Sigma/Tamron vs Nikon/Canon lenses

S

Serqet

Expert Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2008
Messages
4,234
Reaction score
3
Location
Sandton
Right so hoping this would spark off a debate that will prove insightful.

Is the quality any different between Sigma/Tamron and Nikon/Canon lenses?

Does one camp last longer than the other in terms of durability/versatility?

Can you spot differences between images taken with a Sigma and images taken with a Canon?

Interested to hear your thoughts!
 
Sigma is supposedly the lesser of the brands, but I would say Canon and Nikon head the way with Sigma shortly behind. Check out www.pixel-peeper.com if you wanna check out images taken with a specific lens.
 
mercurial said:
I own a Canon 40D, so I don't have a choice (Canon).
Click to expand...
My my - arent we sounding pretentious . . . :p Plenty of 40D shooters have Sigma lenses - in fact, iirc, BigAl-SA shoots Sigma exclusively.

Although only a lowly 400D user myself ;) I've got a even mix of Canon, Canon L, and Sigma glass. Each lens perfectly filling the role I hoped it would when I purchased it.
 
bwana said:
My my - arent we sounding pretentious . . . :p Plenty of 40D shooters have Sigma lenses - in fact, iirc, BigAl-SA shoots Sigma exclusively.

Although only a lowly 400D user myself ;) I've got a even mix of Canon, Canon L, and Sigma glass. Each lens perfectly filling the role I hoped it would when I purchased it.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying Canon shooters can't have Sigma, I'm just saying that if I buy a brand, I'm most likely to stick to that brands accessories. I have always bought Canon lenses. Perhaps when I find the need for Sigma, I will get one. But for the time being, my Canon lenses (full and non-full frame) and my precious 70-200mm f4 L will do :p
One also has to take the cost into consideration. Sigma lenses are generally cheaper.
 
Also the difference between Canon and Nikon is the stabilisation is built into the lenses with Canon. Is that correct?

Does that make a difference? Do Sigma have stabilisation in any of their lenses?
 
Serqet said:
Also the difference between Canon and Nikon is the stabilisation is built into the lenses with Canon. Is that correct?

Does that make a difference? Do Sigma have stabilisation in any of their lenses?
Click to expand...

Correct. Sigma calls it O.S - optical stabilization. I'm not sure if there are any pros and cons in terms of image quality/stabilization to using it on the lens as opposed to using it on the camera, other than it will obviously be cheaper to have IS/OS built into the camera. This means that you can buy any lens and still benefit from IS/OS. I'm just not sure how the quality differs.
 
Serqet said:
Also the difference between Canon and Nikon is the stabilisation is built into the lenses with Canon. Is that correct?

Does that make a difference? Do Sigma have stabilisation in any of their lenses?
Click to expand...

Nikon calls it VR (vibration reduction).
 
Serqet said:
Is the quality any different between Sigma/Tamron and Nikon/Canon lenses?
Click to expand...

Depends on the lens. They all have good and bad ones.

Serqet said:
Does one camp last longer than the other in terms of durability/versatility?
Click to expand...

No. Again, it depends on the lens. They all have cheaply made low-end lenses which may not last for ever, and they all have higher quality lenses that are built sturdier.

Serqet said:
Can you spot differences between images taken with a Sigma and images taken with a Canon?
Click to expand...

In a blind test? If someone claims that, they're BS-ing you.

The majority of my lenses are Sigma. The lens I enjoy most is my Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX DC HSM. The "EX" label is their higher-end glass. I also have their 70-300mm f/4-5.6 APO DG Macro which is at the cheaper end, and plenty good for the money.

The difference between these two lenses:
1. The 10-20 is built sturdier
2. The 10-20 has an HSM ring motor (same thing as Canon's USM). It means it focusses completely silently and extremely fast and accurate.
3. The 10-20 is sharper corner to corner and has better control over CA and that sort of things.

That said, I did this one with the Sigma 70-300. There's a link to the big version (pano) - decide for yourself:

[URL="http://www.flickr.com/photos/koffiejunkie/2399631806/in/set-72157604436624466/]
2399631806_d36e16968c_m.jpg
[/URL]
 
Also, did you guys know that Tokina's 11-16mm f/2.8 kicks the Nikon 12-24mm f/4's ass? Not only does it have better IQ, it also works on FF at 16mm. Oh, and it's cheaper too. hehe
 
koffiejunkie said:
Depends on the lens. They all have good and bad ones.



No. Again, it depends on the lens. They all have cheaply made low-end lenses which may not last for ever, and they all have higher quality lenses that are built sturdier.



In a blind test? If someone claims that, they're BS-ing you.

The majority of my lenses are Sigma. The lens I enjoy most is my Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX DC HSM. The "EX" label is their higher-end glass. I also have their 70-300mm f/4-5.6 APO DG Macro which is at the cheaper end, and plenty good for the money.

The difference between these two lenses:
1. The 10-20 is built sturdier
2. The 10-20 has an HSM ring motor (same thing as Canon's USM). It means it focusses completely silently and extremely fast and accurate.
3. The 10-20 is sharper corner to corner and has better control over CA and that sort of things.

That said, I did this one with the Sigma 70-300. There's a link to the big version (pano) - decide for yourself:

[URL="http://www.flickr.com/photos/koffiejunkie/2399631806/in/set-72157604436624466/]
2399631806_d36e16968c_m.jpg
[/URL]
Click to expand...

Quite impressed with Sigma.

Thanks for the informative post. :)
 
Another question off topic a little!

When i buy a camera what's a good starter lense to get? Or should i buy a camera that includes a kit (ie one or two lenses included)?
 
Serqet said:
Another question off topic a little!

When i buy a camera what's a good starter lense to get? Or should i buy a camera that includes a kit (ie one or two lenses included)?
Click to expand...
Canon's kit lens isnt all that bad but get yourself the 50mm f/1.8 :D
 
Last edited:
It'll depend on the kind of photography you're looking to do. Prime lenses have the best quality, but the zooms have the versatility, and there are some very nice ones out there in terms of quality too.
The 18-55mm kit lens that came with the 20D + 30D was something of a shocker in terms of pin-cushion & barrel distortion, but I understand that the new 18-55mm IS lense that ships with the Canon kits is streets ahead of it.
Nikon had some nice kits going the last time I was looking for a camera, the D60 with 2 decent lenses for about R10k or so I think. That was quite some time ago though, 2 years or more, so the are doubtless different options on offer now.

Something you might want to consider is a Canon / Nikon / whatever body, and something like the Sigma or Tamron 28-300 lenses. From what I understand they're both very good lenses for general photography, extrememly versatile and with more than decent image quality.
I've not used either myself, but I've heard very good things about offerings in that focal range from both Sigma and Tamron. Some input from somebody with firsthand experience would be welcome though I'm sure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X