tankm
Senior Member
If it makes you feel better...there is a comparison done between the SIGMA and TAMRON 18-200...read here to find out more...http://www.dcresource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7524 
zcf said:
135mm samples form three lens....guess...
- Thread starter sulhan
- Start date
- Status
Thanks, read that before, that's why I bought the Sigma one, but I think the tester may get a lemon copy of the Tamron one, as most suspect. :think:tankm said:If it makes you feel better...there is a comparison done between the SIGMA and TAMRON 18-200...read here to find out more...http://www.dcresource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7524
tankm
Senior Member
Possible....there are lots of lemon in OEM lens. That why one review say great one review say totally junk. :bsmilie:
That's not the only review that says Tamron is softer compare to Sigma.
Sigma...http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/175/sort/2/cat/31/page/3
Tamron...http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/170/sort/2/cat/23/page/2
That's not the only review that says Tamron is softer compare to Sigma.
Sigma...http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/175/sort/2/cat/31/page/3
Tamron...http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/170/sort/2/cat/23/page/2
zcf said:
Read that also. But some how I read another person test in DPreview forum. The tester seem to conclude that Sigma is slightly better at wide, while Tamron at zoom, and Tamron focus more accurately, not sure how accurate is the personal review. Now can't seem to find the article also.tankm said:
sulhan said:Hiee Bro...
Come on...this is just an informal casual trial.....lets not get to worked up on how fair is it as there is nothing fair in such situation that i could possibly achieve....
Another person may come and later say that one image got an ah-pek in it and the other without etc....one got wind and one dont...etc...
As the ligthing condition variation is not that i could actually control and light value changes dynamically. Well, i have picked the key corner areas where there are some fair bit of consistency in terms of illumination and exposure. and stationary object where possible.
No sulhan, u misunderstand me... I think i understand the objective of your testing, it's meant to be simple and not rigorous. But the problem I see is that the lighting played a part in the perception of the quality of the image and that would affect our perception of the quality of the lens... I am of course not expecting controlled lighting but u might have wanted to retake the picture with the 1st lens under similar lighting as the 2nd and 3rd when the sun came out... while the intensity may not be identical, at least all 3 shots were taken under strong sunlight shining on the van. The strong reflection would have thrown off your comparisons and made the prime seem so much better that selecting the 1st pic as the one taken by the prime becomes a little of a no-brainer. This stark difference highlighted by the different lighting might not have there even under controlled lighting as the quality of the other 2 lenses might be quite close to render diferentiation difficult. I believe we were trying to use the quality pictures to differentiate between the lenses.
When I first looked at the pic, I noticed immediately the difference in lighting. But because the contrast of the 1st pic was so strong, I decided it must be the prime. If the lighting had been closer, I might not have picked the 1st to be taken by the prime... that's what I mean by the lighting throwing off the validity of this simple test. Not that the test itself is flawed. I never meant to consider this test in comparison to a controlled one.
Peace bro... just my thoughts when I first looked at the thread... but keep them coming tho'... I dun shoot as much as u do and these threads are very useful for me as well.... I thought just need to bear in mind the need "similar conditions".
- Status
Similar threads
