Quote:
Originally Posted by chad.palmer
If your serious about your photography go for quality, if you just want alright photos for your albums go for the cheaper Tamron and Sigma lenses.
Hope this helps.
|
Based on my experience, I disagree. A large number of the photos in my gallery were taken with Tamron lenses, and they suffer no degradation of quality even when printed at 13" x 19". I'm not necessarily saying that Tamron (or Sigma) lenses are better than Canon or Nikon, but they certainly give them a good run for their money - and can even (in certain circumstances) outperform them. Have a look at this comparison, for example:
Lubow Photography -- Lens comparison: Tamron vs. Canon
The thing is, you can't really simplify this into Expensive = Good and Cheap = Poor, because (as with most items of technology such as computers, cars, MP3 players etc.) it's not a case of Expensive v Cheap, it's Expensive v Less Expensive. A Tamron 17-50mm zoom currently retails at around £280 which (unless you're Rich Uncle Pennybags) is not what you'd call "cheap", although it is less expensive than a Canon EF 17-55mm (£680) or a Nikon AF-S DX 17-55mm (£850). As in a lot of cases, what you're paying the extra for turns out to be the brand name and enhanced details like a faster or quieter autofocus motor - things that don't have a direct effect on the quality of the final image.