I'm trying to decide between the Tamron 18-270mm F/3.5-6.3 Di II PZD and Sigma 18-250mm f/3.5-6.3 DC OS HSM, both in Sony A-mount.
The Sigma has rounded aperture blades, lens-based image stabilization, reportedly no zoom creep, and is about $170 cheaper.
The Tamron is about 180 gram lighter and is somewhat smaller. Going over reviews and user opinions, it seems that build quality is probably less impressive than the Sigma, but sharpness may be a bit better.
Unlike the Sigma, the Tamron doesn't include image-stabilization in the A-mount version, which may be a disadvantage, but since I already have IS in the camera I'm not sure it really is. After all, in-lens IS is another thing that can go wrong over time and de-centering is likely to be a bigger issue, right from the beginning, with a non-stabilized lens (at least that what the tests in slrgear.com lead me to believe).
Would you prefer a stabilized lens, or a non-stabilized one that relies on the body IS? Which one would you go for if cost wasn't an issue?
Thanks!
The Sigma has rounded aperture blades, lens-based image stabilization, reportedly no zoom creep, and is about $170 cheaper.
The Tamron is about 180 gram lighter and is somewhat smaller. Going over reviews and user opinions, it seems that build quality is probably less impressive than the Sigma, but sharpness may be a bit better.
Unlike the Sigma, the Tamron doesn't include image-stabilization in the A-mount version, which may be a disadvantage, but since I already have IS in the camera I'm not sure it really is. After all, in-lens IS is another thing that can go wrong over time and de-centering is likely to be a bigger issue, right from the beginning, with a non-stabilized lens (at least that what the tests in slrgear.com lead me to believe).
Would you prefer a stabilized lens, or a non-stabilized one that relies on the body IS? Which one would you go for if cost wasn't an issue?
Thanks!