1. LouiseTopp

    LouiseTopp

    Messages:
    612
    Name:
    Aura
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    I’m looking at two lenses:
    • Sigma 18-250 £319, (reduced down from £329)
    • Tamron Dii PZD 18-270 £270
    I would like to buy one of them. At the moment I have a 18-105 lens which has done me well, but when I had my Pentax I owned an 18-200 lens which I liked.

    I do landscapes, but also costume jewellery and portraits (occasionally) Please can you tell me which is the better lens to go for?

    Thanks.
     
    Last edited: Jan 13, 2018
  2. Nod

    Nod Kronus

    Messages:
    30,038
    Name:
    Nod (NOT Ethel!!!)
    Edit My Images:
    No
    2nd hand Nikkor 18-200?
     
    Phiggys and LouiseTopp like this.
  3. HoppyUK

    HoppyUK

    Messages:
    22,168
    Name:
    Richard
    Edit My Images:
    No
    If superzooms are your thing, I've tested most of them and the best is Tamron's 16-300. It's a bit more expensive at £400, but not only offers the strongest specification but also pretty decent performance throughout. The usual superzoom weak spots are at least a little less weak ;) It's still quite a lump to carry around if you're only going to use the 100-300mm range occasionally.

    https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/tamron-16-300mm-f-3-5-6-3-di-ii-vc-pzd-macro
     
    LouiseTopp likes this.
  4. LouiseTopp

    LouiseTopp

    Messages:
    612
    Name:
    Aura
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Thanks for your replies.

    No, new one's apparently. Both lenses are in seperate shops.
     
  5. Nod

    Nod Kronus

    Messages:
    30,038
    Name:
    Nod (NOT Ethel!!!)
    Edit My Images:
    No
    Sorry, the Nikkor was a suggestion instead of the 2 mentioned in your OP. I had a Tamron 18-270 but it didn't work on my 1 Series Nikon (using the F-T1 adaptor) so I chopped it in against the Nikkor. Obviously, the Nikkor doesn't go beyond 200 but it was sharper even at 200 than the Tamron was (at 200mm)
     
  6. LouiseTopp

    LouiseTopp

    Messages:
    612
    Name:
    Aura
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    whats a Nikkor?
     
  7. dinorock

    dinorock

    Messages:
    4,660
    Name:
    Mike
    Edit My Images:
    No
    nikon lens
     
  8. Teflon-Mike

    Teflon-Mike

    Messages:
    948
    Name:
    Mike
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Horses for courses.

    In days of yore cameras came with one, fixed focal length lens, usually around 35mm or 50mm, depending on film format. And folk got great photo's with them.
    Start going 'zoom' to pack in a greater range of focal lengths, you have to pack in exponentially more compromises. They will tend to be more expensive, for starters; they will almost certainly not be as 'rigid' and mechanically durable, or have the same degree of optical 'excellence', usually exemplified by slower maximum apertures, and often zoom dependent apertures getting relatively slow at the longer telephoto end of the range....

    For landscape? Wide is not always better; more land does not more landscape make. I have often wandered about with a big bag of primes on my hip, and my cast iron Sigma MK1 film camera, got home, and wondered why I strained my shoulder, when all I used all day was a 29mm! I'd have done just as well, leaving all the heavy-metal behind and taking 'just' my Konica C35, with it's fixed 35mm mild wide lens! I have though, found a mild telephoto, useful enough to isolate smaller patches of scene, but even there, never really much over 70mm, An 18-55, on crop-sensor camera, probably covers pretty much all bases.

    For portrait work? Space, setting and lighting are the key ingredients. a 90 or 135mm mild tele used to be the common portrait lens for 35mm, and was supposed to give a more 'flattering' perspective, mostly from begging a grater camera to subject distance. An 18-55, at the long ed, just about gets in that effective range, again making the standard 'kit' lens a pretty good starting point.

    For close-up work, snapping small artifacts; you are into a region of specialization, where a 30cm closes focus distance is likely rather restrictive, especially for frame filling. The closest focus distance of most zoom lenses will not be a lot closer, and more zoom may give you more scope for frame filling, it's a lot of compromise for little practical gain. If I were to dabble in this specialty more regularly, then I would probably be looking at a fixed prime lens, as zoom isn't all that pertinent, and for close focus extension tubes or bellows. Demands of critical focus at such short camera-subject distances would probably disecline me even from the expense of an Auto-Focus lens, especially as that feature would likely be redundant on bellows anyway.... and I would probably be looking for an old film era manual focus prime..

    I confess I am not a fan of super-zooms one little bit. Idea of buying an all singing all dancing DSLR, whose main asset it the rapid interchangeability of lenses, to slap a single, highly comprised, do-it-all lens on the front, seems rather anathamic. May as well save pennies and buy a super-zoom bridge camera....however

    End of the day its your call, what compromises you are prepared to make. And with £300 odd quid to play with, personally, I would, or what you suggest, be thinking along the lines of a 'better' more moderate 'standard' zoom; top of the chart for my own thinking there being the Sigma 17-50, for landscapes ad general walk-about, and enough 'scope' for portraits, and useful boost in both potential IQ as well as max aperture.

    Alternately, if more concerned with close up if what you already got good enough for walk-around, landscape and portraits, and I don't see extra zoom being big advantage; then I would forgo that, at least fr now, to put investment into more dedicated close up kit. And with good manual focus 50mm primes available for under £50, and extension tubes or bellows not adding much to that; it would leave a lot in the pot to put towards such other necessities as a decent tri-pod, ring-flash, or other artificial lighting, props or sets for the genre.. and likely STILL leave a hefty start towards a better general purpose lens for landscape/portraits, or if you feel you really need it 'more zoom' from something with more reach... in fact; even there, if you made the compromise to forgo Auto-Focus, you could probably buy something 'prime' in the 135-300mm range, maybe even a couple! All within budget, and probably with better potential Q for the cost, and amount of actual 'use' they would likely get.

    Plenty of great legacy lenses about, and on a Nikon body, plenty of them don't even need an adapter. But, accept that compromise, and splurge maybe £20 on an infinity corrected adapter mount, and you could fit some cracking legacy lenses that cost absolute peanuts relatively.

    If it were me, I already have an M42 adapter, and occasionally mount the screw-fit rimes from my old Sigma MK1. I have a fantastic Ziess 50, which would do very very nicly on bellows for close up, and is worth perhaps £20 on e-bay! I have a Prinz 300, which as a 'cheap' budget brand of its own era s much maligned, still manages to out-perform kit lenses of that focal length on widgetal, thanks to the crop factor bonus, only taking image from the sweet-center of the mage circle, as well as being a rigid, uncompromising and 'simple' construction... its more faff than an automatic AF lens, but begs more thought to use, and that too can aid results demanding greater forethought and diligence... but those are compromises I choose to make...

    Which s the point. A long range super-zoom, is dictating the compromises you MAY make, before you even begin, just for the convenience of a one-size-fits all lens, that ever has to be taken off, defeating buying an interchangeable lens SLR to start with!

    Have spent about five years and best part of a couple of grand to get the same effective range of focal length for digital as I enjoyed for film cameras.... most of it at the wide-side, I will say. the kit 18-55 remains however my most used lens, pretty much as the 28-80 did on my 35mm film camera. Not having more zoom is no great handicap; swapping a lens is no great burden; lugging one or two about might be, but as the 29mm on the Sigma suggests, no huge impediment not having it with me at all, and even just the moderate zoom range of an 18-55 is probably more than enough a lot of the time.

    End of the day its your money.... but, I would thnk long ad hard about your actual needs, aspirations and objectives here, and just how much you would get from a longer range super-zoom, for the money, and how many extra compromises you would be buying yourself for that small convenience. There are many ways to skin a cat, as they say, and splitting the variables, tailoring the compromise to the job on hand, exploiting the interchangeable lens mount, and looking at other possible solutions, like legacy lenses, bellows or extension tubes, I really do think you could get so much 'more' of what is actually likely to aid you dong what you suggest, for your money.
     
  9. LouiseTopp

    LouiseTopp

    Messages:
    612
    Name:
    Aura
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Is there a Nikon version of this lens please?
     
  10. Box Brownie

    Box Brownie

    Messages:
    5,522
    Edit My Images:
    No
    Last edited: Jan 14, 2018
    LouiseTopp likes this.
  11. dinorock

    dinorock

    Messages:
    4,660
    Name:
    Mike
    Edit My Images:
    No
    Sadly in this price range, i would most definitely recommend the Tamron its way better than the 18-200 Nikon jmho Mike.
     
  12. Phiggys

    Phiggys

    Messages:
    2,531
    Name:
    Phil aka Phiggys
    Edit My Images:
    No
    Get the Nikon AFS 18-200mm VR used plenty about I found that and a Sigma 10-20mm met 99% of my needs when shooting with DX
     
  13. LouiseTopp

    LouiseTopp

    Messages:
    612
    Name:
    Aura
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Hi is Camera Jungle very good?
     
  14. Box Brownie

    Box Brownie

    Messages:
    5,522
    Edit My Images:
    No
    I have not used them but I knew my brother has sold to them.......I checked and he has also bought from them and would use them again as needed.

    He also mentioned that they are owned by Jessops.
     
    LouiseTopp likes this.
  15. snerkler

    snerkler

    Messages:
    11,841
    Edit My Images:
    No
    I've bought and sold to camera jungle and always been happy with their service. When buying used (from anywhere) make sure you read the description fully to understand the condition of the lens and what accessories (caps, hood, box etc) it comes with. I believe jessops own camera jungle now.
     
  16. Orangecroc

    Orangecroc

    Messages:
    2,576
    Name:
    Ben
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Why not get a 70-300 to go with the 18-105?
     
    LouiseTopp likes this.
  17. LouiseTopp

    LouiseTopp

    Messages:
    612
    Name:
    Aura
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Hi guys. I'm looking for a lens where I don't have to keep changing all the time. The Sigma is more expensive then the Tamron, but does it have the better glass?
     
  18. snerkler

    snerkler

    Messages:
    11,841
    Edit My Images:
    No
    Take from this what you will. Paired with the D3xxx nikons and D5xxx Nikons the Sigma scores 1 point better in sharpness than the Tamron 18-275mm and 16-300mm. Are you going to see this difference? Is it worth the extra money?

    TBH IF these scores are to be believed then in the real world you'd probably see no discernible differences in the lenses. Technique and light will have much much more of an impact.


    https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Comp...ikon-on-Nikon-D3200__210_801_349_801_1330_801
     
  19. LouiseTopp

    LouiseTopp

    Messages:
    612
    Name:
    Aura
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Hi thanks for your reply. I might get the Tamron from LCE as I have been offered £70 for my Nikon lens. Where Castle offered me £60. In LCE I'm getting more reach for my money. Although the switch to stop the zoom sliding out is more fiddly on the Tamron.

    Are Tamron good for sharpness, or should i spend the extra money on the Sigma?
     
  20. GTG

    GTG

    Messages:
    1,692
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    It depends on the model and a little luck that you don't get a bad copy that is not quite right.

    Try to find multiple reviews and read through the good points / bad points etc to get a better idea of how the lens might be.

    In my experience I have a Sigma that I love and I had one that seemed properly awful
     
  21. snerkler

    snerkler

    Messages:
    11,841
    Edit My Images:
    No
    Tamron make good lenses just like Sigma. As mentioned there is sample variation, true of all lenses but it seems more so with Tamron and Sigma than main brands.
     
  22. LouiseTopp

    LouiseTopp

    Messages:
    612
    Name:
    Aura
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Tamron Di11 VC PZD
     
  23. GTG

    GTG

    Messages:
    1,692
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Has too many 1, 2 and 3 star reviews on Amazon from owners for my liking

    I would get this on Amazon for £205. : Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 55-300mm f/4.5-5.6G VR Lens

    Reviews on Amazon 989. 95% are 5 star or 4 star from actual owners.

    And then you could buy a used Nikon 18-55 kit lens on ebay for about £60 for wider focal length.
     
    Last edited: Jan 18, 2018
  24. snerkler

    snerkler

    Messages:
    11,841
    Edit My Images:
    No
    Averages 4/5, not too bad Imo
    https://www.amazon.co.uk/Tamron-18-...rds=tamron+18-270mm+f/3.5-6.3+di+ii+vc+pzd+af
     
  25. GTG

    GTG

    Messages:
    1,692
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    snerkler likes this.

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice