[Chomp]

Wow, I am really enjoying reading through these forums! Looks like Tamron and Sigma have both released very similar lenses, perfect for digital.

There's the Sigma 18-200 and also a Tamron 18-200. All specs are almost identical - weight, size, MFD (what's MFD???). Macro magnification ratio is slightly different - Tamron = 1:3.7 Sigma = 1:4.4. Which is better? The bigger number is better?

Sigma looks way better in my opinion, ha ha.

Sigma:
http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_...avigator=6

Tamron:
http://www.tamron.com/lenses/prod/18200_diII.asp

[Chomp]

Wow, doing more reading on the net. Did you know that there is a lens manufacturer called Tokina as well?

There is a 24-200 lens which they make (AT-X 24-200 f/3.5-5.6)
http://www.thkphoto.com/products/tokina/afl-07.html

It looks very pro, but does not seem as small or as light as the Sigma or Tamron 18-200.

I think they designed it for film SLRs though.

[slejhamer]

Well at least the Tokina lens has been around for a while. AT-X is their upper-end series, but this lens is considered "pretty good for the price." It's very difficult to make a super-zoom lens that is sharp throughout the focal range. Here is the summary of the review from Pop Photo:

CONCLUSION: A convenient, fun lens. Interior shots, scenics, and crowd scenes will benefit from the added 4mm coverage at 24mm. While we judged sharpness to be good or better, some is sacrificed to provide the huge zooming range compared to lenses with smaller zoom ratios. Corner light falloff will probably be unnoticeable with print film.

You're correct that it is designed for 35mm cameras, so it will work on digital SLRs with any sensor size.

The new Tamron and Sigma lenses are for APS-C size sensors only. Unfortunately it will be at least another month or two before we get some real-world shots from these new lenses.

Oh, regarding macro focus, the smaller number is better. True macro lenses have a 1:1 ratio, meaning that a 1 cm subject will fill up 1 cm of the sensor (or film frame.) This is considered "life size." Similarly, a 1:2 ratio is 1/2-life size, and a subject shot with a 1:4 lens would be 1/4th the size.

[Chomp]

I wonder what pricing will be like on the Sigma. Tamron is $726.95. Ow, very expensive!

[shuttertalk]

Hey Chomp. Interesting point regarding the Tokina and 35mm compatibility.

I must admit the Sigma 18-200 does look pretty cool.

By the way, you seem to be posting as a Guest - why don't you register as a ST member?

[slejhamer]

Where are you located? Amazon has the Tamron for US$399 ... of course, it's not available yet, but I guess they're taking pre-orders.

[Chomp]

Hi slej, I was quoting US RRP prices from Tamron's site.

Oh shuttertalk, how do you register? Do I have to send you an email with my details?

[EnglishBob]

See where it says this at the top of the forums, just under the large navigations buttons:-

Like digital photography? Like talking about it? Join our forums!

Click Join or click this link:-

http://www.shuttertalk.com/forums/register.php

[Peted]

Tamron also has the 28-300 XR Di that is optimised for digital. Is the top of my list at the moment. Has anyone tried it?

Cheers.

Pete

[Rufus]

Hi Peted,

Well, here is a semi-logical progression of dog thought...............

I had a Sigma 28-200. It was great until it fell apart. 8 points
I had a Sigma 28-300, it was 'orrible. 4 points

NN, (my wife), has excellent experiences with Tamron. The build seems better than Sigma, generally spooking.

A cheap long range zoom is rarely very crisp or fast, but for quick, convenient shots it can be fine.................

Erm, :/ :/ sorry........... I cant remember the point now.........

Have you checked Pbase and Photosig for example shots?

Can you buy where you can also return?

Do you really want 300mm often??

Is 28 wide enough?

Am I waffling? :o

I'd better go....................

TTFN Peted!

R.

[Peted]

I also have a 18-50mm Sigma which gives reasonable results. I like playing around with the nature shots, live sort of in the middle of a large National Park, birds and the like. My 55-200mm Sigma gives me variable results, I have had some excellent shots but would like just a bit more range. A friend has a 170-500mm Sigma and that seems to be very good but it is pretty expensive, I love my photography but cannot spend that sort of money, if I try really hard I think I can stretch to the 28-300mm (the 100-300mm's are cheap but not optimised for digital like the DC's or Di's so are likely to give average results).

[Rufus]

I use a Sigma 135-400, which seems good. I say seems, because I've only had it a short time, and the British weather has been a tad dull.
It's available here in the UK for £299.