tamron vs sigma 70-300mm

[ahsosl1e8]

I know sigma is more popular, but i've read several reviews with people saying that tamron is sharper. And the big diff is that tamron is $100 cheaper than sigma!! I could well save $$$ for a 50mm prime with the tamron.

However, i'm afraid of getting a lens that is so lousy i dun wanna use, so tamron users please feedback to me if the lens is sharp enough. I dun take much sports... just want to get portraits with acceptable bokeh, as well as occasional animal shots. Would the tamron suffice?

One more thing... is the built quality of tamron acceptable? Is it metal/plastic mount? Thanks.

 

[gktat1]

I'm a user of tamron 70-300mm....
It's quite sharp throughout but at the rear end it's rather soft...
But fer the price, it's damn worth it.

It hunts quite a bit n focusing is slow but what the heck?
Fer 100bucks i can top up a bit more n get a prime like what u sae.
Some dae i might get a 80-200 2.8 lens, but i'm veri happi with it now.

It's plastic....that's means it's light.
From ur needs, i think it's gd enuff fer u...

attached r some pics from the lens fer ur reference...

[/IMG]

 

[ahsosl1e8]

wow thx for the quick reply!

Hehe now i'm more convinced to go for tamron... I just get the feeling that sigma's is a little overpriced, since i could get something of comparable results but a third cheaper.

 

[gktat1]

No prob...
Personalli i've nv used sigma 70-300mm...
so i can't sae which is better...
But i'm veri happi with tamron...

 

[manila gorila]

mount is not plastic.

 

[gktat1]

mount is not plastic.

"This is a very light lens with metal lens mount"---http://shutterbug.com/equipmentreviews/lenses/0601sb_spaf/

Yep...Thanks fer pointing out...did some research...
all along i thot it was plastic....:sweat: