Sigma 17-70 or Tamron 17-50

Sko77y

Sko77y

Messages
897
Name
Scott
Edit My Images
Yes
Simple question for a Monday......

Sigma 17-70 mm f2.8-4 DC Macro OS HSM optical stabilisation lens
(http://www.amazon.co.uk/Sigma-optic...JB32/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1332771680&sr=8-1)

or

Tamron SP AF17-50mm F/2.8 XR VC Di II LD Aspherical (IF) (Canon Mount)
(http://www.amazon.co.uk/Tamron-AF17...2?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1332771738&sr=1-2)

Would be used for portrait photography mainly and some car photography, to replace my kit lens and offer more diversity than my 50mm prime lens.

So which would you go for and why?
Was only considering the Sigma but thought it best to ask on here :thumbs:

Cheers
Scott
 
Only thing I can say when I looked is that the Tamron is a constant 2.8 through the entire 17-50 range whereas the Sigma starts at 2.8 at 17mm, but quickly rises to 3.2 and above when you zoom.

A chart shows this here:
http://www.lenstip.com/223.3-Lens_r...SM_Build_quality_and_image_stabilization.html

Not sure if this matters to you??


Also, have you considered the non-VC version of the Tamron? Its cheaper and is arguably a better lens. (plenty of comparison threads on the forum)
 
Last edited:
neil_g said:
to throw a spanner in the works i was always impressed by the 2 copies of the sigma 18-50 2.8 "macro". lovely sharp lens.
Click to expand...

Cheers for the input, but it would be for portrait photography mainly.

Zarch said:
Only thing I can say when I looked is that the Tamron is a constant 2.8 through the entire 17-50 range whereas the Sigma starts at 2.8 at 17mm, but quickly rises to 3.2 and above when you zoom.

A chart shows this here:
http://www.lenstip.com/223.3-Lens_r...SM_Build_quality_and_image_stabilization.html

Not sure if this matters to you??


Also, ave you considered the non-VC version of the Tamron? Its cheaper and is arguably a better lens. (plenty of comparison threads on the forum)
Click to expand...

I read the reviews and the non VC version was mentioned but most said it wasn't better (biased reviews no doubt) it would still be a massive step up from the kit lens?

I'm looking for a constant aperture throught out, as small a number as possible.

I had read that review on the Sigma but had somehow missed the f3.5 and thought it was 2.8 for the largest part of its range.

I would have thought VC to be a desirable feature?

At present the Tamron is looking like the lens.
 
neil_g said:
dont be put off by the "macro" its not really a macro lens, sigma tack that name onto any lens with a shorter min focus distance. its a great lens for static work such as portraits.
Click to expand...

Do you know the f range throughout its focal length of hand by any chance? I'm hoping for as wide open as possible through the range as possible
 
I went round in circles looking at all the Nikon, Tamron, Sigma, Tokina reviews and in the end went for the non-vc Tamron.

I decided I didn't need the VC at such short focal lengths (and subsequently have never missed it) and the cheaper price swayed it. I looked at plenty of Sigma reviews etc, but the Tamron seemed to be as good as, or better in some cases. (but that was reviewers talking)

Finally, went through the similar threads on here and people kept saying the Tamron non-VC. They weren't wrong its a great lens. (I think)

Edit: Have you been to a local store and had a play with your choices? I took my body in and had a play.... they were more than accommodating.
 
Last edited:
Zarch said:
I went round in circles looking at all the Nikon, Tamron, Sigma, Tokina reviews and in the end went for the non-vc Tamron.

I decided I didn't need the VC at such short focal lengths (and subsequently have never missed it) and the cheaper price swayed it. I looked at plenty of Sigma reviews etc, but the Tamron seemed to be as good as, or better in some cases. (but that was reviewers talking)

Finally, went through the similar threads on here and people kept saying the Tamron non-VC. They weren't wrong its a great lens. (I think)

Edit: Have you been to a local store and had a play with your choices? I took my body in and had a play.... they were more than accommodating.
Click to expand...

Cheers for that Mick, I had a look last time i was in and they didnt have these lenses (only small stores) but I know what it is I'm after and I'm not totally clued up on lenses so I'm going on what people that know think.

If the Tamrons just as good if not better and cheaper then I think it will no doubt be it that I go for. I won't have to eat into my next paycheck buying it :D

You've saved me from buying the wrong lens :thumbs:
 
Sko77y said:
If the Tamrons just as good if not better and cheaper then I think it will no doubt be it that I go for. I won't have to eat into my next paycheck buying it :D

You've saved me from buying the wrong lens :thumbs:
Click to expand...

Hey, I wouldn't take the word of a complete novice like myself as gospel! :shrug:

What I do know though is that i'm happy with my Tamron choice. :thumbs:
 
Sko77y said:
I would have thought VC to be a desirable feature?
Click to expand...

I have the non VC Tamron ( Nikon fit) and it really is superb. I read all the reviews about the VC version thinking it would be a better lens ( I had the non VC a few years ago too) and it didn't seem as good as the earlier lens. A review at Ephotozone was quite critical of the newer lens and I based my choice on that and a few other comments.

Ephotozone said it wasn't as good as the non VC version, being a lot softer in the borders and corners at ƒ2.8.
Allan
 
I can't speak for the Sigma, but I'd had the non-VC 17-50 Tamron for a few months now and I'm not happy with it. It has pretty poor AF performance and the lower the light gets, the worse it becomes. Mine is going to be sent back to Tamron to see if they can improve it, but if not I'll be switching to the Canon. Doesn't mean your Tamron would be the same, I'm just letting you know my experience with it. TBH, I got better performance out of the crappy kit lens that came with a friends 1100D.
 
I've had a Tamron 17-50 and a Sigma 17-70. The copy of the Tamron I've had was extremely soft wide open as for the Sigma my copy was amazing even wide open it was sharp and it was focusing faster compared to the Tamron. Both the Tamron and the 17-70 were the non-stabilizaed versions :)
 
I have a Tamron 17-50mm non-VC and I've always been happy with it. I bought it second hand from a guy here, and have never had any issues here.

In fact most of the time, I don't even bother with the nifty 50mm lens I have it's that good, (well, that's my humble opinion) :)
 
Not particularly Tim, the only thing I find with the Tamron is the noise of it... it's a noisy old thing in terms of the AF motor. Whirring and clonking away, I believe it's a common issue with them though, and nothing to be concerned about.

If I hd the cash I would seriously consider the 17-55 Canon, or more seriously the 17-40mm. A second hand 17-40 will set you back over £400 quid but is a great lens. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top