Sigma or Tamron

[Phil_Rose]

OK, I am really on the verge of buying a longish zoom and I am thinking it is a choice between the Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 APO Zoom Macro Super II or the Tamron Zoom Telephoto AF 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6 LD Macro Autofocus Lens for Pentax AF.

I have asked this before but I seemed to get several different views. I guess the same may happen again but... what do you think? Sigma or Tamron (taking into account that the Tamron is $60 less than the Sigma).

And if you say Sigma, is the APO worth the extra as opposed to the non APO? What are the differences?

Thanks to anyone willing to share their experiences.

Phil
--
Pentax *istD and Nikon 5700

 

[hugnut]

I am interested to, also, what does APO stand for?

OK, I am really on the verge of buying a longish zoom and I am
thinking it is a choice between the Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 APO
Zoom Macro Super II or the Tamron Zoom Telephoto AF 70-300mm
f/4.0-5.6 LD Macro Autofocus Lens for Pentax AF.

I have asked this before but I seemed to get several different
views. I guess the same may happen again but... what do you think?
Sigma or Tamron (taking into account that the Tamron is $60 less
than the Sigma).

And if you say Sigma, is the APO worth the extra as opposed to the
non APO? What are the differences?

Thanks to anyone willing to share their experiences.

Phil
--
Pentax *istD and Nikon 5700

 

[Barry Pendergast]

I brought the Tameron 70-300. I'm not wild about it from an image quality standpoint although its good value for the money. Find the macro useful. Had thought of the 28-300 Sigma but thought the range would be too much for good quality. Has anybody compared the 70-300 and 28-300 in the longer zoom range?

 

[Brett St Pierre]

I am interested to, also, what does APO stand for?

APO stands for apochromatic. Here is a defintion from Photographyreview.com :www.photographyreview.com/photoglossarycrx.aspx

Quite a good discussion here from Meade telescopes regarding apochromatic correction: http://www.meade.com/catalog/apo/

Regards,
--
Brett



The Journey is the Thing

 

[*isteve]

I had the same choice to make - my local camera store are brilliant so I often heed their advice. They let me try the Tamron and the Sig APO, but their opinion was that there was a definate sharpness and contrast advantage to the Sigma, and my test shots confirmed it although it was not a huge difference at alll focal lengths to be fair. The sig is quite sharp between 100 and 200 though. Forget the non-APO, its good for the money but you can see the difference in colour contrast.
Worth the extra? Probably.
Steve

OK, I am really on the verge of buying a longish zoom and I am
thinking it is a choice between the Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 APO
Zoom Macro Super II or the Tamron Zoom Telephoto AF 70-300mm
f/4.0-5.6 LD Macro Autofocus Lens for Pentax AF.

I have asked this before but I seemed to get several different
views. I guess the same may happen again but... what do you think?
Sigma or Tamron (taking into account that the Tamron is $60 less
than the Sigma).

And if you say Sigma, is the APO worth the extra as opposed to the
non APO? What are the differences?

Thanks to anyone willing to share their experiences.

Phil
--
Pentax *istD and Nikon 5700

 

[Frank from AZ]

Can you upgrade to the Sigma 100-300 EX 4.0? It's big and bulky but one heck of a perfomer.

I chose Sigma for my telephoto zooms: the 100-300 EX 4.0 and the 70-200 EX 2.8, while I went with Tamron on the 28-75 Di 2.8.

OK, I am really on the verge of buying a longish zoom and I am
thinking it is a choice between the Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 APO
Zoom Macro Super II or the Tamron Zoom Telephoto AF 70-300mm
f/4.0-5.6 LD Macro Autofocus Lens for Pentax AF.

I have asked this before but I seemed to get several different
views. I guess the same may happen again but... what do you think?
Sigma or Tamron (taking into account that the Tamron is $60 less
than the Sigma).

And if you say Sigma, is the APO worth the extra as opposed to the
non APO? What are the differences?

Thanks to anyone willing to share their experiences.

Phil
--
Pentax *istD and Nikon 5700

--
Frank from Phoenix
Canon1DMk2,MinoltaG500 and lots of typos
digital evolution: Nikon990> OlyE20> Pentax*istD> CanonMK2> ?????

 

[Henner]

Can you upgrade to the Sigma 100-300 EX 4.0? It's big and bulky
but one heck of a perfomer.

I chose Sigma for my telephoto zooms: the 100-300 EX 4.0 and the
70-200 EX 2.8, while I went with Tamron on the 28-75 Di 2.8.

This is a very good advice from Frank, if you don't mind the weight and bulkiness of these lenses.

Regarding your selection, I cannot comment on those Sigmas, but I had the Tamron and I wasn't very happy. It has severe contrast problems and is actually not usible for far objects and above 200.

Since I have the Pentax 300/4.5, I wanted to cover the range from 50-200 (75-300@35 equiv.) with a small and lightweight lens, as the 70-300 zooms are. Guess what, I bought the Sigma DC 55-200 lens and it's an absolutely excellent performer

• low price
• very compact and lightweight-
• not fast, but already acceptable wide open!

Another alternative would be to wait for Pentax making a DA/D-FA lens for that range;-)

Cheers, Henner

 

[richardday]

Can you upgrade to the Sigma 100-300 EX 4.0? It's big and bulky
but one heck of a perfomer.

I chose Sigma for my telephoto zooms: the 100-300 EX 4.0 and the
70-200 EX 2.8, while I went with Tamron on the 28-75 Di 2.8.

This is a very good advice from Frank, if you don't mind the weight
and bulkiness of these lenses.

Regarding your selection, I cannot comment on those Sigmas, but I
had the Tamron and I wasn't very happy. It has severe contrast
problems and is actually not usible for far objects and above 200.
Since I have the Pentax 300/4.5, I wanted to cover the range from
50-200 (75-300@35 equiv.) with a small and lightweight lens, as the
70-300 zooms are. Guess what, I bought the Sigma DC 55-200 lens and
it's an absolutely excellent performer

• low price
• very compact and lightweight-
• not fast, but already acceptable wide open!

Another alternative would be to wait for Pentax making a DA/D-FA
lens for that range;-)

Cheers, Henner

I've had both Sigma APO and Tamron LD (latest version). I still have the Tamron.

I feel that maybe the Sigma had the edge on sharpness at the long end. It also felt a bit heavier. The lens had worse distortion than the Tamron, and was less well screwed together, the focussing was a bit rough and catchy and the lens barrel wobbled quite a lot.

I think the Tamron is an excellent BUDGET lens.

The Pentax FA 80-320 f4.5/5.6 has the best colour and punch of all 3, but no macro (which is handy) and is equally plasticky and although you were able to get black, most were silver finished (if that matters to you). Also, it may not be current now.

I also have the Tokina 80-400, I P/X'd the Sigma in when I bought this. It is beautifully made (all metal), quite heavy and focusses slowly but accurately, is as soft as putty from around 200mm upwards unless you use f11 or f16, worse above (a 2 stop lens!) - Better than either the Sigma or Tamron below 200mm.

Having said all that, I am not satisfied with any of these lenses. You can get excellent results from them, but only at stopped down apertures, which in the UK is a big challenge (because of generally low light levels) and really cramps your style.

I am seriously considering buying the Sigma EX 70-200 f2.8 with the x1.4 and maybe x2 EX converters to get to 280mm at f4 and 400mm at f5.6 without having to carry a lot more weight. I hate weight!

Any comments about this lens and converters would be most welcome, sample shots even more so!

Sorry to have babbled on, but good telezooms are a challenge to me optically. I tried out a Pentax FA 300 f4.5 and was blown away! Unfortunately it is a colleagues and he won't sell, so I'm searching for an acceptable answer (Nirvana?).

Regards
--
Richard Day - 'Carpe Diem!'
Gloucester UK

 

[richardday]

I should add that I believe that these cheaper lenses seem to exhibit quite wide batch or sample variations. I do believe that the SIgma 70-300 APO is the best of these in this respect.

From my own short evaluation of the Pentax 80-320, it seemed the best optically, but had no macro.

Finally I can confirm comments about the Sigma 55-200 zoom, its a very good little lens. However my own Tamron shows better colour fidelity and sharpness that it at the same focal lengths.

I shall post some examples later.

Rgds
--
Richard Day - 'Carpe Diem!'
Gloucester UK

 

[Mark56519]

Can you upgrade to the Sigma 100-300 EX 4.0? It's big and bulky
but one heck of a perfomer.

I chose Sigma for my telephoto zooms: the 100-300 EX 4.0 and the
70-200 EX 2.8, while I went with Tamron on the 28-75 Di 2.8.

You have BOTH? I can't buy for 2 more weeks and I'm going nuts trying to decide. I'll probably get the 70-200/2.8 and accept the tradeoff in having to use the teleconverters to get more reach when I want it. Do you carry and use both? Is the 100-300/4 dramatically faster for AF than the 70-200/2.8 plus the 1.4 TC? Which lens has the better bokeh, in your opinion?

If you had to do it again, would you still buy both?

thanks

Mark

 

[noisynoodle]

OK, I am really on the verge of buying a longish zoom and I am
thinking it is a choice between the Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 APO
Zoom Macro Super II or the Tamron Zoom Telephoto AF 70-300mm
f/4.0-5.6 LD Macro Autofocus Lens for Pentax AF.

I have asked this before but I seemed to get several different
views. I guess the same may happen again but... what do you think?
Sigma or Tamron (taking into account that the Tamron is $60 less
than the Sigma).

And if you say Sigma, is the APO worth the extra as opposed to the
non APO? What are the differences?

Thanks to anyone willing to share their experiences.

Phil
--
Pentax *istD and Nikon 5700

Hi Phil,

I have the Sigma 70-300 APO SuperMacro II and it's an excellent lens for the price. My husband has (or should I say had) the non APO version on a Canon 10D and comparing them directly against each other we found my APO version to be sharper (especially at the long end) and more contrasty.

However, although I've had no problems with mine, the autofocus on his recently gave up the ghost and we also know of someone whose non APO 70-300 has literally fallen apart! That said, commenting purely on my own experience thus far with my own lens, it's very good value for money.

--NN

 

[LanFrank]

I have the Tamron Zoom Macro 70-300. I must say its image quality is far less than stellar; it is the main reason why I had to plunder my savings and buy the SIGMA APO EX 70-200. Needless to say the image quality is fas superior... so is the price and the weight.

Anyway I think the added quality is well worth the price differential....it is an option well worth considering (if you can put up with the zoom bulkiness)

 

[Mark56519]

I have the Tamron Zoom Macro 70-300. I must say its image quality
is far less than stellar; it is the main reason why I had to
plunder my savings and buy the SIGMA APO EX 70-200. Needless to say
the image quality is fas superior... so is the price and the weight.

Anyway I think the added quality is well worth the price
differential....it is an option well worth considering (if you can
put up with the zoom bulkiness)

The only disadvantage of going with the 70-200/2.8 is that I'll have to carry a separate macro lens, so I gain a great amount of quality by going to the faster EX lens, but I also gain a vast amount of weight by having to carry both that larger lens and a separate macro. I'm still new enough at this that trade-offs frustrate me. Somewhere lurks that hope that I'll find a fast, long zoom with 1:1 macro and low weight. Sigma EX 12-500mm/1.4 for $99 seems about right to me. It'll have to weigh no more than half a pound, though. Everything has to fit into a fanny pack.

 

[Jack Schouten]

Phil,

On the Sigma site is a good explanation of APO and non APO. I'm the owner of a 170-500 Sigma (APO) its a great lens, i use it for wildlife photography. Because of the seize its not a perfect sports lens but as you will know for sports it's better to use a non zoomlens like a 200 or 300 1:2.8.

I don't know what the going price is for the 170-500 in comparison with the 70-300.

Good luck

Jack Schouten

OK, I am really on the verge of buying a longish zoom and I am
thinking it is a choice between the Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 APO
Zoom Macro Super II or the Tamron Zoom Telephoto AF 70-300mm
f/4.0-5.6 LD Macro Autofocus Lens for Pentax AF.

I have asked this before but I seemed to get several different
views. I guess the same may happen again but... what do you think?
Sigma or Tamron (taking into account that the Tamron is $60 less
than the Sigma).

And if you say Sigma, is the APO worth the extra as opposed to the
non APO? What are the differences?

Thanks to anyone willing to share their experiences.

Phil
--
Pentax *istD and Nikon 5700

 

[Sophie Wilson]

Can you upgrade to the Sigma 100-300 EX 4.0? It's big and bulky
but one heck of a perfomer.

I chose Sigma for my telephoto zooms: the 100-300 EX 4.0 and the
70-200 EX 2.8, while I went with Tamron on the 28-75 Di 2.8.

You have BOTH?

Sigma are the best for the longer zooms - I've the 70-200 f2.8, 135-400 APO, 170-500 APO!!! (And the Tamron 28-75 Di f2.8 and 70-300 LD 1:2 Macro)

I can't buy for 2 more weeks and I'm going nuts
trying to decide. I'll probably get the 70-200/2.8 and accept the
tradeoff in having to use the teleconverters to get more reach when
I want it. Do you carry and use both? Is the 100-300/4
dramatically faster for AF than the 70-200/2.8 plus the 1.4 TC?
Which lens has the better bokeh, in your opinion?

If you had to do it again, would you still buy both?

The 70-200 is the best by far, but it can't equal the 135-400's performance when the 70-200 has my Tamron 1.4x on it (OK, it can't reach as far either) and the 170-500 is also pretty good. When I can manage it, I take the most appropriate lens (both the 70-200 and 135-400 went on holiday to Yorkshire for example); when I can't, I take one and the 1.4x teleconverter. My Sigma 2x EX teleconverter languishes unused.

And dragging the thread back to topic - the Tamron 70-300 LD is fractionally inferior to the Sigma 70-300 APO Macro II, but it is lighter and does cost less. Mine may be on sale some time, since with all the other lenses it sees little use now...

--Sophie

 

[richardday]

I don't know what the going price is for the 170-500 in comparison
with the 70-300.

Almost 3 times the price.

There is a huge leap in new cost from the best optional 5 cheaper lenses to the next group (Bigger glass).

$ = B&H prices - £ = Best of Camera World or Camera King (includes UK 17.5% VAT sales tax) - Final number is the rating from Photozone (out of 5).

Pentax 75-300 FAJ - $130 - £100 - N/A
Sigma 70-300 DL - $149 - £100 - 2.17
Tamron 70-300 LD - $150 - £90 - 2.79
Sigma 70-300 APO - $209 - £160 - 3.21
Pentax 80-320 FA - $210 - £170 - 2.95

Which is best? According to Photozone, the Sigma APO, but there does seem to be a wide variation in peoples reported results. Why? Difficult to say, sample variation maybe?

Next Group

Sigma 135-400 APO - $539 - £300 - 2.86
Sigma 170-500 APO - $649 - £450 - 2.78
Sigma 70-200 EX APO f2.8 - $799 - £580 - 4.02
Sigma 100-300 EX APO f4 - $899 - £600 - 4.18
Tokina 80-400 ATXII - $450 - £360 - 2.39

I think it's generally accepted that the Sigma EX 70-200 and 100-300 are the good 'uns.

I would love to have comments and a comparison between the EX 70-200 with a x1.4 converter in comparison with the EX 100-300. Anyone out there who can do this?

Then the Pentax big glass (if available) is MUCH more.

I guess, in all instances, it's "pay your money and take your choice"

--
Richard Day - 'Carpe Diem!'
Gloucester UK

 

[Phil_Rose]

More reach??? I have been a photographer for 20 years and rarely have I had a lens longer than 135mm and that's not equivalent, that's 135mm! You need more than 300mm equiv? Lots of people here seem to need a lot of lens!

Phil

Can you upgrade to the Sigma 100-300 EX 4.0? It's big and bulky
but one heck of a perfomer.

I chose Sigma for my telephoto zooms: the 100-300 EX 4.0 and the
70-200 EX 2.8, while I went with Tamron on the 28-75 Di 2.8.

You have BOTH? I can't buy for 2 more weeks and I'm going nuts
trying to decide. I'll probably get the 70-200/2.8 and accept the
tradeoff in having to use the teleconverters to get more reach when
I want it. Do you carry and use both? Is the 100-300/4
dramatically faster for AF than the 70-200/2.8 plus the 1.4 TC?
Which lens has the better bokeh, in your opinion?

If you had to do it again, would you still buy both?

thanks

Mark

--
Pentax *istD and Nikon 5700

 

[Frank from AZ]

I use the 100-300 EX 4.0 for outside sports where there is decent light. It worked very well with my Ist D. I use the 70-200 EX for portrait work and indoor sports or where the action is relatively close. This weekend I'll be shooting a Special Olympics swim meet and I'll take both and the converter. Here are some sample test shots I posted a while back for the 100-300 EX and 1.3x converter. Note, I posted these results on the Canon and Pentax forums, others posted similar shots with the Canon and Pentax 300mm 4.0 primes and the Sigma more than held its own. A bit softer at 4.0 but not significantly so.

http://www.pbase.com/fbphx/sigma_100300_ex_test_shots

The 100-300 EX is faster focusing and sharper than the 70-200 EX 2.8 with the 1.3x converter, the two are about the same without the converter. Bokeh I've found to be better on the 70-200 EX f2.8. I had both with my st D and when I switched over to Canon MK2, I bought both again. I use both professionally and they are both great performers for the price. I plan to upgrade to the 120-300 EX 2.8, which unfortunately is not available in the Pentax mount.

Can you upgrade to the Sigma 100-300 EX 4.0? It's big and bulky
but one heck of a perfomer.

I chose Sigma for my telephoto zooms: the 100-300 EX 4.0 and the
70-200 EX 2.8, while I went with Tamron on the 28-75 Di 2.8.

You have BOTH? I can't buy for 2 more weeks and I'm going nuts
trying to decide. I'll probably get the 70-200/2.8 and accept the
tradeoff in having to use the teleconverters to get more reach when
I want it. Do you carry and use both? Is the 100-300/4
dramatically faster for AF than the 70-200/2.8 plus the 1.4 TC?
Which lens has the better bokeh, in your opinion?

If you had to do it again, would you still buy both?

thanks

Mark

--
Frank from Phoenix
Canon1DMk2,MinoltaG500 and lots of typos
digital evolution: Nikon990> OlyE20> Pentax*istD> CanonMK2> ?????

 

[racehorse in the desert]

More reach??? I have been a photographer for 20 years and rarely
have I had a lens longer than 135mm and that's not equivalent,
that's 135mm! You need more than 300mm equiv? Lots of people here
seem to need a lot of lens!

Phil

Well, shucks folks, the other day I was trying to take a photo of some buzzards eating a dead javelina beside the road (true story) and 300mm plus teleconverter was just about right.

You almost always need lots of reach for wildlife photos.
--
John Power
Racehorse in the desert

'Life is too short to miss out on photography.'

 

[richardday]

The 70-200 is the best by far, but it can't equal the 135-400's
performance when the 70-200 has my Tamron 1.4x on it (OK, it can't
reach as far either) and the 170-500 is also pretty good. When I
can manage it, I take the most appropriate lens (both the 70-200
and 135-400 went on holiday to Yorkshire for example); when I
can't, I take one and the 1.4x teleconverter. My Sigma 2x EX
teleconverter languishes unused.

Sophie, have you compared the Sigma EX 1.4x teleconverter to the Tamron? I've read somewhere that it may be better than the EX 1.4x. Also, why is the EX 2x languishing as it would better match the 135-400 for reach and speed, is it that bad? I'm agonising over 70-200 f2.8 (I love the speed) + a 1.4x converter, against the 100-300 f4 (I'm pretty well covered up to around 100mm), but I hate extra weight and size, plus I already have 77mm polariser and other filters, luckily the Cokin P filters/mount I have, go up to 82mm filter size (max).

And dragging the thread back to topic - the Tamron 70-300 LD is
fractionally inferior to the Sigma 70-300 APO Macro II, but it is
lighter and does cost less. Mine may be on sale some time, since
with all the other lenses it sees little use now...

--Sophie

I agree about the Tamron 70-300 LD, I just felt it was better made plastic than the Sigma! I love its light weight, why can't someone put some really good glass in a lightweight body with a 2:1 macro? Come on Tamron or Pentax - I'd jump at it!
--
Richard Day - 'Carpe Diem!'
Gloucester UK