Sigma 17-50 2.8 OS or Tamron 17-50 2.8 VC

Jwar1976

Jwar1976

Messages
530
Name
John
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi all,

I am hopefully getting a replacement general purpose lens next week from my current 18-55 & was wondering if anyone has used the 17-50 2.8 from Tamron or Sigma ?. The reason I am asking is because there is someone near me that is selling the Sigma OS version in a mint unused condition for £180, which to me seems a pretty good price. Can anyone here advise on these lenses, if they are good for the money or not & deemed a good upgrade from the 18-55 kit lens.

Many Thanks

John
 
Jwar1976 said:
Hi all,

I am hopefully getting a replacement general purpose lens next week from my current 18-55 & was wondering if anyone has used the 17-50 2.8 from Tamron or Sigma ?. The reason I am asking is because there is someone near me that is selling the Sigma OS version in a mint unused condition for £180, which to me seems a pretty good price. Can anyone here advise on these lenses, if they are good for the money or not & deemed a good upgrade from the 18-55 kit lens.

Many Thanks

John
Click to expand...

Not sure about the Tamron, but the Sigma is not a true HSM. It's quiet, but no full time manual override, and the focus ring spins while in AF. It is a nice lens though, so if that kind of thing doesn't bother you, then it's fine :)
 
R.Y.K. LEE said:
Not sure about the Tamron, but the Sigma is not a true HSM. It's quiet, but no full time manual override, and the focus ring spins while in AF. It is a nice lens though, so if that kind of thing doesn't bother you, then it's fine :)
Click to expand...

Thank you very much for that information, will keep that in mind :)
 
I think either would be a upgrade from the kit lens, purely as the 2.8 will be much more beneficial in lower light, if you can stretch to it and don't mind used the canon 17-55mm 2.8 IS USM is a cracking lens I had one on crop and it was outstanding lens.
 
I've got the sigma and it's a great lens.
I've been impressed with the quality, and the results.
Never had the tamron, but I do have the tamron 70-300 vc usd and it feels more plastic and clunky in operation compared to the sigma
 
John,
For a couple of years, I had a Tamron 17-50 (non VC) on my 450D (upgrade from the kit lens) before using it as my "walk about" lens on a 50D. Overall delighted with the lens - very sharp, F2.8 throughtout the range and weightwise, quite light. Very sorry to see it go - I sold it on to my brother when I bought a Canon 17-55. Hope this helps.
 
chrism_scotland said:
I've never used the Tamron (the VC version didn't exist!) but I did have the Sigma 17-50 f2.8 VC on a D7000 and I was really impressed with it

https://www.flickr.com/photos/chrismscotland/albums/72157633397768704
Click to expand...

Wow those are lovely pictures, I wonder if the quality of the mechanics in the lens differ much between Camera brands

jamez2013 said:
I think either would be a upgrade from the kit lens, purely as the 2.8 will be much more beneficial in lower light, if you can stretch to it and don't mind used the canon 17-55mm 2.8 IS USM is a cracking lens I had one on crop and it was outstanding lens.
Click to expand...

If I had the money I would love to have the Canon one as all my other lenses including the 2 that I have borrowed from my Dad are Canon. But seeing as the the Canon one is around £150 more expensive than the Tamron / Sigma, I have to determine if the extra expense warrants the extra 5mm reach.

Bobsyeruncle said:
I've got the sigma and it's a great lens.
I've been impressed with the quality, and the results.
Never had the tamron, but I do have the tamron 70-300 vc usd and it feels more plastic and clunky in operation compared to the sigma
Click to expand...

I must admit I am tempted by the Sigma at £180 if he still has it, I know it has a lower minimum Aperture at F22, when compared to the F32 of the Tamron, but according to Dpreview, the Canon only has a minimum of F22 as well.

goinggreynow said:
John,
For a couple of years, I had a Tamron 17-50 (non VC) on my 450D (upgrade from the kit lens) before using it as my "walk about" lens on a 50D. Overall delighted with the lens - very sharp, F2.8 throughtout the range and weightwise, quite light. Very sorry to see it go - I sold it on to my brother when I bought a Canon 17-55. Hope this helps.
Click to expand...

That is very useful thank you, how do you find the difference in quality between the Tamron & Canon ?

Thanks for the replies here everyone, it is much appreciated as I need to do quite a bit of thinking & make sure that this lens has the capabilities that I need it for such as general outdoor portraits, low light portraits, an entry level into band photography, as well as general walkabout.
 
I used to have the tamron non VC and only sold it as moved to full frame. I'd definitely recommend it, and excellent lens and very sharp
 
paulefox said:
Thinking about the sigma
Click to expand...

I got an email back from the seller and they have confirmed that they still has the never used Sigma for £180 & I will be going over tomorrow to have a look at it, I will also be taking my camera, so that I can have a feel of the lens on my camera before I buy. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top