The best thing to do is check the reviews of the lens you're looking at. With the Tameron zoom lens I've got, there are some very slight imperfections (I can't remember the correct term for what happens) right at the edge of the photos you take with it and the only reason I know they're there is because of a review comparing it with a Nikon equivalent. For me it didn't matter and in reality I don't notice it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Balling

quote:

---

Originally posted by corb
Is there much difference in Lens quality between something like say, Tamron, Sigma, Canon..... If they offer a lens with similar properties to each other?

---

No, not much at all.

Usually one has a slight advantage over the other and you'll need to read reviews to find out which.

There's a lot of brand snobbery in photography though, so be prepared to defend choosing a third party lens.

As said, third party lenses drop in resale value, so there's usually some good second hand deals to be made.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by corb
Is there much difference in Lens quality between something like say, Tamron, Sigma, Canon..... If they offer a lens with similar properties to each other?

---

I upgraded my kit lens to a Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 non VC and its unbelievably sharp for the price. I think I paid about £350 new for it. They can be picked up used for around the £180 mark

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ is a brilliant site for comparing lenses for image quality etc

More thinking about stuff like Le Mans night shots which I WILL! get round to one day.

But the other night I was playing around taking pics of me and some mates (well, not of myself - that wouldve been tricky) playing badminton indoors. The lighting was poor, the action relatively fast and a kit lens at f4.5 at best. Alls I could manage was taking the ISO up high and getting plenty of noise on the image

i probably should have put that in my answer too, just because something is cheaper doesn't make it a bad lens, just because there is a bigger badder brother doesn't therefore make it shite. Buy the best you can afford, skill goes further than expensive equipment. A bland photo taken with a £4000 camera is the same as a bland photo taken with a £300 camera.

Obviously you need more expensive gear if you need more expensive gear, you can't shoot a bird 150 yards away with am 18-55mm lens with all the will in the world

I've taken some great pictures with my Tamron 70-300, that cost 120, obviously there is better, but for the price its great.

As said, money talks

might need a gym membership too, that would weigh a frigging tonne :lol:

and a decent mortgage advisor to help me fund it

I'm all over the place tbh! A lens which would drop down to f1.2 with a focal length of 15 - 400mm would be ideal :)

yes i'm pretty sure alot of people would say there is alot of difference i'm afraid, this is "normally" mirrored in the price. An expensive Sigma is likely to be better than a lower end Nikon/Canon for example. People tend to say the manufacturer's own lens are better quality than the 3rd party ones but there are plenty of exceptions to that rule.

I've found the best way is to research thoroughly each piece of kit you're wanting and make an informed decision from there.

Which lenses were you looking at?

Is there much difference in Lens quality between something like say, Tamron, Sigma, Canon..... If they offer a lens with similar properties to each other?