Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Tamron 18-270 for Sony - is lack of IS a disadvantage?
#1
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!
#2
[quote name='boren' timestamp='1304342912' post='7998']

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!

[/quote]



On a stabilized body I would go for a non-stabilized lens.



A stabilized lens offers a stabilized viewfinder image - that's certainly an advantage over in-body steadyshot.
#3
Klaus, if you regard the stabilized viewfinder as an advantage then why would you choose a non-stabilized lens? After all, the in-body IS can be turned off (this is what Sigma recommends).
#4
The Signa:



* Better at the wide end (resolution wise)

* Much better distortion wise (much less barrel distortion at the wide end than other superzooms)

* Better build quality

* Silent HSM

* According to you, cheaper

* Includes IS/OS



The Tamron:

* A bit more compact

* A bit better resolution wise at the longest end



I'd go with the Sigma, looking at this list.
#5
I agree that overall the Sigma seems like a better choice, but having had compatibility issues with Sigma lenses in the past I'm not crazy about them. I much prefer Tamron and Tokina.



The IS is a potential deal-maker/deal-breaker. I don't have any stabilized lenses, but if the long-term reliability and higher tendency to de-centering are real issues then count me out. If these aren't real issues, then for sure I'd be happy to be able to decide which IS to use.
#6
I used to own the Tamron 18-270 when it came out before the Sigma was released. In practice, I found the resolution on the wide end to be decent enough but it felt lacking on the long end. Different people will have different levels of acceptability, but taking Brightcolours' comment on resolution that would give me concern for the Sigma's quality on the long end.



On the other side, it can be convenient to have in lens stabilisation on longer focal lengths if you're likely to be using it in unstable conditions (e.g. outdoors on a windy day), where the more stable viewfinder image can help.
<a class="bbc_url" href="http://snowporing.deviantart.com/">dA</a> Canon 7D2, 7D, 5D2, 600D, 450D, 300D IR modified, 1D, EF-S 10-18, 15-85, EF 35/2, 85/1.8, 135/2, 70-300L, 100-400L, MP-E65, Zeiss 2/50, Sigma 150 macro, 120-300/2.8, Samyang 8mm fisheye, Olympus E-P1, Panasonic 20/1.7, Sony HX9V, Fuji X100.
#7
[quote name='boren' timestamp='1304347097' post='8001']

Klaus, if you regard the stabilized viewfinder as an advantage then why would you choose a non-stabilized lens? After all, the in-body IS can be turned off (this is what Sigma recommends).

[/quote]



centering quality. IS lenses are always less-well centered than a comparable non-IS lens.

This does already apply to the locked IS.
  


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)