Tamron AF 55-200mm F/4.0-5.6 Di-II LD Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 DG or the Canon EF-S 55-250mm IS?
admin | Nov 05, 2010 | Comments 2
rrwilliams64 Question : Tamron AF 55-200mm F/4.0-5.6 Di-II LD Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 DG or the Canon EF-S 55-250mm IS?
Three choices of lenses: Tamron AF 55-200mm F/4.0-5.6 Di-II LD Macro $ 100 Canon EF-S 55-250mm IS?. $ 225 Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 DG Macro $ 100 I need a companion to my 18-55 kit lens (XSi) and can obtain a copy of the Tamron which is like the new form of $ 100 , same for the Sigma. The Canon 55-250 is twice the end. I am an amateur photographer, a variety of shooting needs, some sports, some inside, wildlife, portraits, etc. Completely aware of the advantage of Canon’s IS and the inclination of many third party the absence of the glass and I ‘m also on a budget, so that the council “save your money for a 70-200mm f / 4 L” does not work for me. If I hear that the Sigma and Tamron are above $ hit and that IQ is not worth a hundred each, I may have to consider other options. (The Tamron 55-200 esp, I read clad reviews.) Again, we speak lens value class here and I know there are trade-offs through the lens at this price point. Reflections on both third party lenses? ThnxKirol, excellent participation, thnx for the experiment Sigma. BL-I GET IT, THE CANON has better IQ ….. no $ # @ ^, I realize that I’m comparing the two others being less than half the price … that’s the rub, the level of price and value for money spent … I’m not shooting action plans or IF it again and I do not want slightly lower IQ with a goal, I am not familiar with. Someone caution me with a personal experience of these two lenses are garbage third party, their views, bingo, thats what I’m looking for. NOT that the 225 million Canon is a better lens. I realize that Preeminent answer:
Answer by
Kirol
Well, I am a professional photographer myself, and work in a shop photo.Je can caution you that the Tamron does not stabilization, and this is reflected in the price. (Tamron lenses with stabilization will be labeled with -. VR Vibration Reduction) We sell a lot of them in the photo shop, unless I work for beginners, but mainly because we do not offer the solution Sigma and c ‘ is a target for people starting a excellent gun to his débuts.Le can obviously, to the TSE in its name. The build quality / lens will also be much higher, as authoritative canon and a product compatibility between lens and camera canon canon will be higher, and it will also focus more rapide.Maintenant, I do not use IS lenses I do not rely on autofocus. If you need these things is yours, but remember that it is more work and place in house for you. Another small thing is that the Canon has USM, which means that the AF motor will emit sounds in the ultrasonic range (and therefore will be silent as church mice). I had excellent experiences with Sigma, especially with their 105 mm macro lens. Quite legendary, I assure.Pourtant, the 70-300mm you are talking about ici.En detail, I have this objectif.Pour be honest, it is safe décent.Il is not terrible. I paid nearly twice that at the time and while I seldom use, I crack every time I need to do sports photography (which is fantastic for, I might add), but for wildlife photography (in the end ranges, the 250 ~ 300 zoom ranges) it lacks the image stabilization I need. So far, I’m shooting without a tripod most of the time because it broke! Hah.Quoi that may be, without doubt I categorically state: # 1) CANON # 2) SIGMA # 3) TAMRON
Add your own answer in the comments!
Popularity: 1% [?]
Filed Under: Budgeting
Looks like you’re a casual shooter I will not throw all sorts of information concerning only a pro with money to burn. Initially thing, dump the kit lens you have now. Sell it, keep it, give it away, it soit.Puis make one zooming around so you do not have to carry two lenses at all times, so you will not have to make changes Lens smallest amount potentially miss a excellent photo, or risk abandoning the lens / camera or make dust inside your corps.Sortez and make a 18-200mm zoom, both Canon, Sigma, Tamron or . Then, make a 50mm f 1.8 zoom, it is generally less than $ 100, small, lightweight and a must-have for low light and night photography. That is all the glass where you would besoin.Si you are serious, and make a thinner deceased, then you can go another direction with your collection of glass. Camera manufacturers like to throw into the kit lens 18-55mm because they lack the scope and the owners are for sure going to go out and buy a lens with more range. If they had kits with an option all around zoom range and a wide end, the vast majority would stick to that and never buy another lens.
Here are comments by two thirds lenses: Tamron: http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/tamron_55-200_review.htmlSigma: http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/326-sigma-af -70-300mm-f4-56-apo-dg-macro-test-report – reviewLe Tamron performs remarkably well for his money, while the Sigma 70-300mm is much softer in the corners of the image, but offers akin quality in the center compared to the Tamron. If you tend to pull architecture, where details in the same corner of the image can really matter, consider passing on this goal. But, with wildlife and sports, as the central image is really the only one that matters in this case, the Sigma offers a fantastic value. In addition, Sigma provides added telephoto reach of 300 mm from 200mm.Bien course, to more than double the price, the Canon (better) is more efficient than either third lens, but probably not enough to stand out in most situations. The largest advantage of Canon’s IS system probably, allowing for slower shutter speeds to be used with tripod. Fantastic for shooting low light, the non-go in moins.Bien course, for the dim light, these three telephoto lenses will not really cut it for serious work. If I were you, I’d probably save money and buy the Sigma or Tamron house, and the rest give me a nice, quick, Canon 50mm f/1.8 choice for use in low light and portraits (of defocused backgrounds perfectly. The 50mm lens costs less than $ 100, making it a fantastic (with better image quality than those telephoto lenses)