Nikon body - which lens: Tamron or Sigma?

[Reuben]

Hi all,
I am soon going to buy my first DSLR and have been looking at the Nikon D5000. I was wondering which lens would be most suitable? My photographic interests are in landscapes, flora & fauna, and I will also take shots of family, people and when I travel. The lens I think would suit my needs is a superzoom, say 18 to 270.
Does anyone have any experience, either good or bad, using a Tamron or Sigma superzoom lens on a Nikon body? I have heard that auto focus can be slower than a Nikkor lens. Any other problems that I might encounter?
Any feed back would be appreciated. Either on my choice of camera or lens or combination of these. I don't have a huge budget, unfortunately.
Cheers...

[rellik666]

Really depends on the lens....there are few if any 3rd party lenses that are "better" than NIKON....

You really need AK to come and answer, he is fountain of all things NIKON.....maybe tell which lenses you are interested in, specifically, then people can let you know their experiences.

Roo

[Reuben]

Thanks Roo,
Maybe the TAMRON AF 18 - 270mm f/3.5 - 6.3 Di II VC LD Aspherical (IF) Macro, or TAMRON AF 28 - 300mm f/3.5 - 6.3 XR DI VC LD IF MACRO, or the SIGMA 18 - 250mm f/3.5 - 6.3 DC OS HSM.
I would prefer the NIKON lens, but they are a little bit more expensive...

[kiwi]

nikon 18-200 vr ii or the new nikon 28-300 would be my choice for a superzoom

the tamron 18-270 is i think the best 3rd party

[natalie]

I have the tamron 18-270 and it has been great so far. Only had it for two weeks though so maybe you'd like to hear from someone who has had theirs longer!
I chose the d90 over the 5000 - do a search and you'll find heaps of posts, (which I read, put together and made my choice) which may help you decide

[RaoulIsidro]

One lens I would recommend is a wide angle Tokina 12-24mm f4.
Be sure to check if it is the Mark 2 and has AF-S like function as the D5000 has no focus "pin" or AF motor within the body.

[N*A*M]

i tried the 18-270 out in a shop
it handled on par with the 18-200 VR that i ended up getting later on

the tamron VC system works pretty well

there are compromises with any superzoom but i think for $500, the tamron is quite a good option

[Waz]

Nikon 18-200, Tamron quite soft, Sigma better, Nikon worth the extra

[beaujest4]

Hi all,
I am soon going to buy my first DSLR and have been looking at the Nikon D5000. I was wondering which lens would be most suitable? My photographic interests are in landscapes, flora & fauna, and I will also take shots of family, people and when I travel. The lens I think would suit my needs is a superzoom, say 18 to 270.
Does anyone have any experience, either good or bad, using a Tamron or Sigma superzoom lens on a Nikon body? I have heard that auto focus can be slower than a Nikkor lens. Any other problems that I might encounter?
Any feed back would be appreciated. Either on my choice of camera or lens or combination of these. I don't have a huge budget, unfortunately.
Cheers...

A bit off topic,

If you are looking at getting the D5000 body, have you seen the new D3100 soon to be released. By all accounts it reads better then the D5000. As for lenses, and being your first DSLR, not knowing what sort of photographic background you have, get either get the kit 18-55mm lens with the new 55-300 lens or just get the 18-200 lens

[Reuben]

Thanks for the responses. Keep them coming.
Unfortunately I need to keep costs down so although the D90 and D3100 might be better spec'd, the D5000 fits the budget, with one of the slightly less expensive lenses as well. Maybe after a year or two when I have improved my photographic skills, I will be able to justify something better. As long as I don't buy a problem camera/lens combination, which is why I am asking advice from those who have been there, done that...

[natalie]

why don't you have a look on flickr at a specific camera group's photos? For example there is a d90 group, I'm sure there's a d5000 goup too. Then you could check out the types of pics people can achieve with their bodies and ask some of them about the lenses they use.

[Seven]

Can only comment on sigma 10-20

Great lens - worth it so go sigma

[smallfooties]

I have 2 sigmas... the 18 - 50 f2.8 and the 105mm f 2.8 and i love them! I don't think sigma is any worst off than the Nikon lens....

[duca79]

Can only comment on sigma 10-20

Great lens - worth it so go sigma

I had the opportunity to try the sigma 10-20 and the tokina 11-16. The tokina is MUCH sharper from edge to edge than the sigma. The 1mm is note a big deal but if you want a greater zoom range you can go for the sigma. I am now saving money for the tokina..

M.

[arthurking83]

Nikon 18-200, Tamron quite soft, Sigma better, Nikon worth the extra

See DPR's comparative review between the Nikon 18-200VR and the Tamron 18-270VC HERE between the two lenses.(hopefully this links works as intended for you)

Basically.. bottom line! ... except at 18mm the Tammy is better or as good as the Nikon 18-200 in terms of pure resolution.

I've had a quick play with the Tamron.. only got about 10 images or so, and it was an overcast day so the images lack any contrast(I know I've posted some to AP already).

As NAM said, VC worked well, focus didn't seem to be as bad as I'd have expected being an f/6.3 lens, but on a D5000 with a less able AF system, you may experience a lot more indecisive and misfocusing moments.

Tammy 18-270 is a 'good lens' ... BUT!!! only if you have too! If it were my money, I'd go with two lenses without any hesitation.(and everyone around here knows by now they'd be the Nikon 18-105VR and the 55-200VR(at this level/price).

I originally went into the shop to get the Tammy 18-270VC, for my son's main use, but the side benefit that I also get another lens to play with now and then.
Instead of getting that, I ended up with another lens.
A month or two later I ended up getting the 18-105VR for my son instead.

Where my reaction with the Tammy was along the lines of "great lens"(considering what it's purpose is).. the Nikon 18-105VR is more like "freaking hell.. WOW!!!"

where you would never consider cropping an image taken with the T18-270(flaws and imperfections show up more readily) ... this is no problem with the N18-105VR lens.

end result: All I want to say if that I'm glad that selfishness overcame my responsibility as a parent that day with the Tammy 18-270VC at the shop(I got a Tammy 70-200/2.8 instead ). Had I just purchased the 18-270VC with the attitude that "this lens is ok" instead, I'd never have played with the 18-105VR for myself and seen how much better it was.

If you want to shoot distant subjects with any of these superzooms, I think you're going to be bitterly disappointed.

and for you're benefit: the cost of a Nikon 18-105VR + Nikon 55-200VR would be approximately ($291+$157) $448, where the Tamron 18-270VC from the same grey market retailer is about $483.
Of course you;re thinking but the 55-200VR is only 200mm, whereas the Tamron is 270mm.. the reality is that the last 70mm is not really going to be a huge difference, and that if you really had too.. the overall image quality from the Nikon @ 200mm with an appropriate crop will be better than the Tamron will produce @ 270mm anyhow!(this is assuming that you got an accurate focus lock with both lenses).

[Reuben]

Thanks artherking83 for taking the time to give me a lengthy reply.
My thinking, albeit not as an experienced digital photographer but more from a practical stand point, was that not having to change lenses would be an advantage. i know that one lens covering such a wide range will obviously have some compromise compared to two lenses, but from what I have read, the Tammy does a pretty good job, which is what you've said as well.
As far as the 'wow' factor you had with the Nikon 18-105 lens, I hope that over time as my experience and appreciation for good images improves, I will aslo be able to see what you've seen.
So considering your input, I'll have another look at the Nikon lens.
Cheers...