Sigma 17-70 OS f2.8-4 vs Tamron 17-50 f2.8 VC

[futureal33]

Will be buying one of the above two lenses at some point this week and just wondering what you'd recommend?

I had chance to shoot with both yesterday in Manchester and they both seem very good.

Obviously the Tamron has an aperture of 2.8 all the way through, whereas the Sigma drops to F4 at around the 55mm mark, but it has slightly more range at the long end.

Both have Image Stabiliser, both are around the same price.

The Sigma tends to review better than the Tamron (VC model) but I cant make my mind up if I would regret not having the constant F2.8 if I went for the Tammy..

Any opinions?

 

[Stu Meech]

I've used the non VC version of the 17-50/2.8 which I was really impressed with for the price, nice and sharp, light and contrasty.

I've heard the VC version is softer than the non VC so you many want to add this to your consideration.

 

[LikeBreathing]

I looked at both of these and went for the Sigma 17-70 because of the longer reach and generally better reviews. I'd rather have the flexibility of the reach rather than the constant 2.8 - personal choice (ideally I'd like both ).

I see Ken Rockwell has just reviewed the Tamron 17-50, Nikon mount.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tamron/17-50mm-f28-vc.htm

The Sigma 17-50 is worth looking at and so is the Canon 17-55, if budget will allow!