Canon 400d kit upgrade - sigma 17-70 or tamron 17-50?

bomberman

bomberman

Messages
1,149
Edit My Images
No
I think i'll be ready to lose the kit lens soon. I was almost dead set on the 17-70 until someone pointed out the tamron 17-50 and now i'm in a dilemma. I've looked at shots from both on the Flickr pools and the relevant reviews but i can't decide whether the additional range of the 17-70 and the occasion macro outweigh the constant f2.8 and sharpness of the tamron. I would be interested to know if you can get background blur at the tele end of the sigma. Anything else i need to consider?
 
I bought the Tamron but I have recently been considering the Sigma 17-70 as a walk around lens for when I want a bit more reach. I guess it all depends if you need the speed/focusing accuracy f2.8 will give you.

I'd like to hear from anyone who has both as well.
 
I've got the Sigma since I wanted the extra reach and macro abilities but my photography would probably suit the f2.8 of the Tamron better... anyone want to swap?!

The Sigma's a nice lens with a fairly quick AF. f/2.8 at the wide end is sharp but you do need to get some distance between your subject and the background to get DoF blur when zoomed in. Good build quality too - you'll be amazed at the size and weight difference to the kit lens!
 
so incapete are you looking at the tamron and a longer zoom now or aren't you bothered about the reach? does anyone ever use the (almost) macro on this lens?
 
bomberman said:
so incapete are you looking at the tamron and a longer zoom now or aren't you bothered about the reach? does anyone ever use the (almost) macro on this lens?
Click to expand...

I use this as my general walk around lens and have quite oftne used the (almost) macro ability of it for capturing things when out and about like flowers and bugs etc. The best thing about it is the fact it's so versatile but that is also probably the biggest negative as it doens't really excel at anything.
 
go for the tamron 28-75 f2.8 unless you need the extra wideness
 
i've seen some great pictures from the sigma on flickr and on here though. are there any sort copy issues with it?
 
bomberman said:
so incapete are you looking at the tamron and a longer zoom now or aren't you bothered about the reach? does anyone ever use the (almost) macro on this lens?
Click to expand...

I'm wondering about the Tamron but since I've also got a Canon 50mm f1.8 I end up using that if I need the speed or DoF - the Sigma 17-70 is still my main walkabout for the moment. My only thought is that I'd probably not use the nifty-fifty if I had the Tamron since it would cover similar length and aperture.

I doubt I'd miss the extra length of the Sigma since I tend to use it at the wide end more anyway. As for macro, it's a nice feature but I've also got extension tubes which allow far closer focussing.

For longer zooms I use my 70-200mm f4 L so can probably live with a 20mm gap in the lineup. With a couple of my recent shoots I've used two bodies so that I could setup the 17-70 on one for wide and the 70-200 on the other for zooms - worked well and I almost never used that middle area.
 
I have just found a load of images from the 17-70 and i forgot i had that lens. The images are pretty damn good for a £240 lens, so good in fact i'm thinking of getting another!

Can someone pop up some Tamron image examples please.

here are a few 17-70mm examples

100% crop:


Fleurs


Harbour:
 
bomberman said:
i've seen some great pictures from the sigma on flickr and on here though. are there any sort copy issues with it?
Click to expand...

Not that I've experienced. It's a good lens and nicely versatile - good range, handy macro and fast enough for most situations. I don't miss the wider aperture except when I'm doing portrait (my style favours shallow DoF) or gig photography (it's bloody dark in those places!) - as an all-rounder it's a great choice.

EDIT: actually, thinking about it, the last gig I did (Newton Faulkner and The Hours) I used the 17-70 quite a bit and the reach was useful. The big zoom only came into play when I wanted to get a headshot. The aperture was usable in the low light but I did end up increasing my ISO to compensate for the darkness - a wider lens would have allowed me to avoid the ISO jump but at the sacrifice of the versatile length.
 
incapete said:
My only thought is that I'd probably not use the nifty-fifty if I had the Tamron since it would cover similar length and aperture.
Click to expand...

Thats what I found, I never used the nifty fifty after getting the Tamron
 
I have the tamron and its a excellent lens for the $$ and looking at the following reviews you will get better IQ with the Tamron and its a constant aperture F2.8

Sigma

Tamron
 
What about the Sigma 18-50mm f2.8.... just got mines, and no sharpness problems!:D
 
Pas stop confusing me!

Dogfish i've read those reviews thanks that website is my holy grail at the moment :) Any arty/bokeh portrait type shots with the 17-70? It has 2.8 at the wide end but how much zoom do you get before it stops down or is just at 17?
 
I think it changes at 19mm, I would consider it to be f4 most of the time.
 
CSB said:
I think it changes at 19mm, I would consider it to be f4 most of the time.
Click to expand...

I'd agree with that - you could effectively think of it as a constant f4 with a bit of extra speed at the wide end. I pair it with an f4 L 70-200 so I'm generally shooting similar speeds on both.
 
From the images i have seen the Tamron does have better IQ but then it is £80ish more but you do get f2.8 throughout but it's only up to 50m and the Siggy is 70mm..............AHHHHHHHH!:gag::bang::bonk:

Added: In fact after comparing loads of images i would say that the Tamron is half way between the Sigma 17-70 and the Canon 17-40mm f4L
 
How does the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 compare to the Canon 85mm f1.8 for IQ? I have just bought the 85mm and can't decide between the tammy and siggy!?!!? I do need a zoom but can't afford L yet :(
 
AndyWest said:
How does the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 compare to the Canon 85mm f1.8 for IQ?
Click to expand...

I have both but not really compared them much. I'll take some test shots tomorrow and post the results.
 
he he, It's ok i just wondered if the IQ was similar. From the shots i have seen the Tammy looks close to L quality!

I have just been on the tammy 17-50mm group on Flickr and they are superb!!! Much better than the siggy IMO. Not that the siggy is bad, far from it!

The 85mm is a lens where i just love the images created with it.
 
Does anyone have any arty bokeh style shots from the sigma? portait type shots, that kind of thing. I'm pretty new to photography so don't know too much about D.O.F but i understand it'll be easier to get a nice portrait with a blurry background from the tamron because of the wide aperture. If the same (within reason) can be achieved with the sigma then it'd be a deal-breaker for me.

Someone mentioned that with a smaller aperture you need more distance between you and the subject (and the backround?) to achieve background blur, is this right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top