Sigma / Tamron

[Eyeayen]

Re Sigma / Tamron Lenses.

Someone once told me one of these are assembled by being screwed together and the other glued together, is there any truth in this ? I would imagine the screwed together one to be stronger but haven't found anything to support this.

Also, currently waiting for Nikon's D7000 to come out before I decided on either that or the Canon 7D.

So would I be better getting a specific manufacturer lens or would Sigma / Tamron give as good results ? I've read a lot of reviews and it seems at times one is favored over the other only for the next month the reverse to happen. So I'm looking for peoples own experiences with these, any problems ? As opposed to starting a debate like which is better a Mac or a PC

I would rate myself as very keen amateur, it's unlikely I'd print anything greater than A3 size but I'd like the best I can afford ( about £500 quid on a lens I think ).

[amk1977]

Hi Eyeayen,

No idea with regard to whether the glueing together of lenses, is true or not. The only thing that I would say is that servicing a lens that's been glued together, would be somewhat problematic to say the least, so I would be surprised if either were.

Without knowing what specific lenses you were considering/comparing, its impossible to give an answer. In general OEM lenses tend to be superior optically and mechanically than 3rd party lenses, which is reflected in the prices charged.

[PeterChinnock]

I have both a Tamron and a Sigma and they are SOLID.
Really nothing wrong at all with going down the 3rd party route.

[amk1977]

There's certainly nothing wrong with going down the 3rd party route and some lenses offer excellent bang for the buck. Indeed, some 3rd party lenses out perform OEM lenses (Nikkor 12-24 Vs £300 cheaper Tokina 116). I own a Tokina AT-X Pro 28-80 f/2.8 which I'm happy with. Its AF and focus speed are bang on and fast and stopped down to f/4 and below gives nice crisp images.

I also own a Tamron AF SP90 macro lens. Optically, its excellent. Mechanically, its an absolute dog. Its slow to focus and the AF on it seems to have a mind of its own on occassions. Compare it to my dad's Nikkor 105mm VR, and there is no contest. The Nikkor blows Tamron away in terms of focus speed, focal accuracy and build quality but, its double the price of the Tamron.

All OEM and 3rd party manufacturers have made some fantastic lenses in their time. They have also made some real pigs ears. Without knowing what type of lens you are looking for, we can't offer you suggestions on what is the "best" for you.

[Eyeayen]

That's a fair point, I hadn't thought about after sales servicing and the glue / screw issue.

I fully understand you not being able to recommend me a lens without more spec, I was mostly after experience's with them against manufacturers own lenses. Which you've answered above, thanks for that.

That said I am stuck for what I want to get... I've got an old compact with a fantastic zoom 38-380. My film SLR which is super old has an 18-70 on it but that was only used in the studio, which I won't be doing much more of

The main trouble I have is I love photographing everything and when I get my new Digi SLR I was going to just get a body and a lens of my own choice. I borrowed a D90 with a kit 18-105 lens but was surprised how in focus the background remained even when opened right up. So I figured spending out on a good 2.8 lens when I got the body would be ideal. The thing is though I do some indoor stuff, I would also like to go to a few motorsport events, some wildlife shots, some landscape. Realistically I'm going to need a few lenses to sort all of that lot out. My initially thoughts were for the new (ish) Tamrom 18-270 but then realised it's probably not that fast and don't really want the same trouble as I had with the Nikon keeping so much of the background in focus.

So I guess the best thing to say is I'm buying a nice new DSLR soon, what the best lens I can start with baring in mind my above mighty requirements... So budget for camera, about a grand, budget for lens about half that. Ideally I'd like to get the best gear possible as I go so I don't have to go back and completely upgrade later. I fully understand if someone says, you're dreaming, nothing will cover all that, however if there is something out there someone can suggest, well that would be great. Thanks

[chris-p]

The 'glued or screwed' thing is nonsense.

All lenses are both. Man of the glass elements are glued together in just about every lens on the market and bits of the case and chassis are screwed and other bits are glued.

I've never used a Tamron or Tokina but I've never had a problem with my Sigma lens.

I'd also avoid the 'superzoom' type lenses, not just because they're slow but because they suffer from a lot of optical inconsistencies and aberrations.
With an APS-C sensor you need f/2.8 or faster to get close(ish) backgrounds out of focus but it does, of course, depend on what focal length you used the 18-105mm at.

[Eyeayen]

Thanks Chris, I can't remember the actual focal length, but it wasn't full zoom, I tried quite a few and was just disappointed by what I was getting, since I'd always used film and never spent heaps on a lens I presumed it was because it wasn't a full frame sensor but the more I looked in to it I thought it must be the lens and this has therefore put me off that lens.

I think I'll stay away from the super zoom after your advice.

Do you really need 2.8 to get backgrounds out of focus, won't F4 manage it reasonably well. My old pentax film slr only has a 3.5 lens on it and that does it fine ( although I guess it is in effect full frame... ).

[OldBoy]

If you are buying the Nikon camera then get the Nikon 70-300mm F4.5-5.6 VR lens as it's a cracker and will cover most of what you want. Mifsuds have a second-hand one for £339, which will save you a few bob.

[sony_photographer_jake]

Do you really need 2.8 to get backgrounds out of focus, won't F4 manage it reasonably well. My old pentax film slr only has a 3.5 lens on it and that does it fine ( although I guess it is in effect full frame... ).

You don't need f2.8 to get backgrounds out of focus even f5.6 or f8 will blur the backgrounds depending on the subjects. The longer the lens the more exaggerated the background blur will look.
I would also stay away from super-zoom lenses because of what Chris-p said.

[Eyeayen]

Thanks Jake, I think I'll have a re think as to what my first lens will be.

To be honest it might just be good to get something very normal like a 50mm, I won't be doing motorsport pictures until next summer so the 50 would be a start, then I can save for something that will work track side in another 6 months. I still don't know what to get though ?