16 replies to this topic

[Marc Furth]

I everyone,
Their’s so much talk about Sigma lens and Nikon, but seldom any mention about Tamron.
I read a lot of good feedback about the Tamron SP AF 90 mm 2.8 macro ( 1.1 ) lens.
Sounds like it might make an excellent lens for underwater use. Has anyone had the opportunity to use this lens ? From all the reviews I read lately seems Tamron makes really good lens in a lot of different focal lengths. Their prices are higher than Sigma, but not as much as Nikon.

I ‘ve just finished perfecting my new dome port and I can now make my own flat ports and dome ports to any length I need. So I’m looking to try out something different that might perform better than my Nikon 60 mm and my Sigma 14 mm that I’m presently using. The only other Sigma lens
I was considering for wide angle was their 20mm F1.8., this lens sound good for low light.

For top side use I was intrigued with the Sigma 28-300 F3.5-6.3 Compact Hyperzoom.
I bought the lens on E-bay about a month ago so I’ve had some time to play with it.
You can’t beat the lens for it’s versatility but it’s performance is not as good as I would have liked it have been , so Im selling it on E-Bay right now. I like the lens so much for it’s versatility that I’ve bought the Tamron 28-300 Ultra Zoom F 3.5-6.3 XR lens hoping this lens might be a better choice. It got a great review in Modern Photography and I read some good reviews from independent users. I’m looking for a versatile vacation lens so I won’t have to lug around all my other lens, has any one used this lens ?

Marc

[scorpio_fish]

There are those that believe that Nikon and Canon lenses are superior to 3rd party (e.g. Sigma, Tamron, Tokina) lens manufacturers, period.

There are those that believe that some lenses from 3rd party manufacturers are as good as the big boys.

I fall into the latter. I believe some of lenses are close or equal to the big boys. I don't own any, because I've found that the good 3rd party lenses are only slightly cheaper than the big boy alternatives and don't hold their resale value.

I believe that Tamron's reputation is better than Sigma, which is better than Tokina. A well known pro really praised the Tamron 90mm macro lens. I believe it is a fine lens.

[MikeO]

I have the Tamron lens you mention. I have used it quite a bit with my Canon EOS A2 underwater (Ikelite housing). I find it to be a very good lens. It does seem a little "plasticky" when you first get it and the lens does get quite long once it is at full extension. However, I have nothing bad to say about the image quality and you can't beat it for value. Barry Lipman (www.barrylipman.com) is an outstanding photographer and was the one who turned me toward this lens. Check out his site for some examples (better than anything I could show you). He also uses the lens (with housed Minolta cameras) to do supermacro (with a 2x teleconverter, +4 diopter *and* a push-on diopter!)

Mike

[Cybergoldfish]

Jesus, Americans & lenses!
For Macro especially...
To save yourselves all the hassle buy a GLASS Sigma 60-200mm f4 -5.6 zoom. It's quality is only surpassed by the much bigger 70-210 f2.8 GLASS zoom by Sigma - THE SHARPEST ZOOM LENS EVER MADE! Anyone who tells you different is on a retainer, enfactuated with big names or just blind!
The only plastic on these lenses is the end caps!
If I remember correctly a small manufacturer called Chinon made all Canon Lenses.

If you look in photo critique at the frogfish tonsils you'll see how precise the former is, and I am sure they will not cost too much. Incidentally this was on a housed Dynax 9.

I have been using this lens for 10 years with diopters and it has been good enough to win many competitions on land & UW as well as supporting articles for the BBC.

It measures just 4" long on full 200mm setting and under 3" at 60mm

With a +2 the Min focus is around 15" @ 60mm DOF 1.4" 1.5:1 and half that with the +4 and 2.5:1.
with generous DOF . Using +2+4 MF = 6" and .5" DOF. 3.5:1

Try it!

[MikeO]

My goodness, and you say we're anal about lenses (and I didn't even call anyone "blind"!). The Tamron lens elements are made of glass (dare I say "duh!") but the outside is made of plastic. Some people freak over that -- in fact, for a long time that was Nikon's main selling point when they tried to put down Canon bodies. Of course, many composites are much better for this kind of construction than metal but that didn't stop Nikon from playing on people's perceptions to sell a few more cameras by calling them all "plastic". I just wanted to avoid making a recommendation, then having the answer come back, "but it's plastic". You're right, there are many good aftermarket choices. I considered the Sigma 50-500 when I bought my Canon 100-400L IS. Now Sigma is supposed to introduce their own image stabilized ("stabilised" for you non-American speakers) lens. Had they had them out when I needed a lens, maybe I would have bought that instead of the Canon one. Heck, I already told you I bought the Tamron 90mm instead of a Canon 100mm so why am I defending myself anyway. Still, I would be hesistant to use a lens not designed for macro with diopters on it in place of a true macro lens. Maybe that's the ugly American in me coming out as you're results look pretty darn good.

[Cybergoldfish]

I wasn't insulting anyone intentionally, honest!

Absolutely agree with your points, but the point I was getting over was unsurpassable quality for a quarter the price bigboy setups cost.

I paid just $100 or so for this lenz (sorry) back in 92 and diopters are just $20 each.

The performance is as good or better than fixed focal length lenses like the 100 or 105 with as much or more DOF without distortion, and has a tiny footprint.

[MikeO]

Point taken. I know a pro that swears by his Vivitar Series 1 19-35mm for wide-angle underwater (when he's not using his Nikonos and 15mm). Current cost is about $150!

Cheerz,

Mike

[yahsemtough]

Actually I am enjoying this thread. I am one of those guys that is waiting to dump cash on a DSLR (don't have the cash or my wife's permission) and obviously quite new to lense decisions. (don't have any)

Based on what I have seen and heard I am pretty much sold on going the Sigma route when I make the jump.

I am still not sure on the macro lense but, now I have all the diopters and telephoto considerations. I would be curious to hear what everyone does shot for macro situations.

[Cybergoldfish]

Point taken.  I know a pro that swears by his Vivitar Series 1 19-35mm for wide-angle underwater (when he's not using his Nikonos and 15mm).  Current cost is about $150!

Cheerz,

Mike

The Cosina 19-35mm is also a VERY GOOD buy - it's just a sh!t colour!

[Simon K.]

Any on tried the Sigma 15-30, Im'm thinking about getting it instead of the Canon 16-35, And the same with the Sigma Macro Lenses...

-> See my thread Canon vs. Sigma in this Forum

Simon

[Cybergoldfish]

I'm expecting one any day now - This is not a cheap lens either

[Marc Furth]

You could ask James for his evaluation on the Sigma 15-30.

I know he had one, we both bought one at the same time but I sold mine with out really using it.

The only reason I sold mine was it would not fit inside Ike’s extended dome port.

Marc

[davephdv]

I have the Tamaron 14 mm lens. I have it on good authority that it is the same lens as the Nikon 14 mm lens. That indeed Tamaron makes Nikons 14 mm lens. I cross checked this info with other sources which also say it is true. You can save yourself money by buying the Tamaron lens vs the Nikon.

Having said that there are clear differences in many cases tween Original manufactures lenses and third party lenses. It pays to read a lot of reviews before buying a lens. Especially third party ones. It is hard for casual users such as myself to evalutate lenses well. They all look good. I had a 20 to 35 zoom that I thought highly of. A professionly trained photographer showed me how to evaluate the lens and it's deficiencies. It was still a good lens but no where near the quality of the Nikon 17 - 35. In that case you do get what you pay for.

Even with quality lenses you can get a bad one. It is a good idea to shoot and evaluate your lens after you buy it, understanding you may exchange it if it doesn't measure up.

[rhkdiver]

Regarding Sigma and other 3rd party lenses: From all reports these lenses are in fact very good, especially for the price. However, according to both Light & Motion and Sea and Sea, they will not support ( L&M) or fully support ( Sea and Sea ) Sigma lenses on their D100 housings,

Neither manufactuer will support other 3rd party lenses. According to Sea and Sea, they do support the Sigma lenses but while a Sigma lenses will work in only one specific port ( we're speaking wide angle here ) the same port will support 4 different Nikon lenses.

I would make very sure that you check with the manufactuer of whatever housing you might be looking at to see what lenses they are going to support for digital SLR's

Rod Klein
www.rhkuw.com

[james]

Hi Rod, great to see you posting here on Wetpixel.

I agree 100% - don't buy a lens if you can't get a port (and possible gears) for it!

I bought the Sigma 15-30 wideangle zoom for my S2 and while it was a good lens topside, I couldn't get a port for it - so no underwater use...:-(

Cheers
James Wiseman

[Cybergoldfish]

This is a good point for the S&S but if you had a UK Germany Housing Uwe will make the port to suit your lenses. Not only that his optics are better.

[Reefkeep]

The Sigma 15-30 fits in the UK Germany dome lens, the zoom gear is $50 Uwe made one for me last week.

As far as the Macro lens topic, I have both the Canon USM 100mm & 50mm macro lenses, I find them both to be outstanding. I use them both for more than just macro and the resale value is great. If its not on Ebay I don't need it =)