Sigma or tamron 17-50 f/2.8 image stabilised

gblades

gblades

Messages
481
Name
Gareth
Edit My Images
Yes
Sorry if this has been asked before but I have searched and couldn't see a thread comparing these specific lenses.
Has anyone tried both of these lenses?

I have read about the tamron and it seems you sometimes have to try a few until you get a good one.
The sigma is about £150 more but has the hypersonic motor.

I don't mind paying the extra so to be honest if the sigma is known to have better optics I will probably go that route.

Thanks
 
I have used both extensively and they are both fantastic in their own way, although I would personally always get the NON VC tamron, question if you really need the stabilisation at this length or not.

Be aware that both lenses come in stabilised (Tamron = VC, Sigma = OS) and non-stabilised forms. Both versions of the sigma have the hsm.

Sigma:
For: 20mm more length, HSM, cheaper, OS version is more expensive but better than the Tamron VC option
Against: variable aperture (2.8-4.5 or 2.8-4 on the OS) (but so are your other considerations), you need to make sure you get a sharp one but in my experience a sharp one matches the tamron

Tamron (non VC):
For: fixed f2.8, normally ultra sharp
Against: Pricier, noisier, the zoom ring goes the wrong way
 
Thank you very much for that link. A very nice comparison.

Another person mentioning the auto focus issues of the tamron which is something which has been mentioned here quite a bit recently and is the main thing which put me off this lens.
The Sigmas has better clarity when stopped down, better colour rendition and is better close-up while the Canons image stabilisation is slightly better and is clearer at the edges when wide open.

Looks like the Sigma is the one to get for my needs. Just need till wait until next month before the credit card will allow me to buy it :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top