Tamron 18-270 or Sigma 18-250

[taffy12]

I've about decided to bite the bullet and buy a walk-around lens, after much, much inner debate. I'm a pixel peeper and fear spending money on a lens that will disappoint me in the image quality category, but alas, I get aggravated with always having to change lenses (between my Canon 18-55 and 55-250) and sometimes just don't and then miss the shot. I was about ready to buy a Tamron 18-270, but then I saw mention that the specs on the Sigma 18-250 are a little better. I'm no expert, so please help. Which would you buy?

[markeb]

Most of the information on the Canon forums makes the two relatively equal. There does seem to be some general preference for the Sigma.

 

Tonight, through tomorrow, the Sigma is $349 at B&H and the Tamron is $449. If this is what you want to do, I'd grab the Sigma before the instant rebate goes away tomorrow...

 

Having said that, do you have a feel for where you're switching? You say you're a pixel peeper? That kind of causes me to lean away from a superzoom as a primary lens (although it may be a great travel lens, and I'm suddenly debating on that Sigma myself :eek:).

 

If you're content to pick up the 55-70/85 mm range, and are looking for best image quality, you should look at the Canon 15-85 USM and the Sigma 17-70 HSM. I have the Canon, and these two are generally viewed among the best general purpose "walk around" lenses for the Canon APS-C bodies. They're variable apertures, so the purists who insist on fixed f/2.8 don't like them, but they give very good performance across a very usable zoom range.

 

Having said that, for $349, grab the Sigma and give it a try. Resist the urge to pixel peep; it just drives you insane!

[JimAOk1945]

My wife has a Tamron 18-270 and uses it all the time as her "walk around lens" for her Nikon D5100. Her camera came with two lens but she never uses them because the Tamron lens is convenient and suits her needs.

 

She is an amateur but does get some amazing shots since she bought this lens last year prior to our August southbound Alaska cruise.

 

There are some very knowledgeable people on this thread. I'm sure you will soon receive a few posts from them with their recommendations.

 

Happy cruising!

[TruckerDave]

If you are a "pixel peeper" I would not get either one. If you are after top quality you best bet is to buy good quality glass (and neither if these falls into this category), but if you are ok with "good enough" then either will fill the need.

 

 

Sent using a small piece of fruit.

[taffy12]

Most of the information on the Canon forums makes the two relatively equal. There does seem to be some general preference for the Sigma.

 

Tonight, through tomorrow, the Sigma is $349 at B&H and the Tamron is $449. If this is what you want to do, I'd grab the Sigma before the instant rebate goes away tomorrow...

 

Having said that, do you have a feel for where you're switching? You say you're a pixel peeper? That kind of causes me to lean away from a superzoom as a primary lens (although it may be a great travel lens, and I'm suddenly debating on that Sigma myself :eek:).

 

If you're content to pick up the 55-70/85 mm range, and are looking for best image quality, you should look at the Canon 15-85 USM and the Sigma 17-70 HSM. I have the Canon, and these two are generally viewed among the best general purpose "walk around" lenses for the Canon APS-C bodies. They're variable apertures, so the purists who insist on fixed f/2.8 don't like them, but they give very good performance across a very usable zoom range.

 

Having said that, for $349, grab the Sigma and give it a try. Resist the urge to pixel peep; it just drives you insane!

 

Eek! A deadline! But thanks for the tip :-)

 

One thing that confuses me... In your response and elsewhere on the great interwebs, I keep finding people recommending lenses with what appear to be very small zoom ranges as "walk arounds." To me, the reason for an all-purpose walk-around lens is so you can take wide angle shots but still have strong zoom capabilities without having to swap lenses all the time. How do lenses like the Sigma 17-70 fit into this? I usually end up keeping my 55-250 on most of the time when I'm out walking around, but then I can't take pictures of anything big close up and can't take wide-angle panoramic shots...but with, say, my 18-55, I feel lost not being able to zoom, as I frequently shoot at full zoom on the 55-250. Please help me understand!

[taffy12]

Also, I'm starting to find reviews that the zoom length isn't quite what one would expect on the Sigma - that at 250, it compares to around 170 on other lenses. Have you found this to be the case? Has anyone heard about this happening with the Tamron?

[markeb]

Eek! A deadline! But thanks for the tip :-)

 

One thing that confuses me... In your response and elsewhere on the great interwebs, I keep finding people recommending lenses with what appear to be very small zoom ranges as "walk arounds." To me, the reason for an all-purpose walk-around lens is so you can take wide angle shots but still have strong zoom capabilities without having to swap lenses all the time. How do lenses like the Sigma 17-70 fit into this? I usually end up keeping my 55-250 on most of the time when I'm out walking around, but then I can't take pictures of anything big close up and can't take wide-angle panoramic shots...but with, say, my 18-55, I feel lost not being able to zoom, as I frequently shoot at full zoom on the 55-250. Please help me understand!

 

This is one of life's great confusion factors. And, it's complicated by the most "serious photographers". At this moment, I have a thread going on a Canon forum specifically about the 18-250, which at the price, is intriguing me tonight. The "serious photographers" are into primes and fixed apertures.

 

"Walk around" is an imprecise term, at best. I find the 15-85 to be a very good range for this concept. It's very good from moderately wide to moderate zoom. It's not a great zoom lens, but the IQ within its range is amazing.

 

The Superzooms (which clearly includes the 18-250) are a special "walk around" lens. They go from wide to moderate zoom, and are really aimed at being somewhat universal. Image quality (IQ) is typically not as good as dedicated midrange zooms, but they are very good at capturing the "good enough" shots that most casual/recreational photographers strive for.

 

If you spend a lot of time at the far end of your 55-250 zoom, then you really need to evaluate your needs and desires. That kind of puts you out of the 18-250/18-270 range, and more into a 15-85 + a high quality zoom lens, maybe a 150-500?. That's a totally different problem space.

 

If that's the case, take a deep breath, forget what I said before, and see what happens with lens prices after the first of the year. If you're really a pixel peeper, get a 15-85 and enjoy it! It will be far sharper than a superzoom, and a great all around lens.

 

Unfortunately, there is no perfect lens...

 

Oh, and I have no idea who's saying a 250mm zoom is equal to a 170. Ignore them. If they're comparing a 250mm on a APS-C to a 170 on a fullframe, they're still full of crap...

[mskaufman]

I have owned both of these lenses. I personally like the Tamron better, but admit that is purely personal opinion. It seemed that I got sharper pictures (could just be me) at the far end of the zoom.

[zackiedawg]

I'll chime in for what it's worth, as a 'serious photographer' who wants the very best and has over 30 lenses including tons of fast primes to get optimal quality in a given situation: I also have an 18-250mm superzoom lens that I love. It's possible to be serious, and a pixel peeper, and even have dozens of excellent lenses, and still find a superzoom lens to be a very good, viable choice for walkaround convenience. And while everyone may have their opinions as to what makes a great photo, or just how much pixel-peeping to scrutinize a photo with, I've never had anyone disappointed with my prints from my 18-250mm lens, and have even published full-page in national periodicals from that lens...it's not as compromised as some believe it is. Like any lens, it has some areas where it is optimal - certain focal lengths and apertures are its strongest areas, but unlike a good prime that might be a hair better even at the superzoom's very best setting, the superzoom is significantly better than the prime at all the other focal lengths. Night and day, really...and isn't that the point of a superzoom? To have maximum range in minimal size and maximum convenience? Knowing that you have a very good lens from, say, 28mm to about 220mm, and from around F6.3 to F10 or so, as well as a pretty good lens from 18mm to 28mm and 220mm to 270mm, and also a decent usable lens at F3.5 to F5.6 or so...and it can all fit on your camera taking up about the same space as a 30mm F1.4 prime...that's pretty sweet.

 

My 18-250mm is a Tamron - I've got the one just before they bumped it up to 18-270mm. I personally prefer the Tamron version over the Sigma, but I own lenses from both and think either would be fine.

 

Feel free to look through my Tamron 18-250mm gallery:

 

http://www.pbase.com/zackiedawg/sony_sal18250mm_f3563&page=all

 

- there are about 1,350 photos in there of pretty much any type of photography you can think of - portrait, landscape, night, HDR, portrait, wildlife, birding, indoor low light, architecture, closeup, etc...just to give an idea of the lens' versatility and also its ability to be pretty darn sharp and pixel-peepable too. Most of the photos in my gallery with this lens are Disney World, and cruise vacation photos - that's certainly a forte of this type of lens...being able to have a light and versatile walkaround lens that's not too conspicuous and can cover maximum range for any surprise photo opportunity. I certainly go to my fast primes when I know I'll be shooting low light interiors, or handheld night portraits, and my long primes when I know I'll be birding...my ultrawides when I know I'm doing architecture, portrait primes and macros when I know that's what I'll be shooting, and so on. But when I don't know what I might be shooting, and when I want to travel light but not have to write off a shot as unreachable because I brought the wrong prime, I use the 18-250mm because it gives me maximum versatility.

[peety3]

One thing that confuses me... In your response and elsewhere on the great interwebs, I keep finding people recommending lenses with what appear to be very small zoom ranges as "walk arounds." To me, the reason for an all-purpose walk-around lens is so you can take wide angle shots but still have strong zoom capabilities without having to swap lenses all the time. How do lenses like the Sigma 17-70 fit into this? I usually end up keeping my 55-250 on most of the time when I'm out walking around, but then I can't take pictures of anything big close up and can't take wide-angle panoramic shots...but with, say, my 18-55, I feel lost not being able to zoom, as I frequently shoot at full zoom on the 55-250. Please help me understand!

 

For me, walk-around lens means the lens I leave mounted on my (best) camera in the bag so when I grab that camera, I have a good start. That happens to be a 24-70/2.8 these days. There's a second camera and usually 3+ more lenses in my bag, so I'll grab the next lens once I decide what lens to grab. If I were to toss a 10x (or higher) superzoom in the bag, it would not be my "first alarm" lens; it'd be a lens to grab when I had to leave the bag behind, and a 24-70 wouldn't be enough.

 

That said, I got a Lowepro Lens Exchange 200 AW case and I absolutely love it! It goes on your belt, or the belt of your camera bag, and holds a lens. It's got a handle leading to two zippers, and as you unzip the case open, it expands, leaving TEMPORARY room for two lenses. You can easily take a lens off your camera, put it into the Lens Exchange, then remove the other lens from the Lens Exchange, put it on your camera, and zip the case closed (which gives it more stability). I'm planning to get another 200 and a 100 for shorter lenses next month. Highly recommended!

[taffy12]

Thanks for all of the input :-) I went ahead and went with the Tamron...and discovered that B&H was offering a $70 mail-in rebate for purchases of that lens through today!