Next step up from a 18-55mm

Sarky said:
Bit of a bump, I'm pretty much ready for ordering.

Stuck for choice between the Tamron 17-50mm or the Sigma 18-50mm. I've heard its optically better from some other forums, or am I being mislead?

Also, are either of the two a definate improvement over the kit lens? I struggled with the TP Day photo that I wanted to take, due to low light.
Click to expand...
Depends on what sigma you are on about? The sigma 17-50 f2.8 OS is the best of the lot but the none OS is the worst of the lot. This is just going on reviews of course. From best to worse
sigma 17-50 os
tamron 17-50 non vc
tamron 17-50 vc
sigma 17-50
 
Last edited:
rjbell said:
Depends on what sigma you are on about? The sigma 18-50 f2.8 OS is the best of the lot but the none OS is the worst of the lot. This is just going on reviews of course. From best to worse
sigma 18-50 os
tamron 17-50 non vc
tamron 17-50 vc
sigma 18-50
Click to expand...

The f/2.8 Sigma 18-50mm OS Macro? I think thats the one.
 
I have a tamron 17-50 non VC for sale in classifieds if you're interested. [edit] never mind, it's for Nikon, should have read more of the thread ... but any Nikon shooters interested ... ;) ]
 
Last edited:
if you are already struggling for reach surely you'd be better buying the canon efs 15-85
 
rjbell said:
I'm sorry i meant the 17-50 f2.8
Click to expand...

I'll look into it, thanks.

Cagey75 said:
I have a tamron 17-50 non VC for sale in classifieds if you're interested.
Click to expand...

Noticed you have a D90, is your lens Canon fit?

Rebel t3i said:
if you are already struggling for reach surely you'd be better buying the canon efs 15-85
Click to expand...

Haha I'm still deciding mate. The 15-85mm still has the same f/ stops as my 18-55mm though, the constant 17-50mm f/2.8 will be better I recon.
 
Yeah sorry about that, I've edited the post above. I got mixed up flicking through the thread and somehow thought you were after a Nikon lens. Good luck in your search ;) I can tell you the tamron non-vc is a gem. I'm only selling because I'm moving to FX.
 
Sarky said:
Bit of a bump, I'm pretty much ready for ordering.

Stuck for choice between the Tamron 17-50mm or the Sigma 18-50mm. I've heard its optically better from some other forums, or am I being mislead?
Click to expand...

You've either been misled or someone has confused 2 Sigmas, the older 18-50 is not as good as the Tamron (check the reviews at photozone.de for details). You should be be looking at the Sigma 17-50 f2.8 as an option against the Tamron.
 
Last edited:
Dave1 said:
You've either been misled or someone has confused 2 Sigmas, the older 18-50 is not as good as the Tamron (check the reviews at photozone.de for details). You should be be looking at the Sigma 17-50 f2.8 as an option against the Tamron.
Click to expand...

Yeah I believe the one I was looking at was the f/2.8 HSM. Been looking at digitalRev for the Tamron as its the cheapest, but can't seem to see the Sigma.
 
Sarky said:
Haha I'm still deciding mate. The 15-85mm still has the same f/ stops as my 18-55mm though, the constant 17-50mm f/2.8 will be better I recon.
Click to expand...

in that case you should get the canon efs 17-55 f 2.8
 
have you used any Tamron or Sigma lenses? they feel quite a bit different compared to first party lenses. eg. Sigma HSM has a slight vibration when it focuses.

go in Jessops with the best suit you've got and some bling, and ask to test the lenses you mentioned. :cool:
 
wuyanxu said:
have you used any Tamron or Sigma lenses? they feel quite a bit different compared to first party lenses. eg. Sigma HSM has a slight vibration when it focuses.

go in Jessops with the best suit you've got and some bling, and ask to test the lenses you mentioned. :cool:
Click to expand...

Yes pop in and have a feel and a look then you'll see why one is a £200 lens and the other a £600 lens
if you are choosing your lenses based on their price then you are making a huge mistake
do you shop at pound land :LOL::LOL:
 
[VIMEO][/VIMEO]
Rebel t3i said:
Yes pop in and have a feel and a look then you'll see why one is a £200 lens and the other a £600 lens
if you are choosing your lenses based on their price then you are making a huge mistake
do you shop at pound land :LOL::LOL:
Click to expand...

Comparing buying Sigma or Tamron to buying from Poundland is a silly analogy, the Sigma and Tamron lenses are both well built and good value (hardly Poundland products), you have to be quite a brand snob to rubbish the equivalent lenses just because they aren't Canon.

While the Canon might be moderately better I doubt it's worth double or 3 times the price of similar IQ lenses to most users.
 
Rebel t3i said:
Yes pop in and have a feel and a look then you'll see why one is a £200 lens and the other a £600 lens
if you are choosing your lenses based on their price then you are making a huge mistake
do you shop at pound land :LOL::LOL:
Click to expand...

I actually feel offended by that post.
 
I have the canon 17-55 and it's a good lens
I upgraded from the tamron 17-50 non-VC (much older one maybe) and don't regret the upgrade
but I simply couldn't afford the canon version at the time. (eventually bought 2nd hand on these lovely forums)
also I don't regret buying the tamron at the time either. I got some good photos with it and it was quite an upgrade itself from the efs 18-55 kit lens (non-IS)

Not everyone has the money to spend on lenses and frankly I do shop at poundland, bought a selection of watch batteries from there recently. can't remember how much I paid for them all though :p....seemed a bargain at the time
 
Sarky said:
Tamron 17-50mm: £220
Canon 18-55mm f/2.8: £660

Easy choice :/
Click to expand...

my reply was in response to this post
There is a huge difference in the quality of these 2 lenses go into jessops and have a feel of them and try them out do not just buy on price
I apologise if I have offended you it was not my intention
I've been to pound land too :LOL:
I have canon kit lenses and l lenses I have tamron lenses and I have sigma lenses
tamron are IMO the poorest quality of the 3
 
Last edited:
nothin wrong with poundland;)
 
I think it's a bit of a generalisation to say that Canon lenses are the best and Tamron are the worst!

There seems to be an increase on the forum in an almost snob attitude that more kit equals better results and if you're not spending £600 on a lens you won't get results? I've been shooting everything from weddings, studio portraits, sports, landscape and general family snaps for the last 4 years with my Tamron 17-50 and it's always delivered and none of my clients have been offended by my non-canon kit...

I saw a thread the other day from someone who i think had 18 lenses and 4 bodies yet I don't think I've actually seen any pictures posted by them at all so I'm not sure what the point of having so much kit is other than a 'look what I've got' approach?

Before I upgraded to my 40D (for better high ISO and weather protection when shooting landscapes) I had my first double page Digital Photo Magazine Gallery print with a shot I took on a 400D with the 18-55 kit lens! I always said that, shot within their strengths, cheaper lenses can still deliver....

Anyway, rant over

Cheers
Steve
 
Last edited:
This was the HDR shot that was published;

1275178837_b9ea0ea9da.jpg


Cheers
Steve
 
I have taken some excellent shots with my 600d and my cheap canon efs 55-250
not sure why you feel the need to rant Steve
it was merely pointed out that the Op would be better with the sigma or the canon than the cheaper tamron
The OP was also interested in buying a canon efs 15- 85 which is not a cheap lens
he has a wanted add running for one so clearly has the funds for the higher quality more expensive lenses
 
Last edited:
To be fair, the OP originally had the wanted thread for a Tamron 17-50 but added the 15-85 following (I assume) comments in this thread. I've just seen that you've offered him your 15-85 hence potentially biased posts here?

My point was that there is nothing wrong with the Tamron 17-50 and the OP could save a fair amount of cash by buying it over the 15-85. Although they'd lose 35mm reach, I'd personally prefer constant 2.8 throughout the range.

Just giving a balanced opinion really to a new photographer into a hobby which will happily eat up all funds when that may not always be the best option.

Cheers
Steve
 
no bias here
the facts are the Op would be better off with the sigma or canon if he can stretch to them
 
another option is the sigma 17-70. I've had no experience with it but a lot of people rave about it on forums and flickr etc..
 
rjbell said:
another option is the sigma 17-70. I've had no experience with it but a lot of people rave about it on forums and flickr etc..
Click to expand...
did a search on Sarky, looks like he's already aware of the Sigma 17-70mm in classified. i think that looks great: always more than 1 stop faster, and more reach than kit lens.

another thing you got to remember is that you will want to have IS/VC/OS. without it you can say good buy to any hand held video you might want to do.
 
Ordered the Tamron 17-50mm :D

I'll update the thread with my impressions and maybe some sample photos if I remember :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top