[mouldy101]

Hi all... I'm new to all of this so please bear with me. I am a happy owner of a 350D and I am looking to upgrade my stadard zoom lens. I have narrowed it down to two lens' which are in my budget. The Sigma 24-70Macro 2.8 or the Tamron 28-75 2.8. Does any one have any views/experience with any of these lens'???? Some thoughts I have... The Sigma seems heavy and it has a very large filter thread, is the macro facility any good???? The Tamron begins at 28mm I guess this would be limiting for my landscape photography. I look forward to all your advice. Matt

[Liam O'Neill]

I have the Tamron 28-75 and I love it. With either of these two there is an issue about quality assurance from the factory, and you might have to try a few examples to find a good one. Make sure the shop will be happy to work with you in getting replacements if your not happy. I was lucky, the fist one I bought seems perfectly fine to me. I get the impression the Tamron's aren't quite as prone to this as they used be.

I don't really know why I went for the Tamron over the Sigma. I just got an impression for reading all the reviews I could that the Tamrons were generally better, but that wasn't based on anything scientific. Because I was replaceing a 28-80 lens with it, the funny range on a crop camera didn't bother me at all (and I'd bought a 17-35 to complement it anyway)
I think today I'd be very tempted to look at the Tamron 17-50 2.8.(they didn't make this lens when I bought mine) It should be just as good (I haven't read enough reviews to really know if it is or not) and has a more useable range on the crop (it's basically to a crop camera what the 28-75 is to a full frame)

I love mine, it's as sharp as anything, (it seems sharper than my 70-200 F4 L) and just feels right on the camera, and to my eye the pictures from the camera need very little tweaking. OK, the AF is a little noisy and not lightening quick, but it's not like it doesn't work. The filter size is unusual, though it's the same as the equally quirky 70-200 so I don't mind. I LOVE Tamrons lens cap. That may sound silly, but once you've used the Tamron cap a few times, you'll want one for all your lenses. It's the lens that lives on my camera and the one I use most often, and it's never let me down.

If you get a good copy of the Tamron, and there are good ones about, you will love it, though I suggest you seriously look at the 17-50 2.8 too.

[Dave]

Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 SP Di lens reviews here

[Rob Barron]

If this is the only lens you are going to be using and have no other wide angle lens, I think I would go for the 24mm over the 28mm because of the extra width. You have the 350D so have a 1.6x factor which means the 28mm lens really can't be considered a wide angle lens at all. When the factor is accounted for, it starts at 44.8mm which is only 5.2mm wider than a standard 50mm lens. The 24mm comes out at 38.4mm, not super wide but certainly better. So you see the difference is not 4mm but 6.4mm, quite a difference at that end of the lens.

The difference at the other end between the 70mm and the 75mm really won't make much odds so shouldn't be considered in making the decision.

Both the Tamron and the Sigma are good lenses and will give good shots so quality of image is going to be around the same, not again something that I think will make a major difference in your choice.

They both have f2.8 so again, nothing to decide on there.

So, unless the weight of one is too heavy/light (it won't be!) I think you pretty much have little else to judge against. If you enjoy landscapes or taking pictures where you strugle to get back far enough to fit the subject in properly (indoor shots often suffer here) then you absolutely must go for the widest angle.

My advice would be the Sigma 24-70mm lens. Hope that helps.

Cheers,
Rob

[dod]

Tamron for me from those two mouldy101. For no other reason than I can't recall anyone who's had one say anything bad about it. If it had weather proofing I'd have had it rather than having to wait for Canon's grossly expensive 24-70. Then again I'm not into wide so the extra length at the long end would be more useful for me most of the time.

[mouldy101]

Thank you for your replies. Still not too sure which way to go, I do think that 28mm may not be quite wide enough for me... Although I am goin to add the 17-50 2.8 tamron to my maybe list...(thanks Liam) Any other comments much appreciated. Why didnt I find this website months ago?????

[Dave]

If you want to shoot some wide angle, then really you need to get near the 18mm mark. I've seen some very impressive shots taken with the Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 , although I have heard a few people had some focus problems with lens . Note that might be a rare problem ....anyone else got this lens ?

[Dave]

You might find this of use :- Focal Length Comparison

[mouldy101]

cheers dave that is helpful

[LadyStardust]

That's a nifty comparison page. I like that. Thanks!

[Soupdragon]

Originally Posted by LadyStardust

That's a nifty comparison page. I like that. Thanks!

Hello West Sussex person, anywhere near Chichester?

[Soupdragon]

On the subject of zooms, are you sure those two are your only choices?

I say this because, the canon kit lens is not that bad really and already covers a fair range particularly on the wide side.
Do you have a preferred subject or shooting style? as a zoom may not be your only choice.
I am only guessing from the prices of the mentioned lenses your are looking at the £250-£300 range.
There are a number of v-good fixed focals that may suit your needs.
I could just be talking gibberish however.

[mouldy101]

thanks for your comments soupdragon. A lot of the stuff I do is relatively low light (mushrooms... natural light portraits etc.) so the 2.8 aperture would be useful. I am however looking to get the canon 50mm for the portaits, although I'm waiting for a decent MkI to come on the market.... what prime lens' would you recommend

[LadyStardust]

Hello Soupdragon,

No, I'm not near Chichester, I'm afraid. I'm t'other side of t'county - in Horsham.

Good to meet a fellow West Sussexonian...!

Lucy