as well. I am thinking of Tamron 17-50 mm F/2.8 (non-VC). My question is if I go for this lens, do I really need Nikon 50 mm F/1.8 Prime lens just for portraits? I would like to know if Nikon 50 mm F/1.8 has something that Tamron 17-50 mm can't do.

Thanks for your advice in advance.
 
RajTheArian said:
I am new to the forum and about to own a Nikon D90 body. I need a good all-purpose lens to do bit of landscapes, architecture (in low light as well) and portraits as well. I am thinking of Tamron 17-50 mm F/2.8 (non-VC). My question is if I go for this lens, do I really need Nikon 50 mm F/1.8 Prime lens just for portraits? I would like to know if Nikon 50 mm F/1.8 has something that Tamron 17-50 mm can't do.

Thanks for your advice in advance.
Click to expand...

Hi Raj

You'd probably be better starting a new thread about this :-)
 
RajTheArian said:
I am new to the forum and about to own a Nikon D90 body. I need a good all-purpose lens to do bit of landscapes, architecture (in low light as well) and portraits as well. I am thinking of Tamron 17-50 mm F/2.8 (non-VC). My question is if I go for this lens, do I really need Nikon 50 mm F/1.8 Prime lens just for portraits? I would like to know if Nikon 50 mm F/1.8 has something that Tamron 17-50 mm can't do.

Thanks for your advice in advance.
Click to expand...

Got the 17-55 last week great upgrade from kit lens. 2.8 straight through is good aswell. As for the Nikon lens will throw the background more out of focus and better in the dark. I however am not going to purchase the 50mm like I was as the tamron does a good enough job. Im going to save for the 50mm 1.4 alot better lens and you will see more difference between the 2, however you have the extra cost.... Hope this helps
 
Forgot to mention I use for portraits and landscapes. :thumbs:
 
@Schots: Thanks for your quick response. However I still have the same question, do I really need another 50 mm lens (even if it’s Nikon 50 mm F/1.4) as focal length of 50 mm is already covered by Tamron? If yes, then why?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top