Sigma AF 18-200 vs Tamron SP 60-300 MF

[tanheis]

I was at work and friend of mine got 30D from the post and it had that Sigma
lens included.

http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp?id=3302&navigator=6

I had my camera bag with me because it was so nice sunny day.
He gave the lens for me for a while and I used part of my lunch break to shoot some test photos with both lenses from same target and distance using about the same focal lenght "200mm" and same aperture.


http://taneli.homelinux.net/albums/SigmaAfVsTamronMF/photo.jpg
Bigger - The target

Here are unsharpened center 100% crops

1. Sigma 18-200 at f/6.3


2. Tamron SP 60-300 at f/6.x? maybe the same after 5.6


3. Sigma 18-200 at f/8


4. Tamron SP 60-300 at f/8


That Sigma zoom works a lot better on the wide end.. Over 100mm and it
get's worse...
Price for the lens here is about 200 euros so it is a cheap one but I would
not use my money for it... About 30 euros for the Tamron was a good deal though.

My friend was also amazed how good that old Tamron is and for such low
price.
_________________
Camera:EOS 20D
Lenses: Nikkor 24mm 2.8, Vivitar 28 2.8"FD", Canon 28 2.8 "FD", Pentacon 30 3.5, SMC Takumar 50 1.4, Nikkor 50mm 1.4,Olympus 50 1.8,Pentacon 50 1.8, EF 80-200 2.8L(the only AF lens), Tamron SP 90mm 2.5, Tokina 28-85 4, Tamron SP 35-80 2.8-3.8, Zeiss Planar 85/1.4,Nikon 105mm 1.8,Seimar 135 2.8, Tamron SP 300mm 5.6, Tamron SP 60-300 3.8-5.4, Tamron SP 500mm 8.0 Mirror

[poilu]

Nice test!
The only good with this AF is the relative low distortion even at 18mm (2.77%), low weight 360g and a super scale 18-200
Tip: for less than 400 euros you can also have the IS version
_________________
Have a nice day

[LucisPictor]

That's an obvious difference!
But actually it is not fair to compare an 18-200 with a 60-300. It is much more difficult to construct a wide-to-tele lens than a tele zoom.
And the 60-300 is one of the best tele zoom lenses I know of.
_________________
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who divide the world into two kinds of people, and those who don’t.
"Schnäppchenjäger" | "KAPCTEH" | "Karusutenu" | "Carsten" | T-shirt?
Cams in use: EOS 40D, EOS 350D, EOS500, Spotmatic SPII, Yashica-24, EXA I & 1c, Zenit EM; Oly 35RC,Minolta Hi-Matic E & F, Ricoh 500RF, Yashica Electro 35 GS, FED-3b and some others...
Lenses in use: Asahi Pentax: 2.8/28;3.5/35;1.4/50;1.7/50;2.8/105;28-80 | Canon (AF):1.8/50;17-85;75-300 | Former GDR: Pentacon 3.5/30; Pentaflex 1.8/50; CZJ 2.8/50; CZJ 4/135; Pentacon 4/200 | Fujinon: 43-75 | Hanimex: 3.5/23; 4/100;80-200 | Hoya: 25-42;80-205 | Kiron: 2/28;70-210 | Leica: Elmarit-R 2.8/35 | Mamiya: 1.8/55 | Minolta: 1.7/50 | Nikkor: 2.8/24;2/35;2/50;1.2/55;1.8/85;3.5/135 | West German: Ludwig 2.9/50; Meyer 2.8/100; Will 4.5/105; Schneider 3.5/135;Enna 3.5/135; Zeiss 4/135;Isco 4/135; Enna 4.5/240 | Olympus: 3.5/28;1.4/50;3.5/135 | Rikenon: 1.7/50;35-70 | Rollei/Voigtländer: 1.4/55;1.8/50 | Russian: Peleng3.5/8; Zenitar2.8/16; MIR2.8/37; Volna2.8/50; Industar3.5/50; Industar3.5/5cm; Helios2/50; Helios2/58; Volna2.8/80; Jupiter2/85; Kaleinar2.8/100;Tair2.8/135; Jupiter3.5/135; Jupiter4/135; Telear3.5/200; Jupiter4/200; Tair4.5/300;RF: Jupiter2.8/35;Industar2.8/53 | Sigma: 28-85;28-105(AF);17-70(AF) | Soligor: 28-105;35-200;70-220 | Tamron: 2.5/24;2.5/135;2.8/135;60-300;70-210 | Tokina: 28-105;80-200;12-24(AF);70-210(AF) | Vivitar: 3.5/17;2/24;2/28;2.5/28;2.8/28 | Yashica: 1.7/50;2/5cm | Other Japanese: Cosina3.8/20; Petri2.8/28; Albinar2.8/28; Porst1.8/35; 2.8/135; Weltblick3.5/135; Beroflex 8/500; Spiratone28-200; Maginon70-210
Green are the lenses I shoot the most.
More? http://forum.mflenses.com/viewtopic.php?t=65

[Attila]

And this kind of test a sharpness test only, most of quality AF lenses can be sharper or same sharp than an MF lens. Difference is the "ART" AF lens like modern block houses , MF lenses like Japanese or European historical buildings.
_________________

Olympus E-1,Nikon FA,Pentax MX,Praktica VLC3,Olympus-OM2N,Yashica Eletro 35 GN,Exakta Varex IIb,BESA L,Yashica MAT 124G
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl Zeiss Jena:Flektogon 2.8/20mm,4/25mm,2.4/35,2.8/65mm,4.5/4cm Tessar, 8/500mm Fernobjektiv
Pancolar 1.4/55mm,1.8/50mm,1.8/80mm,Tessar 2.8/50mm,Biotar 2/58mm,1.5/75mm,1.5/7,5cm
Carl Zeiss: Sonnar 2.8/135,2.8/180mm,Tessar 4/135mm
Nikon: 3.5/20mm,2.8/28mm,1.4/35mm,1.4/50mm,1.2/50mm,2/50mm,1.8/105mm,2.5/105mm,4/200mm macro,4.5/300mm
Pentax: Pentax 1.2/50mm,1.8/85mm,4/200mm
Helios: Helios-40 1.5/8,5cm,Helios-44-1 2/58mm,Helios-44-2 2/58mm
Olympus OM: 3.5/18mm,3.5/21mm,1.4/50mm,3.5/55mm macro,2.8/135mm,2/90mm macro,35-70mm,60-250mm
Meyer: 4.5/35mm Primagon,Primoplan 1.9/58mm,1.9/75mm,2.8/100mm,Orestegor 2.8/135mm,4.5/40 Helioplan
Leica: 4/100 Macro Elmar,2.8/90 Elmarit last version

[poilu]

[tanheis]

From Photozone test you can see the resolution drops on 200mm
http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/Canon%20EOS%20Lens%20Tests/320-sigma-af-18-200mm-f35-63-dc-lab-test-report--review?start=1

Of course there is differences in differend lenses from the same model... Should not be as much as before? But there is quite often.
_________________
Camera:EOS 20D
Lenses: Nikkor 24mm 2.8, Vivitar 28 2.8"FD", Canon 28 2.8 "FD", Pentacon 30 3.5, SMC Takumar 50 1.4, Nikkor 50mm 1.4,Olympus 50 1.8,Pentacon 50 1.8, EF 80-200 2.8L(the only AF lens), Tamron SP 90mm 2.5, Tokina 28-85 4, Tamron SP 35-80 2.8-3.8, Zeiss Planar 85/1.4,Nikon 105mm 1.8,Seimar 135 2.8, Tamron SP 300mm 5.6, Tamron SP 60-300 3.8-5.4, Tamron SP 500mm 8.0 Mirror

[LucisPictor]

[Richard_D]

Yes interesting but comparing two lenses with such differing focal lengths isn't 'fair'. Ignoring the starting point a zooms optimal performance is almost always in the middle of it's focal range rather thanat the extreme end when it almost inevitably drops off.

Having said all this I suspect the Tamron would do okay compared to most modern 70-300's.
_________________
Richard

The interesting bit:

Nikkors: 20mm f2.8 AIS, 24mm f2.8 AIS, 28mm f2.8 AIS, 35mm f2 AIS, 50mm f1.4 AI, 50mm f1.48AI, 50m f2 AI,
55mm f3.5 AI'd, 105mm f4 AI, 135mm f2.8 AI'd, 135mm f3.5 AI'd, 200mm f4 AI'd .
Nikon E Series: 100mm f2.8 .
Soviet Nikon Mount: Zenitar 16mm f2.8, Arsat/arax/photex 85mm T&S f2.8 .
Other: Asahi Super Takumar 55 mm f2 (M42) ,Tamron 300mm f5.6 SP, Tamron 500mm f8 SP.

DSLR: Nikon D700. 35mm SLRsNikon FE, Pentax S1a.
TLR: Rolliecord II.
Sub-Minature: Pentax Auto 110, 18mm f2.8, 24mm f2.8, 50mm f2.8.

More to come...

[Rob Leslie]

First of all you got a bargain at 30 euros for a SP 60-300mm. Average is more like 60-100 which IMO that is still a bargain.
As for your test well no surprise at all there. You will have to go a lot a better than a Sigma zoom to beat the SP

‘The Tamron is 25 year old and certainly not the best zoom of that time’
I’m sure some people have their favourites from that time but the Tamron SP 60-300mm was a very highly regarded lens, as it should be at the very expensive price it cost. The lens was also used by Noveflex for one of their Follow focus lenses, with a price and performance that far exceeds many of today’s top quality lenses.
The Tamron SP 60-300mm is one of my many favourite lenses and I would suggest that anybody who can’t get great results from one either has never tried it, has a damaged example, or is just a very poor photographer.
_________________
Pentax K10D & K100D. Many Tamron Adaptall SP lenses, Fujinon f4.5 400mm. A loved Lens Baby 2, Lubitel triplet +++ and many many film cameras. Mainly a Digital user.
http://roblesliephotography.blogspot.com