Tamron 18-270 vs. Sigma 18-250
I have a D3000 and looking for a new lens. Trying to decide between the Tamron 18-270 and the Sigma 18-250. Both have VR. I Take photos of kids football and baseball games as well as traveling. Anyone have any suggestions?
I have the Sigma 18-250, and would have no problems recommending it for a general purpose, all around lens. Although focus is fast for this type of lens, i wouldn't recommend it for sports. It'll do OK for slower moving stuff, but a dedicated sports lens (70-200 2.8 or something similar) will do much better.
We just got back from Costa Rica, and I used the 18-250 for most of the pictures in this gallery:
Also used the 18-250 (with a Sony a700) last year in Yellowstone:
I had a look at both lenses in my reviews database ( http://www.lreviews.info ). There is quite a lot of reviews for both lenses. To make a comparison easier, I think the best is to have a look at those two reviews on slrgear.com:
My impression is that both lenses are OK, but the Sigma shows better image quality.
I have the Sigma, took it to South Africa last August. Overall, a very good lens. It focuses very fast and the OS is excellent. Images are slightly softer at long telephoto compared with my wife's Nikon 55-200 VR. Overall , a very versatile lens and I'm happy with it. There is no perfect 18-200+ lens, all make optical compromises to be versatile. As others have said, none of these lenses are ideal for action photography.
The Sigma controls distortion better at the wide end but the Tamron has better IQ at the tele end. The Sigma has faster autofocus but the Tamron had even better IQ than the Nikon 18-200, what a dilemma
Tamron is soft at tele end and has problem focusing in low light. I sold my version of this lens and would never touch one again. If you shoot in daylight all the time, I guess, it is ok. I have not used Sigma, but cannot see how it could be worse than the Tamron.
|Fascia walkie talkie building London by ian herridge|
from Abstract Architecture
|Global Reach by cjf2|