# Tamron or Sigma



## lois97 (Jul 1, 2006)

Hi guys i'll be looking to buy a 17-50 f2.8 lens soon, what make would you go for Nikon's out of the question but would you go for a Sigma or Tamron i've read a few not so good reports about the Tamron ?any advice greatfully recieved:thumb:cheers Lee.


----------



## -ROM- (Feb 23, 2007)

I've got the Nikon 17-55 2.8 and it is fantastic £800 lens and i love it, it lives on my D300. I also have the tamron 17-50 that lives on a D80 and to be honest the tamron is 90% as good as the nikon for just over a quarter of the price.

So my recommendation would be the Tamron, a friend has the sigma and it is very good but not quite as sharp as the tamron.


----------



## ian2403 (Sep 27, 2007)

I bought a Sigma 70-300mm lens a year ago. When I bought it I compared a similar Tamron lens which was about the same money and spec. The Sigma just felt a little bit more solidly built (if you know what I mean) than the Tamron, which reassured me, but I guess the real test is which takes the better picture?

I would go to the local camera shops and try them both out for yourself before making a decision. Better to be sure you've bought what you really want rather than having that nagging thought in the back of your head - have I bought the right thing?!!


----------



## lois97 (Jul 1, 2006)

ian2403 said:


> I bought a Sigma 70-300mm lens a year ago. When I bought it I compared a similar Tamron lens which was about the same money and spec. The Sigma just felt a little bit more solidly built (if you know what I mean) than the Tamron, which reassured me, but I guess the real test is which takes the better picture?
> 
> I would go to the local camera shops and try them both out for yourself before making a decision. Better to be sure you've bought what you really want rather than having that nagging thought in the back of your head - have I bought the right thing?!!


The 1 i really want is the Nikon,but ive grown quite attached to my balls and i'm sure SWMBO would cut them off if i bought it


----------



## Lirin (Jun 9, 2008)

In my experience the Sigma tend to produce a sharper picture- only just. They're more expensive, and I liked them particularly because they're nice and solid, heavily built.

Tamron's are lighter, and cheaper, and use a lower cut of lens- hence the low price tag. I've a 100-300mm which I initally bought for £80 secondhand, to see what it's like. It's a great lens for the price. Obviously it doesn't go on any official jobs with me, but is a handy lens to have around for holidays and so on.

Tamron may be slightly lower quality than the Nikon kit lens- Sigma should pretty much match it.


----------



## -ROM- (Feb 23, 2007)

Lirin said:


> In my experience the Sigma tend to produce a sharper picture- only just. They're more expensive, and I liked them particularly because they're nice and solid, heavily built.
> 
> Tamron's are lighter, and cheaper, and use a lower cut of lens- hence the low price tag. I've a 100-300mm which I initally bought for £80 secondhand, to see what it's like. It's a great lens for the price. Obviously it doesn't go on any official jobs with me, but is a handy lens to have around for holidays and so on.
> 
> Tamron may be slightly lower quality than the Nikon kit lens- Sigma should pretty much match it.


In some cases with certain lenses that is true, but for others it is the total opposite, your statement is too much of a generalsisation. I have used and handled all the lenses mentioned in this thread and the tamron 17-50 is on par with the sigma in terms of build (if not a little bit less heavy, but we're talking a few grams) and are almost identical in price, and optically the tamron is superior!

As said i've used both and have the nikkor 17-55 to comapre them with!


----------



## ADZphtg (Mar 23, 2008)

best advice i can give is to take your camera body, cf card etc to a local store. take a few frames with each of the lenses you are interested in and then take them home and peruse at leisure. Then you will be able to see any difference for yourself

adam


----------



## Lirin (Jun 9, 2008)

rmorgan84 said:


> In some cases with certain lenses that is true, but for others it is the total opposite, your statement is too much of a generalsisation. I have used and handled all the lenses mentioned in this thread and the tamron 17-50 is on par with the sigma in terms of build (if not a little bit less heavy, but we're talking a few grams) and are almost identical in price, and optically the tamron is superior!
> 
> As said i've used both and have the nikkor 17-55 to comapre them with!


Yeah, it is a generalisation overall- I've found some better than others, depends on what I'm looking for... Sigma use optically higher lenses than Tamron, but Tamron sometimes can be better with overall handling....


----------



## nogrille (Oct 27, 2005)

Sigma every time. Build quality feels superb.


----------

