Tamron or Sigma??

jamesavilalfa · Sep 28, 2004

Well, I'm looking for an affordable lens for portraits, when I got to the store they showed me Canon lenses from about twice the price of a Tamron or a Sigma, with less functions, but nice ones.

I'm talking about lens with NO IS for example.

Just to use it with a tripod in my home studio.

Thanx friends all over the world!

Mark Webb · Sep 28, 2004

James,

I just got the Sigma 18-125 and have tested it for the last two days getting ready to shoot a wedding this weekend. I also have the Canon 28-135 IS for low light hand held shots. After shooting the Sigma today, I am very happy if there is enough light. I have posted some results at

http://www.pbase.com/mwebbco/sigma_18-125_tests

if you want to take a look. I really like the range that it gives on the WA side over the Canon. So far to my eye, they produce similar results given enough light. The Sigma will end up being the lens I use most of the time.

Hope this helps.

Mark
http://pbase.com/mwebbco

jamesavilalfa said:
Well, I'm looking for an affordable lens for portraits, when I got
to the store they showed me Canon lenses from about twice the price
of a Tamron or a Sigma, with less functions, but nice ones.

I'm talking about lens with NO IS for example.

Just to use it with a tripod in my home studio.

Thanx friends all over the world!

Rob Havemeyer · Sep 28, 2004

I don't know what you have ??
But buy a 50mm 1.8 Cheap but sharp!

I use the 50mm as well as my Tamron 28-75mm 2.8Di

Good Luck
http://www.pbase.com/robh

jamesavilalfa said:
Well, I'm looking for an affordable lens for portraits, when I got
to the store they showed me Canon lenses from about twice the price
of a Tamron or a Sigma, with less functions, but nice ones.

I'm talking about lens with NO IS for example.

Just to use it with a tripod in my home studio.

Thanx friends all over the world!

icmp · Sep 28, 2004

Firstly, to the person looking for an afforable "portrait" lens.. it would be helpful to define what affordable means to yourself.

At the risk of being in the wrong ballpark, consider the Canon 85/1.8. Or, the Canon 100/2 or 135/2.8 SF? Personally, with the 1.6x crop factor of the 300D, I'd favor the 85/1.8 as the best bang for the buck portrait lens ($300 or less, I believe).

Personally, I'd like to see some portraits taken with the Sigma 18-125 (or Canon 28-135).. I'm guessing they'll be about as unremarkable as those taken with most any other general purpose zoom lens. Likely the bokeh isn't all that great (for starters) so one might find it difficult to achieve a pleasingly blurred background unless they are certain to place a good deal of distance between the subject and the background.

I'm not saying "all portraits must have a blurred background"... but, I am saying that the ability to provide a pleasantly blurred background is a trademark characteristic of a good portrait lens. Consider taking a lens, like the Canon 28-135 or the Sigma 18-125 and setting the focal length to 85mm (for instance). Try and provide a pleasantly blurred background (without the need to create an unusually large distance between subject and background!). Now, try the same with a lens like the Canon 85/1.8 (for example). The Canon 85mm was made for this kind of use. Or, set zoom's focal length to 125mm or 135mm and compare to a lens like the Canon 135/2.8 SF or the Canon 135/2L. The end result is almost always that the general purpose zoom lens simple doesn't provide a background nearly as pleasantly blurred as the more purposefully designed "portrait" lens.

So, for a portrait lens? Try a prime lens with a reputation for good to excellent bokeh OR a high quality zoom with good to excellent bokeh (like a Canon 70-200/4L or 2.8L, for example).

just my thoughts on the matter,

icmp

Mark Webb said:
I just got the Sigma 18-125 and have tested it for the last two
days getting ready to shoot a wedding this weekend. I also have
the Canon 28-135 IS for low light hand held shots. After shooting
the Sigma today, I am very happy if there is enough light. I have
posted some results at

http://www.pbase.com/mwebbco/sigma_18-125_tests

if you want to take a look. I really like the range that it gives
on the WA side over the Canon. So far to my eye, they produce
similar results given enough light. The Sigma will end up being
the lens I use most of the time.

Hope this helps.

Mark
http://pbase.com/mwebbco

jamesavilalfa said:

Well, I'm looking for an affordable lens for portraits, when I got
to the store they showed me Canon lenses from about twice the price
of a Tamron or a Sigma, with less functions, but nice ones.

I'm talking about lens with NO IS for example.

Just to use it with a tripod in my home studio.

Thanx friends all over the world!

Click to expand...

StefZ · Sep 28, 2004

--
Stef
http://stefzucconi.blogspot.com/

purfectimage · Sep 28, 2004

sigma makes some really nice prime lenses, but i have to see many good sigma zooms.
the exception is a decent 75-300, and a good 21-35.
but those arent portrait lenses now are they?

tamron gives you cheap, mediocre zoom lenses...
like thier 70-210 but avoid the 80-210 and 100-300.

im not trying to start a flame war here, just making subjective broad generalazations about each product line.

but i would go with a sigma prime myself, given the choice of the 2.

and yes, the 50mm f1.8 mkii works perfect for my portraits @2.8...

$0.02

StefZ · Sep 28, 2004

Appreciate you not wanting to start a flame but ...

The only Tamron zoom I own is their 24-135. It wasn't particularly cheap and it certainly isn't mediocre.

The only Sigma prime I own is their 28 f.18. It's huge, weighs a ton, focuses slowly, particularly in low light, and has 'so so' image quality. A friend owns a 20mm from the same series and the optical quality is better but the focusing is still slow. All models in this series have a silly clutch system which means you have to flick a switch and push the lens when switching between MF and AF. If you forget to do either it's repair shop time for Mr Sigma Prime

Also, Sigma seems to have had more of an issue with compatability with new Canon DSLR models. Sometimes they will rechip your lens, sometimes they won't (or can't).

Based on my limited experience, I would go with Tamron.

I appreciate that you were trying to make an helpful generalisation but, in my experience, you just have to do your homework on any individual lens.

--
Stef
http://stefzucconi.blogspot.com/

purfectimage said:
sigma makes some really nice prime lenses, but i have to see many
good sigma zooms.
the exception is a decent 75-300, and a good 21-35.
but those arent portrait lenses now are they?

tamron gives you cheap, mediocre zoom lenses...
like thier 70-210 but avoid the 80-210 and 100-300.

im not trying to start a flame war here, just making subjective
broad generalazations about each product line.

but i would go with a sigma prime myself, given the choice of the 2.

and yes, the 50mm f1.8 mkii works perfect for my portraits @2.8...

$0.02

drgonzo · Sep 28, 2004

icmp said:
At the risk of being in the wrong ballpark, consider the Canon
85/1.8. Or, the Canon 100/2 or 135/2.8 SF? Personally, with the
1.6x crop factor of the 300D, I'd favor the 85/1.8 as the best bang
for the buck portrait lens ($300 or less, I believe).

Personally, I'd like to see some portraits taken with the Sigma
18-125 (or Canon 28-135).. I'm guessing they'll be about as
unremarkable as those taken with most any other general purpose
zoom lens. Likely the bokeh isn't all that great (for starters) so
one might find it difficult to achieve a pleasingly blurred
background unless they are certain to place a good deal of distance
between the subject and the background.

I'm not saying "all portraits must have a blurred background"...
but, I am saying that the ability to provide a pleasantly blurred
background is a trademark characteristic of a good portrait lens.
Consider taking a lens, like the Canon 28-135 or the Sigma 18-125
and setting the focal length to 85mm (for instance). Try and
provide a pleasantly blurred background (without the need to create
an unusually large distance between subject and background!). Now,
try the same with a lens like the Canon 85/1.8 (for example). The
Canon 85mm was made for this kind of use. Or, set zoom's focal
length to 125mm or 135mm and compare to a lens like the Canon
135/2.8 SF or the Canon 135/2L. The end result is almost always
that the general purpose zoom lens simple doesn't provide a
background nearly as pleasantly blurred as the more purposefully
designed "portrait" lens.

So, for a portrait lens? Try a prime lens with a reputation for
good to excellent bokeh OR a high quality zoom with good to
excellent bokeh (like a Canon 70-200/4L or 2.8L, for example).

just my thoughts on the matter,

icmp

Mark Webb said:

I just got the Sigma 18-125 and have tested it for the last two
days getting ready to shoot a wedding this weekend. I also have
the Canon 28-135 IS for low light hand held shots. After shooting
the Sigma today, I am very happy if there is enough light. I have
posted some results at

http://www.pbase.com/mwebbco/sigma_18-125_tests

if you want to take a look. I really like the range that it gives
on the WA side over the Canon. So far to my eye, they produce
similar results given enough light. The Sigma will end up being
the lens I use most of the time.

Hope this helps.

Mark
http://pbase.com/mwebbco

jamesavilalfa said:

Well, I'm looking for an affordable lens for portraits, when I got
to the store they showed me Canon lenses from about twice the price
of a Tamron or a Sigma, with less functions, but nice ones.

I'm talking about lens with NO IS for example.

Just to use it with a tripod in my home studio.

Thanx friends all over the world!

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

purfectimage · Sep 28, 2004

StefZ said:
Appreciate you not wanting to start a flame but ...

The only Tamron zoom I own is their 24-135. It wasn't particularly
cheap and it certainly isn't mediocre.

The only Sigma prime I own is their 28 f.18. It's huge, weighs a
ton, focuses slowly, particularly in low light, and has 'so so'
image quality. A friend owns a 20mm from the same series and the
optical quality is better but the focusing is still slow. All
models in this series have a silly clutch system which means you
have to flick a switch and push the lens when switching between MF
and AF. If you forget to do either it's repair shop time for Mr
Sigma Prime

i was thinking more of the sigma 50 and 90 2.8.... very nice quality

thats the problem with subjectivity and generalazatioins....

StefZ said:
I appreciate that you were trying to make an helpful generalisation
but, in my experience, you just have to do your homework on any
individual lens.

i could not agree more. hence my disclaimer....

RayN · Sep 28, 2004

I have to second the idea of the 50MM F1.8. Its $75 and
makes a very nice portrait lens on a 300D. It will probably
outperform all of the zooms you were shown.

jamesavilalfa said:
Well, I'm looking for an affordable lens for portraits, when I got
to the store they showed me Canon lenses from about twice the price
of a Tamron or a Sigma, with less functions, but nice ones.

I'm talking about lens with NO IS for example.

Just to use it with a tripod in my home studio.

Thanx friends all over the world!

jamesavilalfa · Sep 29, 2004

Well well well, as I count votes they are abuot 50 - 50 (%) but I see a major concern here:

F-Stops (for the blurried BGs)

MMs (for a flat image)

Waht weould be the perfect combination then?

Keep in mind, I'm talking about portraits here

Thanks!

Search

Tamron or Sigma??

jamesavilalfa

Forum Enthusiast

Mark Webb

Well-known member

Rob Havemeyer

Forum Enthusiast

icmp

Senior Member

StefZ

Forum Enthusiast

purfectimage

Forum Enthusiast

StefZ

Forum Enthusiast

drgonzo

Well-known member

purfectimage

Forum Enthusiast

RayN

Leading Member

jamesavilalfa

Forum Enthusiast

Keyboard shortcuts