Sigma or Tamron?

Both of those are very comparable in terms of quality. The bad news is that neither is really any good.
 
For a high school student on a limited budget they're probably fine.

There's a reason why they're several hundred dollars cheaper than many other lenses in that zoom range. ;)
 
B&H doesn't have them second hand.
Which one of them would be the best of the two?
I want the Nikon 28-105mm but can't find it at a good price.
 
If you were gonna get one of those id def go with the Sigma. I can remember reading on a forum a while ago about a guy who had one and he was pleased with it.

Plus i have a sigma 105mm lens and feel it was the better quality from the equivilent tamron.
 
It's import to note that while the word "Macro" is listed in their names, neither is a true macro lens. These lenses can produce, at their highest magnification an image which is about 1/3 of life size. True macro is life sized and higher.
 
Most of the 70-300 zoom lens don't work very well once they get to the 200-300mm range. If you don't need the 75-105mm range, then take a look at the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 as well. It's a bit more, but the optics are worth every penny.
 
If the main purpose for the lens is macro, you'll really want a prime macro lens. Something like the Sigma 50mm 2.8 Macro would probably be one of the more affordable ones for around $250, but doesn't give you the reach of the 105. But it will give you true macro ability and a much better picture than the lens above.
 
I have the Canon version of the Tamron lens and have been happy w/it.....I have used it for some outdoor photos - wildlife, plants, stuff like that...and it may not produce the pics a more expensive lens would, I'm on a budget and just take pics for fun...but I agree if you are looking for a true "macro" lens look elsewhere...just my .02...good luck
 
The 24-105 is an awesome lens. The 28-135, not so much. :D

besides, both are Canon - he shoots Nikon.
 
For being on a budget the Nikon 28-105 ain't that bad. It's not awesome by any means but not bad. I use mine as my "always on my camera" lens for walk-around stuff unless I know I need the reach of my 80-200 f/2.8

Figures I just deleted the macro shots I had from the 28-105.

Whatever you do, don't go cheap just because. If you need to wait a few more months to either afford something like the 28-105 or something even BETTER than that lens then do yourself the favor and wait. Trust me, it will be worth it. Photography is just like reefing...spend money once on what you want, not 3 times on stuff "just to have" until you can get "what you want".


Oh, and by the way, the actual Nikon 70-300mm f/4-5.6G lens is only about $140 from B&H so if you want to go that route for reach and NOT for macro...and my wife has the Nikon 70-300mm and has taken wonderful shots with it and the longer end of the focal length...I would recommend going with the Nikon product over the Sigma or Tamron.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/con...s&Q=&sku=207359&is=USA&addedTroughType=search
 
Last edited:
Thanks Raven. I just read some reviews on the Nikkor 70-300mm and said that the foucus is slow. How do you feel about the foucus VoidRaven?
And can this lens be used for fish shots? Do you hae pics of fish using this lens VoidRaven?
Thanks a lot of the help.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

P
Skimmer or No Skimmer in AIO 120 gl
Replies
5
Views
335
hvcreefer
hvcreefer
W
Getting Back Into Hobby
Replies
2
Views
386
Reefing102
Reefing102
Brian60077
Be patient, wait, and do not rush to add things ???
Replies
11
Views
300
Brian60077
Brian60077
Reef Kinetics
ReefBot Lab: The Newest All-In-One Automated Water Tester from Reef Kinetics!
Replies
1
Views
614
Reef Kinetics
Reef Kinetics
R
Red tufty algae - Asparagopsis - any expert advice for removal?
Replies
14
Views
964
rallibon
R
Back
Top