I'm shooting with a Nikon D70's.  I have an 18 to 70mm lens and a 55 to 200mm lens.  Im thinking about getting one 18 to 200mm lens.  Nikon Lenses are expensive.  So i was thinking about either a Sigma or Tamron lens.  I wanted to see if anyone has any experience with these lenses and can give me some feedback on which is better.

Thanks,
Tommy

I have never really played with a Tamron lens - but my friend uses both of them and swares by the Sigma - I have also used sigma and was very impressed . I am a Canon guy , and used the Sigma 24-70 " about $500 " , against my Canon 24-70 " about $1300 " , and the sigma was very close to the same sharpness and contrast - good luck !

I have the Tamron 18-200 for my Canon 20D and I must say that I use it all the time. It stays on the camera for much of my shooting. It is a relatively fast lens and has really done great for me.

If your on a budget of under $500. I highly recommend getting one. It's so versatile in so many different situations. Great lens.

MK  www.michaelkirst.com

Almost every lens that you can buy today will work just fine. None of them will make your pictures look different if you are not trying to eliminate a constraint that you have right now. Save up your money and when you run into something that you cannot do spend your money on solving that problem.

RB

Ps. They will both work, they are both junk, they will both produce great images if you point them in the right direction. So what is the question?

By the way the 18-70 is a fine lense. if you need more reach and don't mind the weight you should probably save up and get the 70-200 vs the 18-200 IMHO just a couple of hundred bucks if you are going to spend it.

RB

I have sold both in a previous job and the Tamron IMO are superior to Sigma and some of the top Tamrons are as good as OEM lenses. Both companies make cheap glass but then so dose Nikon and Canon but their top of the line lenses are excellent. The best will be OEM glass, yes expensive but will be better constructed and should last longer.
There are often compatability issues with some brands and new model cameras that you do not have with OEM glass.
Tolerances in the photo industry are quite large so a 70-210 lens can be a 75 to 200 and 1/3 stop slower than advertized and still be in tolerance. With the OEM glass they are usually closer to the published specs. Some off brand leses were a full stop off in lab tests ( the old Spiratone 500mm f8, very good lens for the price tested at f11)

Thanks,
   Yea im thinking more towards the Tamron lenses.  A photographer i know bought the D80 body and a tamron 18 to 200 lens and loves it.

Tommy, I shoot with the D70s as well and am facing a similar question but with the 17-50mm f2.8. Sigma has the 18-50mm 2.8 to compete. I was at the show in NYC on Saturday and put both on my camera to take some shots. At a quick glance they both seem very similar. The Sigma "seems" to be built better and the Tamron seems plasticy but still I've heard Tamron is a bit better plus they give you a 6yr warranty vs the Sigmas 4yr. In the end I think at the price points you really can't go too wrong with either lens. I'll save my pennies to someday own all Nikkor but for now I need to have some kind of a constant 2.8 lens. Can anyone give any solid advise between these lens makers or is it a matter of flipping a coin? lol

Christopher

i love the sigma lens i use.  never shot a tamron though

At my place of employment in Medical Photography at JSEI, we tested a Sigma 24-70 F-2.8 EX against a Canon 24-100 F-2.8 with a Canon 5D as the test unit camera. Each exposure was metered with a hand held meter, the camera was mounted on a Gitzo Studio Master tripod that is rated for an 8X10 camera, Each exposure was made with the mirror locked up. Over 300 exposures were made. The Sigma was the clear winner, in sharpness from center to edge, separation of detail in the highlights and shadows, light fall off at the corners, barrel and/or pincushion distortion,  at every focal length/F stop combination. There was also more sharpness degradation at F-22 and F-32 due to diffraction in the Canon lens. F-32 is not recommended for 35mm anyway because of diffraction caused by light scatter at the edges of the diaphragm. The only advantage the Canon had was slightly higher contrast, and only in the third lens we tried. The third one was closer, much closer than the others but still decidedly inferior.

Tamron and Sigma are made in the same factory.  Same parent company.

Thanks for the insight. Love my Tamron 70-200 on my 20D. Any thoughts on good MACROs?

I would personally recommend NikkorED or Canon Lseries glass, but it is obviously expensive.  I like the fact that Sigma makes 70-200 f:2.8's; and 400mm and 500mm lenses.  And the EX glass scored very high in some "clarity" test I saw online somewhere.

I used to use the 70-200 2.8 Sigma and hated it.  I now use Nikons 70-200 2.8VR in that range. Completetly worth it. 

I also use the 24-70 2.8 Ex from Sigma.  its a good lens...not great but pretty good. In the future should I have the need for the nikkor version Ill switch it out. However, I am kinda moving to primes only now. So I may not do that after all.

I've never used it but I hear the Tamron 28-70 DI is really great for the $$$. 

Also, sounds like your shopping a little on a budget,..take a look at the Nikkor 50mm 1.8  $110  (this is just a recomendation but it is a popular, inexpensive ,sharp lens)

Good luck with your hunt.

sigma user since 1986, never had a dud, i currently own 7. tamron owned 3 dropped two on purpose in the river.

You've received some -- interesting replies. No, Sigma and Tamron are separate companies, so the lenses will be completely different.

Here's my question: looking at your profile, you claim to be a professional. If that's the case, why then are you considering an 18-200, when all you have is the Nikon kit lens and an entry-level telephoto?

Probably time to upgrade, not downgrade. All of the 18-200's will be about average at best. You just can't make an 11x zoom that's going to be that great. I have the Canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM. Nikon makes a similar lens, and both are about $1,200. Start with one excellent lens, and then go from there.

If you can't afford that, then go with the Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 or one of the similar Tamron or Tokina lenses. Forget the megazoom.

I use Tamron, Sigma, and Nikon lenses here why

Tamron 18-200 3.5-6.5   wedding reception, goofing off
Tamron 28-300 3.5-6.5   wedding ceremony

Sigma  70-200 2.8          Sports
Sigma  24-70 2.8            Studio

Nikon 50mm 1.8             Studio

Here's the lenses that I use with my Nikon D-80:
Nikon 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 AF DX
Nikon/Nikor 70-300mm f/4.6-5.6 (if I remember correctly off the top of my head) AF G series

The first lens is a better lens though I enjoy shooting with the latter better as the latter seems faster. The only thing I like better about the 18-135mm lens is that the front of the lens doesn't turn during focusing which allows me to use a circular polarizer. Also, with the latter lens, I can't use it to take macros. I am hoping to purchase the Sigma 105mm f/2.8 EX AF Macro in the next few days.

Caroline

I've been using the Sigma 18-50 2.8 for about six months now and am very pleased with it.  It's a bit too soft wide open, but gets very sharp from about 5.6 and up (down?).  I've not shot the Tamron of like charateristics.  I'd say the Sigma is made at least as ruggedly as my Canon 28-200.

PopPhoto does a lot of head-to-head comparisons of various lens types.  You might find them in their archives online...or your neighborhood library.

I bought the tamron 18-200 and overall, the glass is decent, but, if you need to use autofocus, especially when the light isn't so bright, you might as well, light up and give it a minute. On top of it, it's pretty loud, sound like a cartoon robot comparing to the silent and speedy Nikor lenses. If you can live with that, get it.