tamron or sigma 70-300mm?

[goner]

Hey everyone, I really need some opinions from users who have tested both these lenses:

Sigma 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6 AF APO Macro Super II

Tamron 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6 AF LD Macro (newer 1:2 version)

Please help me decide between the two.. I did some research and found out the following:

1. Tamron has a better photographyreview.com rating while Sigma has a better photodo.com rating - I think though that it wasn't the Tamron's newer version being reviewed in photodo.

2. Tamron is significantly lighter - Sigma weights 585g whereas Tamron weights only 435g. If you don't associate weight with quality, here Tamron is clearly a winner as it is far easier to hold the lens steady while shooting without a tripod.

3. Tamron is marginally cheaper, it costs 180 euro and Sigma costs 210 euro - guess it's something that you have to pay for the brand with Sigma. It really doesn't make that much difference though, and Sigma is more widely available, too.

Thanks.

[Gerry Widen]

Just to throw a curve you might want to look into the Tokina 70-300 I believe it is also
f 4.0-5.6 and I think an LD model. I have one for my N80 and it performs pretty well although I have nothing to compare it to. Something interesting a few months after I purchased mine (about 2 years ago) I noticed that Nikon's consumer grade 70-300 looked and felt almost exactly like the Tokina. I have also heard on forums that it is the same (or least was) lens.

just figured that I'd add a photo taken with this lens (not that you can really tell from a computer screen) to give an idea. This editing ability software after the fact is really cool.

Tokina70-300 4.0-5.6 LD

[Jeff82]

I don't know much about the Tamron lens. I used to own the Sigma 70-300 as well as the Nikkor 70-300.

The Sigma had really sharp optics, and it was fast focusing as compared to the Nikkor. It also could focus down to 1:2, which is better than the standard 1:3 of 70-300mm lenses. The only thing I didn't like was the build quality. It seemed pretty flimsy to me. Otherwise, I thought that is was as good as the Nikkor 70-300.

As far as third-party lenses go, I've always been partial to Tokina. I've never tried their 70-300 though.


--Jeff

[goner]

Thanks for replies and the picture - a good one I might add. I didn't even know there was such lens as Tokina 70-300mm. It might be worth a look if I just could find it somewhere. In the meanwhile, I'd still like to hear a word from Tamron users. How's the build quality compared to Sigma? It seems (just went over the specs again) that it has only one LD glass while Sigma has three - does this matter?

[TJM]

I've got the tamron (the newer 1:2 version). Its good for the money, plastic but well put together, optics are pretty decent. AF is unusable on my pentax mz50, im sure itd go faster on other cameras though. If you plan to shoot sports or moving stuff id worry more about AF than optics because theyre probably not going to be THAT different optically. You could always take a few shots with each at the shop and compare them.

Good luck ,

- Toby M

[t3342left]

I am just a beginner, but have been doing some research. I came across information about the Tokina recently and found the 70-300 is worthing checking out. You can find the Tokina line on e-Bay. You can also see their line and get some history at the following web site: http://www.thkphoto.com/products/tokina/afl-01.html

[freygr]

I have the Tamron AF 70-300mm 1:4-5.6 LD Tele-Macro(1:2). The AF motor sounds like a WWII Jeep in low range, and I feel it tends to over shot. I use it in manual mode most of the time as I mainly use in Macro Mode. I did purchase it for shooting horse shows, and it was great until I got out under the judges tent in the center or the ring during the rain, hail, thunder and lighting, then it was too long of a lense. Other wise the opticals of the lense is fine. '

The Attached photo was taken with the Tamrom lense, I still needed more DOF, but from what is in focus you can tell its a good lense.

[subhuman]

Yeah I own the Tamron, bought it about a year ago I believe, I think
I paid about $170, good lens, its big but its great if there is something you
want to shoot that is hard to get to, like the other day there was this old abandonded
truck way out in this field and a No Tresspassing sign on the fence, came out looking
like I was standing next to it , I recommend it

[Lthlwpn1979]

I owned the older version of the Tamron lens and was disappointed by a lack of sharpness. It's likely Tamron has made improvements in the last 4 years. I traded to the Canon 70-300 IS and I'm happy with the telephoto capabilities.
I use my Pentax 645 for macro work.
No comments on the Sigma lens.

[Ronnoco]

I am just a beginner, but have been doing some research. I came across information about the Tokina recently and found the 70-300 is worthing checking out. You can find the Tokina line on e-Bay. You can also see their line and get some history at the following web site: http://www.thkphoto.com/products/tokina/afl-01.html

Yes, Tokina tends to test out slightly better than both Tamron and Sigma, so it is definitely worth a look.

Ronnoco

[sonyfan]

i own the tamron 70-300. image quality is good but some barrel distortion

i think maybe go for the tamron or tokina

[Anbesol]

barral distortion on a telephoto zoom? Are you sure you dont mean another kind of distortion?

Anyway this thread is super old.