Are Sigma or Tamron lenses worth it? [Archive]

View Full Version : Are Sigma or Tamron lenses worth it?

66217

Apr 20, 2008, 08:21 PM

I am in the process of searching for a lens to replace my D40x kit lens, and would like to have a constant f/2.8 one.

Sigma and Tamron seem to have very decent options:
1- Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4.5 ($369 @ Amazon)
2- Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 ($449 @ Amazon)
3- Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 ($429 @ Amazon)

Now, if Sigma or Tamron lenses are not worth it, I have also seen some other Nikkor options:
4- Nikkor 16-85 f/3.5-5.6 ($629 @ Amazon) Why is this lens so expensive?
5- Nikkor 24-85 f/3.5-4.5 ($350 @ Amazon)

Apart from those, all of them are to expensive. Anyone here has any experiences with Sigma or Tamton lenses? Or with the Nikkor ones?

Any help is appreciated:)

taylorwilsdon

Apr 20, 2008, 09:00 PM

Your D40x might not focus with any of these:
(depends if you buy a version with an internal motor, which I just learned exists on these models)
1- Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4.5 ($369 @ Amazon)
2- Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 ($449 @ Amazon)
3- Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 ($429 @ Amazon)

The 16-85 is expensive because Nikon sucks and thinks they can get away with it.

66217

Apr 20, 2008, 09:45 PM

Your D40x will not focus with any of these:

1- Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4.5 ($369 @ Amazon)
2- Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 ($449 @ Amazon)
3- Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 ($429 @ Amazon)

The 16-85 is expensive because Nikon sucks and thinks they can get away with it.

I am almost 100% sure that they would autofocus with the D40x. If I am not mistaken Tamron just renewed this lens and added internal auto-focus motor.

DCBass

Apr 20, 2008, 09:52 PM

not sure about the other two, but there is definitely a version (http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-18-50mm-Macro-Lens-Nikon/dp/B000UC5YSQ/ref=cm_ciu_pdpimg_prodinfo?ie=UTF8&s=photo) of the sigma 18-50mm 2.8 that will autofocus with his d40x. There is an older version, that won't, but no reason to get that.

The general feeling I get from reading about this lens on flickr and dpreview are very positive. I'd like to get one myself someday. Though, as with some other sigma lenses it seems, there may be a chance you get one that either front-focuses or back-focuses. If I were to buy one, it would only be from a reputable dealer that would allow me to exchange (for free) for a new copy in case I received a bad one the first time around.

Good luck. Let us know what you decide.

EugeneA

Apr 20, 2008, 09:53 PM

Your D40x will not focus with any of these:

1- Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4.5 ($369 @ Amazon)
2- Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 ($449 @ Amazon)
3- Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 ($429 @ Amazon)

The 16-85 is expensive because Nikon sucks and thinks they can get away with it.

Not entirely true. Sigma 18-50 is an HSM lens and will focus with D40x just fine. So will 17-70. You a right about Tamron though.

Out of these three I would pick #2, as it is a fast lens across the whole range. A small warning - Sigma quality is hit or miss. Get it somewhere you can exchange or return. I've got their 10-20 and love it.

I don't understand the 16-85 pricing either.

ipodtoucher

Apr 20, 2008, 09:55 PM

cutsman

Apr 20, 2008, 10:12 PM

Actually, Tamron just released a new version of the 17-50 f2.8 with internal focus motor. This will AF on the OP's D40x. Early customer reviews seem to suggest that it doesn't focus as quickly/accurately as the previous screw driven version. I have yet to see an official review for the new one... so if i were the OP and wanted to get a lens asap, I'd go with the Sigma 18-50 HSM.

Not entirely true. Sigma 18-50 is an HSM lens and will focus with D40x just fine. So will 17-70. You a right about Tamron though.

compuwar

Apr 20, 2008, 10:22 PM

Apart from those, all of them are to expensive. Anyone here has any experiences with Sigma or Tamton lenses? Or with the Nikkor ones?

All three companies have good lenses, poor lenses and great lenses. Nikon has more great lenses, but some of the Sigma EX and the Tamron 90mm lenses are as good as anyones...

Why is this lens so expensive?

1. It's a new lens, so production equipment hasn't been recovered yet, let alone R&D.
2. It goes 2mm wider than most of the other Nikkors in its class.
3. VR II.
4. 2 ED elements.

iBallz

Apr 20, 2008, 11:11 PM

Have you considered the little 50mm 1.8? $110 on Amazon. I was so amazed with the pics I got for the Bull Fights in Costa Rica. Yeah you might have to do a little more foot work with it, but a hundred bucks well spent.

P.S. I'm not too impressed with my Sigma 10-20. Blurry on all the corners, and a weird orangish tint to each shot.:confused:

66217

Apr 20, 2008, 11:33 PM

Thanks to all for the info so far.:)

I think that I prefer the Sigma 18-50 among my options, as far as I read it is a good lens overall. But then, I find the internet reviews to be greatly biased sometimes.

Though, as with some other sigma lenses it seems, there may be a chance you get one that either front-focuses or back-focuses. If I were to buy one, it would only be from a reputable dealer that would allow me to exchange (for free) for a new copy in case I received a bad one the first time around.

The same thing I have been reading about Sigma lenses. I'll buy from Amazon so I hope there is no problem if I get a faulty lens.

Have you considered the little 50mm 1.8? $110 on Amazon. I was so amazed with the pics I got for the Bull Fights in Costa Rica. Yeah you might have to do a little more foot work with it, but a hundred bucks well spent.

The Nikkor 50mm f/1.8?

I have a Nikkor 50mm f/1.4, and even tho it is an excellent lens and perfect for low light situations, it is impossible to focus manually with it. I always got poorly focused photos from it, so I stopped using it.

Sometimes I think about the possibility of waiting till christmas and maybe then buy a Nikkor 17-55 or a 24-70. Do you think that the 17-55 is going to see a refresh any time soon?

Abstract

Apr 21, 2008, 12:04 AM

Just get the Sigma 18-50 mm f/2.8.

compuwar

Apr 21, 2008, 07:59 AM

P.S. I'm not too impressed with my Sigma 10-20. Blurry on all the corners, and a weird orangish tint to each shot.:confused:

I've had one for about a year now, and I'm happy with mine. I use Bibble Pro to clean up the shots, but really I only find that totally necessary at 10mm (though I seem to do it anyway as part of my 10-20 workflow.) Perhaps you have a bad sample? I'll have to see if I can dig a few unprocessed NEFs to compare, but I certainly don't notice any corner blur (a little vignetting, but that cleans up easily and is to be expected with a super-wide given the angles the light's coming in from.)

ChrisA

Apr 21, 2008, 10:07 AM

I suspect everyone who has a third party lens will tell you they are "good enough". Many people can't see the difference or if they can they would need a side by side image from each. In many cases it is not so much sharpness but color rendition and contrast.

But Nikon make a range of lenses at various price points so even among Nikon lenses quality varies. Your question is like asking "Is BMW really better than Ford?" The answer is "yes" for the most part but then BMW does not make pickup trucks and if you need a pickup truck or if you simply don't have the money for a BMW then you have to buy the ford.

Perhaps you have a bad sample?

That is one of the things Nikon does well every lens is identical. Exact repeatable manufacturing is not easy with optics. Quality control and testing ads cost.

bartelby

Apr 21, 2008, 10:11 AM

I have the Sigma 18-50 f2.8 on my Nikon D70. It's the only lens I use. I rate it highly.

QuantumLo0p

Apr 21, 2008, 12:28 PM

Father Jack

Apr 21, 2008, 12:31 PM

I used Sigma lenses for quite a few years, absolutely no problems .. :)

66217

Apr 21, 2008, 07:55 PM

Thanks for the replies. I think I am going for the Sigma 18-50 f/2.8.

Tho I'll check if the Nikkor 17-50 decreases in price in the next months, if it goes to $1000 I might invest in it. And I could ask for a birthday gift to cover part of the cost.:)

Would you think this is the best investment? Or would the 24-70 f/2.8 be a better one?

onomatopoeia

Apr 21, 2008, 08:47 PM

Would you think this is the best investment? Or would the 24-70 f/2.8 be a better one?

The Nikon 24-70mm is an FX (full frame) lens. It will work on a DX body but with the crop factor will effectively be a 36-100mm lens.

I'd vote for Nikon's 17-55mm. Are there rumors of a price drop on this lens?

66217

Apr 21, 2008, 09:17 PM

The Nikon 24-70mm is an FX (full frame) lens. It will work on a DX body but with the crop factor will effectively be a 36-70mm lens.

I'd vote for Nikon's 17-55mm. Are there rumors of a price drop on this lens?

I guess you meant 36-106. Right?

This is fine with me, since I normally don't use the wide end. The 18-55 kit lenswould be okay for the occasional landscape.

What makes the 24-70 more interesting is the excellent bokeh it has, which makes it better for portraits. But I guess the 17-55 is also pretty good for this.

Not sure about any rumors for the 17-55 being renewed, it was announced in 2003. Not sure how often do Nikon updates their lenses. A renew would be excellent, that way I could get the old one in a much better price.

Padaung

Apr 21, 2008, 10:37 PM

I've also got the Sigma 17-50 f2.8. It is a very good lens but I do find shooting at 2.8 is a bit too soft for my liking. However, my other optics are Nikon lenses, which are damn good even when wide open so it is up for a stiff comparison. Considering the price I have been extremely pleased with it and can thoroughly recommend one. However I've decided I'm going to sell it for the Nikon 17-55 2.8 - it's the old design so going from others have said it is now out of date! eBay value is going to be less :(

I also own a Tamron 28-75 2.8 which I'm not so happy about - very soft at 2.8, needs to be stopped down to at least f4 to be useable (also to be sold to fund the 17-55). It is my second version of that lens. The first was a gem until I dropped the camera and the lens took the fall! I can second what others say about the varying quality of 3rd party optics...

sonor

Apr 22, 2008, 03:14 AM

The Sigma 18-50 is a great lens. I bought one because the reviews generally rated it as good as, if not better than Nikon's much more expensive 17-55...at the time it was about a third of the price.

http://www.popphoto.com/cameralenses/4118/lens-test-sigma-18-50mm-f28-ex-dc-macro.html

"In all, it's a stellar performer, and significantly better by virtually all optical benchmarks than its predecessor, or, for that matter, competitors such as Nikon's comparable 17-55mm f/2.8"

http://www.photodo.com/topic_14.html

"Optical quality - This is where this lens really proves its worth! It's outstanding and the sharpest lens I have tested to date, which includes some top glass from leading camera manufacturers"

Abstract

Apr 22, 2008, 07:19 AM

Yeah, I wouldn't buy the Nikon 17-55 mm, to be honest. Was only a fan of the specs (aperture and focal range), not the performance. I haven't read that many good things about.

Get the Sigma 18-55 mm!! Sigmas generally feel better than Tamrons, but Tamron's higher quality lenses are generally better than Sigmas. The 28-75 mm f/2.8 that Padaung owns (and doesn't like very much) is actually supposed to be a hell of a lens, and as sharp through its focal range as comparable lenses from Canon and Nikon. The reason I didn't like it was that it started at 28 mm, and so I got the Sigma 24-70 mm f/2.8 EX DG. It has been good to me. ;) The Nikon equivalent was also a 28-70 mm f/2.8, so not any better than the Tamron in that respect.

I'm in love with my Sigma 30 mm f/1.4 though. :)

Padaung

Apr 22, 2008, 10:22 AM

Yeah, I wouldn't buy the Nikon 17-55 mm, to be honest. Was only a fan of the specs (aperture and focal range), not the performance. I haven't read that many good things about.

The 28-75 mm f/2.8 that Padaung owns (and doesn't like very much) is actually supposed to be a hell of a lens, and as sharp through its focal range as comparable lenses from Canon and Nikon. The reason I didn't like it was that it started at 28 mm

Mmmm, you're putting me off swapping now! Just been digging out some reviews and see what you mean. Asked a colleague who used to have one and he wasn't too excited by the Nikon offering either. Mmmm, what to do!

About the Tamron. The first version of it was FANTASTIC through all the apertures. The replacement however has been nothing but a disappointment. The 28mm starting point is a pain on the D200 for general use but it makes it a really useful lens for portraits.

numbersyx

Apr 22, 2008, 11:51 AM

I've had one for about a year now, and I'm happy with mine. I use Bibble Pro to clean up the shots, but really I only find that totally necessary at 10mm (though I seem to do it anyway as part of my 10-20 workflow.) Perhaps you have a bad sample? I'll have to see if I can dig a few unprocessed NEFs to compare, but I certainly don't notice any corner blur (a little vignetting, but that cleans up easily and is to be expected with a super-wide given the angles the light's coming in from.)

I too have this lens and I find it wonderful to use. It also has an internal motor so it would work with the D40x, I believe.

Digital Skunk

Apr 22, 2008, 07:48 PM

The Nikkor 50mm f/1.8?

I have a Nikkor 50mm f/1.4, and even tho it is an excellent lens and perfect for low light situations, it is impossible to focus manually with it. I always got poorly focused photos from it, so I stopped using it.

The problem rests in the body, not the glass. The viewfinders on anything under a D300 are just too small and dim to find acturate focus. The 50/1.4 is a tack sharp lense at 1.4, and it's perfect at 4.

Sometimes I think about the possibility of waiting till christmas and maybe then buy a Nikkor 17-55 or a 24-70. Do you think that the 17-55 is going to see a refresh any time soon?

The 17-55 won't see a refresh anytime soon. They may add VR to it, and possible make the focal length 17-80 with a tube as large as the 24-70 FX. Don't spend the cash on the 24-70 FX, your body won't be able to maximize that much quality. The glass was built for FX bodies, and although it's getting the sweet spot for the optics, the quality won't improve that much over the 17-55 or 3rd party equivalent.

I say get the 17-55 while you can. Waiting for an update with glass is crazier than waiting for an update with Apple. At least Apple give them every 6-8 months. The 17-55 is still "NEW" in terms of glass. The 28-70 FX users didn't get their update until after more than 8 years or more. You have D300 users grabbing the old ones that D3 buyers are selling, so grab it now while the used ones are still floating, I have seen it for $900 and less if it's been really used.

What makes the 24-70 more interesting is the excellent bokeh it has, which makes it better for portraits. But I guess the 17-55 is also pretty good for this.

It is. And for what you are paying for the FX lense ($1799) you can grab the DX and some more gear, or put the cash aside for future D90/D300/D400 purchases.

Yeah, I wouldn't buy the Nikon 17-55 mm, to be honest. Was only a fan of the specs (aperture and focal range), not the performance. I haven't read that many good things about.

Get the Sigma 18-55 mm!! Sigmas generally feel better than Tamrons, but Tamron's higher quality lenses are generally better than Sigmas. The 28-75 mm f/2.8 that Padaung owns (and doesn't like very much) is actually supposed to be a hell of a lens, and as sharp through its focal range as comparable lenses from Canon and Nikon. The reason I didn't like it was that it started at 28 mm, and so I got the Sigma 24-70 mm f/2.8 EX DG. It has been good to me. ;) The Nikon equivalent was also a 28-70 mm f/2.8, so not any better than the Tamron in that respect.

I'm in love with my Sigma 30 mm f/1.4 though. :)

I agree about the Sigma, it's a great piece of glass, but the 17-55 isn't a bad lens IQ wise, any one that says so just isn't using it correctly. The performance is the same way. It's truly the DX equivalent of the 28-70 FX of the day. Not too many shooters are happy with the price, and that's mainly because the thing doesn't have VR and it's quite heavy.

Has the OP thought about Tokina? If you are looking for what the 17-55 gives you, in a Sigma like price, with much better build quality all around, take a look at the Tokina 16-50 f/2.8 This would be my choice if it wasn't for the lens extention during zoom, and build quality compared to the Nikon. Personally, if you have the choice to go with the 17-55, get it. It's the best you can get and will last a lot longer than you think.

66217

Apr 24, 2008, 04:03 PM

I say get the 17-55 while you can. Waiting for an update with glass is crazier than waiting for an update with Apple. At least Apple give them every 6-8 months. The 17-55 is still "NEW" in terms of glass.

:p
I've been reading a lot this last days about the 17-55, and it do seems an excellent lens that would last me a loooong time. Tho I have also read some pretty good comments about the new 16-85.

It seems that it has a good bokeh also, and the VR would let me take photos in low light situations. The only con that I see with this lens is that it may not be a much better lens than my current 18-55 kit lens.

Has the OP thought about Tokina? If you are looking for what the 17-55 gives you, in a Sigma like price, with much better build quality all around, take a look at the Tokina 16-50 f/2.8 This would be my choice if it wasn't for the lens extention during zoom, and build quality compared to the Nikon. Personally, if you have the choice to go with the 17-55, get it. It's the best you can get and will last a lot longer than you think.

Does it has internal focus motor? I haven't been able to find if it has or not.

Digital Skunk

Apr 24, 2008, 08:58 PM

:p
I've been reading a lot this last days about the 17-55, and it do seems an excellent lens that would last me a loooong time. Tho I have also read some pretty good comments about the new 16-85.

It seems that it has a good bokeh also, and the VR would let me take photos in low light situations. The only con that I see with this lens is that it may not be a much better lens than my current 18-55 kit lens.

Does it has internal focus motor? I haven't been able to find if it has or not.

Sorry, I forgot to mention the 16-85... that's why it's so expensive, the VR and the wide angle. It's an okay lens but it seems that Nikon has to sacrifice faster apertures to get that VR. Having 5.6 at 85 isn't that bad unless you are in low light. It's a nice replacement for the 17-80 IMHO, and may end up in my bag on a D40x for that reason.

I just came back from my local store and the 17-55 was selling used for $930, the guy that sold it also sold his D2xs, and that was going for $1400. For anyone reading, GET YOUR GEAR NOW... find a local shop.

The Tokina has everything the 17-55 has sans the build quality and compact zoom range. The two things I don't like about it so far are build related. The lens extends a bit, not too much, but a bit when fully zoomed out. And the lens isn't made out of the STEEL that the 17-55 is made of, but it's much better than the Sigma and Tamron... at a higher price though $630 instead of $499 or less.

For me, I am still torn between the Tokina and the Nikon... I could use the extra 300 bucks to get some more cards or another SB800... but that 17-55 has been a real performer with speed, sharpness, and IQ.

onomatopoeia

Apr 25, 2008, 03:38 AM

Can the Tokina come close to matching the Nikon 17-55mm's bokeh?

Digital Skunk

Apr 25, 2008, 10:45 AM

Can the Tokina come close to matching the Nikon 17-55mm's bokeh?

I haven't tested that yet.... I don't know if I can until I get it and bring it into a controlled environment. I do know that the bokeh on the 17-55 is impressive though.

For me, that's the only reason to stick with the same company when getting accessories, unless you can prove to yourself that you're getting the same or comparable piece of equipment.

p.s. I know that the Tokina 11-16 f2.8 will be in my bag soon though, since Nikon doesn't make a comparable version.

luv2takepics

May 16, 2009, 04:28 PM

Digital Skunk

May 16, 2009, 04:36 PM

I really like the Nikkor 18-200 but I really don't have the money. Are the Sigma 18-200 or 18-250, or Tamron 18-200,18-250,18-270 good quality. I'd like this to be a last lense purchase for a while. The 18-270 sounds amazing. Also I know I want vibration control but what else do I definitely need. I'm not sure how to tell if any of these won't work on my D-50. I know someone can set me straight. HELP the rookie PLEASE!!!

To be completely honest with you, I'd say go for the Nikon SOLELY on it's glass quality. The price of that piece of glass is so high because (from what I see and have heard) Nikon made it for the Pro/serious amateur. Not that the others aren't decent either though.

I personally haven't tested them, you are on the right course to getting your answer.

Personally, having used the Sigma 18-200 (really consumer version) I would save SAVE SAVE the extra cash and get the 18-200