User Panel
Posted: 9/22/2016 4:28:07 PM EDT
How are Tamron lenses And the Sigma lenses for Nikon cameras.
Thanks |
|
I'm sure Zack and the pro's will be along, but I really think it depends on the particular lens that you are interested in.
Both of those manufacturers make some very highly regarded lenses, and some, not so much. Do you have a particular lens that interests you? |
|
Quoted:
I'm sure Zack and the pro's will be along, but I really think it depends on the particular lens that you are interested in. Both of those manufacturers make some very highly regarded lenses, and some, not so much. Do you have a particular lens that interests you? View Quote I couldn't have said it better. As a general rule, they're considered a low cost alternative with all that description implies. Every now and then they crank out a winner. The Tokina 11-16 comes to mind, as well as the 150-600 by the various makers (depending on your point of view, and what you need a lens to do - FredMan does great stuff with one) Edit - the sigma art lenses seem to be well regarded among people that use them as well |
|
|
I'm very happy with the Tokina 11-16. That lens gets great reviews as an amazing wide angle, particularly when you consider the cost. Example:
Silo Starstack 2016-03-29 by FredMan, on Flickr The Tamron 150-600 is a pretty good lens, but it does have some softness. Again, for the price, it's hard to beat for the focal length. DSC_8464-Moon160116 by FredMan, on Flickr And while it's no telescope, you can get some pretty distant subjects. DSC_0100-Jupiter by FredMan, on Flickr I don't have any experience with either company's other offering. But, if you want wide look at the Tokina, and if you want long, look at the Tamron. |
|
I have a Tamron 16-300mm 3.5-6.3 zoom for my Nikon D7100. Works OK for me. I bought this lens because it was lighter than the Nikon version and cheaper. I also have the Nikon 18-200, which the Tamron replaced. You just have to remember to adjust the ISO one notch higher when shooting in low-light.
People say there is lots of distortion in the Tamron from 200-300, but for me that doesn't matter because where I shoot there is a clutter background already. I have been told that Lightroom and Photoshop has fixes for this problem. |
|
Just as an example, here's a before and after post-processing with the 150-600:
Before, cropped only. The haze is just that, some thin high cloud cover. DSC_8887-Moon160125-NoPost by FredMan, on Flickr And the same frame after some fiddlin'. DSC_8887-Moon160125 by FredMan, on Flickr My point is that that post work can do some very good, as long as you have something to work with. |
|
Quoted:
How are Tamron lenses And the Sigma lenses for Nikon cameras. Thanks View Quote I've read on the web that you need to make sure you get a good one. Sometimes Sigma et.al. lets out a clunker. As soon as the check clears I'm taking a chance on the lens. Sigma 17mm-50mm f/2.8 EX DC OS HSM I've read good things about this lens. It should be a huge leap over the Nikon 18-55. I'll let you all know what I think of it. I've got money budgeted for one or two more lenses. The Tamzooka is on the list. So is the Tokina 11-16. Sometimes having too many choices isn't a good thing |
|
The new Sigma lines compete with or beat comparable Nikon lenses at a lower cost.
They just announced 3 kick ass lenses. The 85mm 1.4 is proabbly the most anticipated 3rd party lens ever. And a 500mm f4 for 6K? https://www.dpreview.com/news/5823614167/sigma-adds-lenses-to-its-global-vision-line |
|
I had the sigma, it was fine. Image quality, nothing wrong with it. It's not weather sealed, and doesn't even have the little o-ring on the back to keep the dust down. I found a smoking deal on a Nikon 70-200 and the sigma went byebye. Eventually the Nikon went byebye as well for reasons |
|
Quoted:
Eventually the Nikon went byebye as well for reasons View Quote Why did you get rid of the 70-200? Was it the VRII version? It's on my short list along with a couple other 70-200 lenses The Tamron 70-200 2.8 VC just got bumped to #1 on the short list. It seems the interweb holds it in high regard, |
|
Quoted:
I had the sigma, it was fine. Image quality, nothing wrong with it. It's not weather sealed, and doesn't even have the little o-ring on the back to keep the dust down. I found a smoking deal on a Nikon 70-200 and the sigma went byebye. Eventually the Nikon went byebye as well for reasons View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
I had the sigma, it was fine. Image quality, nothing wrong with it. It's not weather sealed, and doesn't even have the little o-ring on the back to keep the dust down. I found a smoking deal on a Nikon 70-200 and the sigma went byebye. Eventually the Nikon went byebye as well for reasons I would never let my 70-200VRII Fo. |
|
The 70-200 was sold off to pay for the 80-400 that I've been using lately.
|
|
Quoted:
The 70-200 was sold off to pay for the 80-400 that I've been using lately. View Quote Without hijacking too far off the subject at hand, if you are going to lose 2 stops in that lens swap, why not a 2x teleconverter? You lose the same two stops, but have a better base lens in the 70-200 ?? |
|
Quoted:
Without hijacking too far off the subject at hand, if you are going to lose 2 stops in that lens swap, why not a 2x teleconverter? You lose the same two stops, but have a better base lens in the 70-200 ?? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
The 70-200 was sold off to pay for the 80-400 that I've been using lately. Without hijacking too far off the subject at hand, if you are going to lose 2 stops in that lens swap, why not a 2x teleconverter? You lose the same two stops, but have a better base lens in the 70-200 ?? You'd think that, but there's a lot of sharpness lost through the TC. I tried that first, but even with AF fine tuning, it was never as sharp or as clean as I'd like it to be. Since the 70-200 wasn't long enough, and I wasn't really ever using the wide open aperture anyway, I decided to gamble on something better for what I was doing. |
|
I have a friend who had the following lens, he ended up sending it back and got something different. Even using the AF fine tuning he never could get the focus worked out. I think he just got a bad copy as this lens has some good reviews.
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/967344-REG/sigma_18_35mm_f1_8_dc_hsm.html |
|
|
Quoted:
I'm very happy with the Tokina 11-16. That lens gets great reviews as an amazing wide angle, particularly when you consider the cost. Example: <a href="https://flic.kr/p/ETV2L2" target="_blank">https://c6.staticflickr.com/2/1539/25529045333_ce5f0cb88b_b.jpg</a>Silo Starstack 2016-03-29 by FredMan, on Flickr The Tamron 150-600 is a pretty good lens, but it does have some softness. Again, for the price, it's hard to beat for the focal length. <a href="https://flic.kr/p/D3M5fN" target="_blank">https://c3.staticflickr.com/2/1482/24316627762_e8c01d97bf_b.jpg</a>DSC_8464-Moon160116 by FredMan, on Flickr And while it's no telescope, you can get some pretty distant subjects. <a href="https://flic.kr/p/DTfXJF" target="_blank">https://c8.staticflickr.com/2/1546/24865260775_a5663cbace_b.jpg</a>DSC_0100-Jupiter by FredMan, on Flickr I don't have any experience with either company's other offering. But, if you want wide look at the Tokina, and if you want long, look at the Tamron. View Quote You took that Jupiter shot at 600mm? Or, did you use an extender? Either way, I am interested in your settings. |
|
You took that Jupiter shot at 600mm? Or, did you use an extender? Either way, I am interested in your settings. View Quote Yes, Jupiter was at 600mm with no extenders/teleconverters. It's not exactly a great shot, but it does show what you can do if the planets are in the right place. EXIF is 1/100, F/8, ISO200. Cropped from the native 6000x4000 to 800x800 pixels. |
|
Got Tamron and Tokina lenses along with Nikon lenses. Really never had issues with the aftermarket ones. Yet to get a Sigma (thinking of the 200-500 for motorsports). Also a number of the Nikon branded "kit" lenses are made by Tamron.
|
|
Quoted:
Got Tamron and Tokina lenses along with Nikon lenses. Really never had issues with the aftermarket ones. Yet to get a Sigma (thinking of the 200-500 for motorsports). Also a number of the Nikon branded "kit" lenses are made by Tamron. View Quote I'm gonna need you to provide at least one credible source for this claim. |
|
Quoted: I'm gonna need you to provide at least one credible source for this claim. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Got Tamron and Tokina lenses along with Nikon lenses. Really never had issues with the aftermarket ones. Yet to get a Sigma (thinking of the 200-500 for motorsports). Also a number of the Nikon branded "kit" lenses are made by Tamron. I'm gonna need you to provide at least one credible source for this claim. My Tamron 70-300 I got with my D70 is 100% identical to the 70-300 Nikon of the same era other than the logo. The first time I heard it was on either Nikon Café or Nikonians. Wasn't the only lens model either from what was posted. If they still do it today I dunno. |
|
Quoted:
My Tamron 70-300 I got with my D70 is 100% identical to the 70-300 Nikon of the same era other than the logo. The first time I heard it was on either Nikon Café or Nikonians. Wasn't the only lens model either from what was posted. If they still do it today I dunno. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Got Tamron and Tokina lenses along with Nikon lenses. Really never had issues with the aftermarket ones. Yet to get a Sigma (thinking of the 200-500 for motorsports). Also a number of the Nikon branded "kit" lenses are made by Tamron. I'm gonna need you to provide at least one credible source for this claim. My Tamron 70-300 I got with my D70 is 100% identical to the 70-300 Nikon of the same era other than the logo. The first time I heard it was on either Nikon Café or Nikonians. Wasn't the only lens model either from what was posted. If they still do it today I dunno. What you think you saw or what you read on a forum somewhere isn't a credible source. So..here's the actual truth: Nikon has made their own lenses the vast majority of the time. There have been a few known and verifiable examples of them contracting stuff out (a few lenses back in the film days come to mind), but nothing credible that I can find relating to Tamron, and further, Tamron is only mentioned in this silly rumor and there has been no evidence to substantiate it. The Tamron lens you're talking about does have a lot of similarities to the Nikon version, but the coatings are different, and the image quality is *very* different. The "Tamron makes Nikon's glass" rumor was mainly passed around by shifty salesmen trying to fool people. Sometimes (apparently) it worked. A more plausible explanation is that Tamron could have done what many companies do, copy someone else's stuff but change just enough to avoid getting lawyers involved. That's how the third party lensmakers survive. They have to reverse engineer the mounts and electronics just to make the lenses talk to the camera. Is it such a stretch that they wouldn't use a similar design internally? I'm glad to see you posting and participating here in the forum, but we try to keep the information here as factual and relevant as we can. There are a lot of newbies that read here and come to learn stuff, crazy stories like this don't do much to help them out. |
|
I would like to have a Sigma Bigma, but I would have to trade my truck.
|
|
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.