Sigma or Tamron?

[edwing206]

Which is a better lens?

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=Search&A=details&Q=&sku=396820&is=REG&addedTroughType=search

OR


http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=Search&A=details&Q=&sku=231637&is=REG&addedTroughType=search

They both have a macro feature which I would like for shooting my tank.
It will mostly be used for shooting fish and corals.

[BlueCorn]

Both of those are very comparable in terms of quality. The bad news is that neither is really any good.

[edwing206]

Really? Damn.

[BlueCorn]

For a high school student on a limited budget they're probably fine.

There's a reason why they're several hundred dollars cheaper than many other lenses in that zoom range. ;)

[Rosseau]

How about going second hand to save $$$?

[edwing206]

B&H doesn't have them second hand.
Which one of them would be the best of the two?
I want the Nikon 28-105mm but can't find it at a good price.

[Snowsurfer]

If you were gonna get one of those id def go with the Sigma. I can remember reading on a forum a while ago about a guy who had one and he was pleased with it.

Plus i have a sigma 105mm lens and feel it was the better quality from the equivilent tamron.

[edwing206]

Alright.
thanks for the help.

[BlueCorn]

It's import to note that while the word "Macro" is listed in their names, neither is a true macro lens. These lenses can produce, at their highest magnification an image which is about 1/3 of life size. True macro is life sized and higher.

[edwing206]

Ok thanks.

[Rosseau]

I find www.fredmiranda.com useful for reviews. Though they seem to be lacking on the lenses you are looking at.

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=255&sort=7&cat=43&page=2

[Ebn]

Most of the 70-300 zoom lens don't work very well once they get to the 200-300mm range. If you don't need the 75-105mm range, then take a look at the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 as well. It's a bit more, but the optics are worth every penny.

[edwing206]

Thanks Ebn, I will check that lens out.

[jedininja]

If the main purpose for the lens is macro, you'll really want a prime macro lens. Something like the Sigma 50mm 2.8 Macro would probably be one of the more affordable ones for around $250, but doesn't give you the reach of the 105. But it will give you true macro ability and a much better picture than the lens above.

[NowasReef]

I have the Canon version of the Tamron lens and have been happy w/it.....I have used it for some outdoor photos - wildlife, plants, stuff like that...and it may not produce the pics a more expensive lens would, I'm on a budget and just take pics for fun...but I agree if you are looking for a true "macro" lens look elsewhere...just my .02...good luck

[edwing206]

I was looking for an all around lens but liked the macro feature.

[NowasReef]

for a muliti I would go w/a 24-105 or 28-135...something along those lines...much more flexibility

[BlueCorn]

The 24-105 is an awesome lens. The 28-135, not so much. :D

besides, both are Canon - he shoots Nikon.

[VoidRaven]

For being on a budget the Nikon 28-105 ain't that bad. It's not awesome by any means but not bad. I use mine as my "always on my camera" lens for walk-around stuff unless I know I need the reach of my 80-200 f/2.8

Figures I just deleted the macro shots I had from the 28-105.

Whatever you do, don't go cheap just because. If you need to wait a few more months to either afford something like the 28-105 or something even BETTER than that lens then do yourself the favor and wait. Trust me, it will be worth it. Photography is just like reefing...spend money once on what you want, not 3 times on stuff "just to have" until you can get "what you want".


Oh, and by the way, the actual Nikon 70-300mm f/4-5.6G lens is only about $140 from B&H so if you want to go that route for reach and NOT for macro...and my wife has the Nikon 70-300mm and has taken wonderful shots with it and the longer end of the focal length...I would recommend going with the Nikon product over the Sigma or Tamron.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=Search&A=details&Q=&sku=207359&is=USA&addedTroughType=search

[edwing206]

Thanks Raven. I just read some reviews on the Nikkor 70-300mm and said that the foucus is slow. How do you feel about the foucus VoidRaven?
And can this lens be used for fish shots? Do you hae pics of fish using this lens VoidRaven?
Thanks a lot of the help.

[VoidRaven]

I have never used the 70-300mm for fish shots. It's a zoom telephoto...not really meant for that. Used it for birding and outdoor shots (zoo and garden stuff) and it performed well. Focus is not bad. Not lightning quick by any means (like my 80-200 f/2.8) but acceptable for the range that it covers in my book. Mrs VR likes it on her Fuji S2 Pro because it is very lightweight (which balances well on her camera) and has never complained about it.

So how do I feel about the focus? Good/Acceptable. Can it be used for fish shots? Would not recommend it. Hence, no, I have no fish shots with it.

I guess my overall comment...as I stated in the last post...is that I would hate to see you buy that Tamron or Sigma and find the focus sharpness lacking for what you want to do and then you've just spent $120-$140 on a 3rd party lens that you might only get $50-$80 "used" for and then have to spend $$$ again to get something more along the lines you want. If it will only take you, say, three more months to save up for something like the 28-105mm I would rather see you do that then jump on one of the lenses you initially asked about.

Photography is just like reefing....you get what you pay for when it comes to glass...most times. The only difference is that some of the "entrance fees" into different types of photography (like macro) can be really steep.

Case and point...here is my current lens "amazingly insane wish list". I say "amazingly insane" because, well, you'll get the idea. Ignore the "off" numbering....there was a bunch of other equipment in front of the lenses. I also have to plan for lens overlap 'cause, well, I'm sure my wife will swipe a couple periodically to use (like she did with my 28-105mm the last time we were out shooting...grrrr).

8) Nikon 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6G ED-IF AF-S VR $514.95
9) Nikon 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED-IF AF-S VRII DX $749.95
10) Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8D G-AFS ED-IF VR $1,614.95
11) Nikon 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED-IF AF-S VR $529.95
12) Sigma 50-500mm f/4-6.3 EX DG HSM Lens for Nikon AF-D $999.00
13) Nikon Zoom Telephoto AF VR 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6D ED $1,429.95
14) Nikon 200-400mm f/4G ED-IF AF-S VR $5,099.95
15) Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S DX $1,199.95
16) Tokina 12-24mm f/4 AT-X 124AF Pro DX $499.95
17) Nikon Telephoto AF Micro-Nikkor 105mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S VR (Vibration Reduction) Autofocus Lens $759.95


In short, if you thought reef keeping was expensive....welcome to photography! It doesn't have to be, but if you want the good stuff it will cost a little. And my list doesn't include any "primes" except for the 105mm Macro, I prefer zooms right now. But primes can get even pricier!

[edwing206]

Ok thanks for the good info.
Good reading right there.
So what kinda lens would you reccomend for fish shots that's not too expensive?
thanks

[edwing206]

And how do I know what lens is good for fish shots?
What should I be looking for?
thanks

[BlueCorn]

16) Tokina 12-24mm f/4 AT-X 124AF Pro DX $499.95


VR - I've got the Canon version and it's worth every penny. That's a fantastic lens for the wide end.

[VoidRaven]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9848690#post9848690 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by beerguy
VR - I've got the Canon version and it's worth every penny. That's a fantastic lens for the wide end.

That's what everyone tells me! I briefly considered the Nikon version but after reading MANY exhaustive test threads in other forums the concensus was that for the price the Tokina was just as good as the Nikon and the Nikon, while better, was hard to justify the cost for.

The Tokina is actually the next lens on my list of things to get when it comes to glass. As much as I really want some more long reach glass, I find myself more often needing something wider.