Sigma or Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8?

Not tried the sigma, but have a Tamron 17-50 f2.8 non vc and am very happy with the quality.

Before you buy the Tamron make sure you test it, I have the 28-75 and although it has been to Tamron to fix it is still not as sharp as my 17-50.
 
sep9001 said:
Not tried the sigma, but have a Tamron 17-50 f2.8 non vc and am very happy with the quality.

Before you buy the Tamron make sure you test it, I have the 28-75 and although it has been to Tamron to fix it is still not as sharp as my 17-50.
Click to expand...
Not sure I'll be able to test it, nowhere even remotely close to me stocks it so I will have to buy online.
 
I don't know what the difference is but I have the Tamron and find it an excellent lens for landscape, and for the odd occasion I shoot other subjects in low light conditions. I also have the version without IS/VC as at the time (this was a few years ago) it was reckoned to be sharper than the IS, and also cheaper of course. Given that it's usually used on the tripod the lack of IS has never been a problem. I know people do say Tamron's quality control can be a bit iffy (which was just one reason why when I bought the 150-600 I decided to go with Sigma), but the 17-50 is one of two Tamron lenses I have (the other being the 70-300) and both have been absolutely fine. I've never felt I needed even to micro adjust them, which is just as well as I don't have that luxury on my camera. I bought all three of the above lenses online, I think one from Amazon and two from Wex.
 
If you were closer to me ,would not mind letting you try my one, although not selling my one.

Keeping it to use with my d90.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top