sigma versus Tamron as for as quality photos 18-200 or 18-250
992357
Although I have both Tamron and Sigma lenses, I prefer using Sigma. Better clarity, better constructed.
24768
I have both lenses and the real question is how close can you get? Both lenses are great, the Nikon is a little sharper and will focus a little faster on my 5200, but the reach of the Sigma is really nice. another option is the new Tamron 150 to 600 when you can get it with the Nikon mount. So if you can get close the Nikon, if you need more reach the Sigma or the Tamron!
90778
If you get a superzoom like the 18-200 get one with image stabilization. If you don't know what you want, that's probably the one to get, you'll have much more reach and an enormous range of focal lengths to play with. I'd also highly recommend the 50mm 1.8 Once you've got some more experience, you'll start to learn which focal lengths you use more often. If you find yourself mostly shooting from 18-50, you can ebay your superzoom and get the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8. I have it and it's superb for landscapes and indoor shots, it's on my camera most of the time. If you're always at the long and and wishing for more you can step up to a 70-300 or 55-250.
2078344
I own both. Bought one of first 18-200s made in Japan to go with my first dslr: D50 that I got for a trip to the Bahamas. Have wonderful images I still enjoy. Now have lightweight D5000 and super D7000. Bought 18-140 for light weight to hike w/D5000. Use 28-200 w/D7000 otherwise. Both focus quickly, iq is similar. Both have VR but 200 has active mode for shooting while moving, which I love. So 140 wins on weight, price, while 200 adds focal length and versatile VR.
2054211
The 50mm is actually more "zoomed out," and is therefore probably more functional for indoor family stuff. The 85 is awesome but isn't going to give you anything other than close-ups if you are standing inside of 15-20 feet from the subject.If versatility is your goal, I would strongly suggest something like Sigma 17-35 zoom. I think that's about F/1.8 as well. Same price range. That gives you the flexibility of zooming way out for wide-angle group shots and then back in for relative close-ups.
134989
I am very happy with this lens. I have not tried the Sigma. I have the tamron 28-75 and the 70-200 VC both outstanding lenses - fast and sharp. Tamron is slightly more expensive and reviews always slightly higher. Sorry I could not give you more info about the Sigma
1183538
The canon has 1.2 vice 1.4 and slightly less chromatic aberration (purple color fringing) when wide open. The sigma is much faster to focus and just as sharp. It's not so much a "quality" as paying a premium for the canon L red ring and the extra glass needed to achieve 1.2.
2103068
Its really a budget decision. Both produce sharp images and good in low light, but with the sigma your packing more focal range without having to swap lenses.
2058089
The quality of the 60-250 is stellar but low light sports is not it's best use. If the Tamron has excellant optics, the f2.8 should be better for your needs. Check The lens reviews to see how the Tamron performs wide open. DXO Mark is informative.
464454
To be honest, unless you need 1.4 or the DOF scale, or minimum distortion at 23mm, the 18-55 is going to be better simply because of the IOS. I own this lens and I love it, but it really doesn't provide much over the 18-55, and I actually keep the 18-55 on most of the time unless I am going to do street photography in daylight.
2108171
I find the extra zoom you get on the Tamron to be very useful. The quality between the 2 is very close so I would go with the Tamron. For me the Tamron 18-270mm rarely leaves my camera.
368611
I tested both the Tamron and Sigma 70 to 200 f 2/8.`and this is my review. Every one is hot for fast AF, well the Sigma had fast AF, but the pictures it took sucked. The Tamron with its AF system took Great photos, but had slower AF. I don't know what you want, but I want great pictures. As far as sporting events go, set lens to inf., and shoot away, no problem. Thats the way it was done before all this AF. Hands down Tamron wins. I could have got the Nikon version of this lens, but even if you can afford it, what wrong with bang for the buck?
1232660
the A700 is one of the best cameras ever made. The 18-250 is an all-purpose lens, so it's not ideal. I would definitely consider pairing the A700 with a Sony-Zeiss lens (e.g. the 16-80, if you don't want to invest too much), or with one of the latest Sigma ART/Contemporary lenses (e.g. the 18-35 f1.8)
2096572
The 18-200 has better specs across all ranges (read Thom Hogan) A 300 mm lense can be very handy, but check the weight of each lense.
811135
I don't have the Tamron 70-200 but I have the canon 70-200L f4, and I must say the 24-70 Tamron is not as sharp as the canon. Having said this, the Tamron is sharp enough for me and in anycase you need wide-tele lens for general photography as opposed to long telephoto zooms such as 70-200.
1533865
Tamron pros: light, sharp, f 2,8 inexpensive cons: only for crop sensors, autofocus motor a little loud when searching for focus(has not bother me) Canon Pros; EF for full and crop sensor, sharp, Cons; F4, shorter zoom, more expensive, heavier. I would recommend reading the reviews at the digital picture. Note, the VC version of the Tamron is not as sharp as the non-VC It comes down to this, if you are going to stay with crop sensor, get the tamron
873523
If you're going to take many photos of people you might want to go the 18-140. It is better for portraits. The 55-300 is awesome for scenery but its tough to use for close personal shots.