marcusbigdady
New member
Any comments on Tamron lenses,I am trying not to get crazy with my found again hobby.....Thanks for the help
Tamron lenses
- Thread starter marcusbigdady
- Start date
marcusbigdady
New member
Oh, sorry its for a canon Xti
astrogazer
Premium Member
Tamron lensesare fairly decent for being on what I consider the 3rd tier. You'll notice sharpness falling off near the edges especially at wider apertures. other distortion issues, as seen in ALL lenses will be more prevelant in the Tamron glass and the overall build quality isn't quite as high. All of that being said the price tag makes it look very attractive. It depends on how serious you are to the hobby and how often you will use the lens. There are a couple of nice pieces of Tamron glass out there.
Last edited:
marcusbigdady
New member
ok, would Sigma be better ?
astrogazer
Premium Member
IMO, that's a step up ...
jwedehase
New member
Just to offer another opinion, to make things more confusing....
Peronally, I lump Tamron and Sigma together. They're both top-rate third party lenses. Astro's labels based on tiers is fair enough. I'd call both of those Tier 2. My Promaster, as an example, I'd rate about Tier 7 (or however low it goes). Canon and Nikon (who I also feel are equals) both make some AMAZING glass, if you're willing to pay for it. I've used the 28-300 Tamron on a Canon, and it's very versatile, certainly. Having used third party lenses, I have a personal preference for never stearing away from Canon any more, but that's just me.
As an answer to your question, Tamron isn't junk, but it's not Canon, either. How do you think you might use your camera? That would help decide lenses for sure.
Peronally, I lump Tamron and Sigma together. They're both top-rate third party lenses. Astro's labels based on tiers is fair enough. I'd call both of those Tier 2. My Promaster, as an example, I'd rate about Tier 7 (or however low it goes). Canon and Nikon (who I also feel are equals) both make some AMAZING glass, if you're willing to pay for it. I've used the 28-300 Tamron on a Canon, and it's very versatile, certainly. Having used third party lenses, I have a personal preference for never stearing away from Canon any more, but that's just me.
As an answer to your question, Tamron isn't junk, but it's not Canon, either. How do you think you might use your camera? That would help decide lenses for sure.
Canon (and Nikon) make some awesome glass, they also make some dogs. Tamron and sigma are no different. There are some tamron lenses that rival canon L glass (optically) at a much lower price, of course the build quality isn't as high as an "L" lens, but it's not bad either. Same goes for sigma. To put it simply, decide what focal range your looking for and then research that focal range. You may find the Tamron/Sigma offering to be the best bang for the buck, you may find that Canon has the best offering in your price range. It's all on a lens by lens basis.
clippo
Member
I agree completely - it's easy to assume that the more you pay the better but it often isn't the case. Build quality is subjective - chunkier lenses are often heavier lenses. With regard to image quality, generalisations about performance based on brand are meaningless IMO and possibly derived from rumour rather than experience.
