# Sigma 18-250mm vs. Tamron 17-270mm



## PatrickHMS (Dec 22, 2009)

We all know how Noyze (can't remember his new given name..lol) and others seem to like the Sigma 18-250mm lens for Nikon.

I wonder how it stacks up against the Tamron 18-270mm lens?  I know the OP title says " 17 " but that is a typo and I cannot edit it...

I know about tests and benchmarks, but I also want to know about real world. I have seen and used lenses that didn't get such rave reviews, that turned out that I liked them just fine when I tried them. Out in the real world, where you look at images on screen, on PC monitor, and in print is where it really counts, and to me, that counts more than in a lab somewhere.

Does anyone know anything about either lens, especially the Tamron, from any personal experience?

Thanks!


----------



## PhotoXopher (Dec 22, 2009)

Oh that guy, yeah he's a nut when it comes to the Sigma 

I tell ya, one of the main reasons I didn't go with the Tamron was because there was no form of VR/OS on it, and since neither lens is 'fast' it was important for a lot of my shooting.

I had one for 3 days and returned it, with a tripod it was pretty nice but handheld it was another story for sure.

May have been a bad copy though, looking forward to samples from this lens.


----------



## jdag (Dec 22, 2009)

The Tamron 18-270 does have "VC", the Tamron answer to Sigma's OS and Nikon's VR.

AF18-270mm F/3.5-6.3 XR Di II VC LD Aspherical (IF) Macro; Tamron USA, Inc.

Not sure, but maybe older versions of this lens did not have VC???


----------



## PhotoXopher (Dec 22, 2009)

Thanks for posting that, seems to be the case.


----------



## PatrickHMS (Dec 22, 2009)

And I am asking about the VC version of the Tamron lens, to try to make the comparison "apples to apples" between the two lenses.

Thanks!


----------



## Monochrome Fish (Dec 22, 2009)

I can speak only on the Tamron, as I just got the 18-270 Di II VC a few days ago and absolutely love it. I have no clue about the Sigma or anything Nikon as I am from a die-hard Canon family. Overall its nice because it allows for wider landscape shots as well as nice zoom/macro shots. This saved me from spending extra money on multiple lenses, as well as the hassle of switching them out.

 The one thing that i have noticed about it is the AF does not get along with low-light scenes. It can handle most situations, but in very low light the lens makes angry noises. Other than that i cannot wait to try it out in the sunlight/outdoors and see how the pictures turn out.

Also i would recommend reading dpreview.com. I did a lot of research when i was deciding between Tamron 18-270mm and the Canon XX-200mm (i forget the first number). It mostly came down to cost in the end for me as the Tamron was around $100 less, sucks being a broke college student. Hope this helps.


----------

