which 17-50 give faster and accurate AF?

badboy1984

badboy1984

Messages
2,529
Edit My Images
No
I'm in a market to add a 17-50 f2.8 to my collection for use as a wide angle and backup to my 28-70 f2.8 Tokina.

I came across to the following:

Sigma 17-50 f2.8-4.5 EX DC OS HSM
Sigma 18-50 f2.8 EX DC
Tamron 17-50 f2.8 non VC
Tamron 17-50 f2.8 VC

My budget is to spend around £200-250, I'm looking for something that can give me decent focus speed and it doesn't hunt during dim light and recentable sharpness wide open at the longest focal.

I got a feeling the Tamron is for me in term of sharpness but i think the sigma focusing is faster specially the HSM? Reason why i feel the sigma is faster focusing because my Sigma 70-200 f2.8 HSM mkII is damn fast focusing, so i would guess the sigma HSM is fast too?

I know some will say get the Nikon 17-50mm f2.8, if i can find one around £500 at the mid december i maybe tempted. For now stick to the originally question.

Some advice would be good.
 
Advice? It doesn't matter how fast the focusing is if the lens is soft...
 
so which one is soft focus to you? I'm not asking about super sharpness optic like the Canon L or nikon stuff. Just asking about the AF speed and accurancy? I'm sure the 4 lens i mention can perform recentable optic to a acceptable standard. The Tamron will be better for sure, just comparing AF speed and accurancy thats all
 
If you are planning on staying DX for awhile, I'd seriously consider the Nikon 17-55, I picked a pretty mint copy up off eBay for £500.
 
badboy1984 said:
so which one is soft focus to you? I'm not asking about super sharpness optic like the Canon L or nikon stuff. Just asking about the AF speed and accurancy? I'm sure the 4 lens i mention can perform recentable optic to a acceptable standard. The Tamron will be better for sure, just comparing AF speed and accurancy thats all
Click to expand...
I have no idea... I don't own Nikon.. All I was doing was pointing out there are more variables over how quickly the lens focuses... You need to consider sharpness at the aperture you're most likely to shoot together with how quickly (and how often) it will settle on the correct focus...
 
scottthehat said:
sell the tokina and put it towards the nikon 17-55mm 2nd hand.
Click to expand...

i'm already tempted to behonest.

if i can find a good deal aroynd £500-550 pound for the lens then i will definate buy it. since i bought the tokina used so i should be able to get pretty much what i paid for.
 
I have owned the Nikon 17-55mm, sigma 18-50mm and the non vc Tamron. I preferred the Tamron, it was just as sharp as the Nikon, 1/2 the price and weight!! Sigma was also a sharp lens..
 
I had the Mk2 non-VC Tamron and it was a good lens, but it pales in comparison to the Nikon 17-55. Optically, it's very, very good and nearly as good as the Nikon, but the build quality is like comparing chalk and cheese - the Nikon could probably hammer nails into steel, it's that tough. It's a big, heavy lens compared to the Tamron, and that can be the decider for many people., although I actually find that it's helped my slow shutter speed photography because it balances everything out better.

The Tamron is a very good buy for the money and many people love theirs. It's just that when you do go with the Nikon, you realise that the extra cost is justified.

BTW, I've seen 17-55s going for less than £550 in the classifieds sections. I bought mine from carmarthen cameras for £550 and it was mint, bar a crack in the lens hood, which isn't an issue superglue can't fix. It's worth spending the extra IMO....
 
technics100 said:
I have owned the Nikon 17-55mm, sigma 18-50mm and the non vc Tamron. I preferred the Tamron, it was just as sharp as the Nikon, 1/2 the price and weight!! Sigma was also a sharp lens..
Click to expand...

Reason why i wanted a 18-50 or 17-50 f2.8 is because i want something at a reasonable price that can stay on the camera most of the time, in this case my D7000. Also I'm planning to move to FF next year so don't want to spend alot on this lens.

Ok the Tokina what i got is ok and perform decent result but it can use on FF camera so i could live with that till i upgrade to 24-70 nikon in the future.

Interest in the Sigma and Tamron.

I can get the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 non VC for around £230 used and the Sigma 18-50 f2.8 EX DC for around £180.

So i should buy the Tamron i guess? I got feeling i will like the Tamron.
 
I now have the Tamron non VC and I have had the Sigma perviously.

Frankly the tamron beats the sigma in every way. Build, autofocus, sharpness. It really is worth the extra money.
 
Cant comment on the others, but my sigma 18-50 EX DC is a cracking lens.
Ok , mine's Canon fit, but would imagine it would be just as good in its other versions.
Bought mine 2nd hand from here, and the seller asked me if i wanted to sell it back to him, very shortly afterwards.
i didnt.
 
RichardtheSane said:
I now have the Tamron non VC and I have had the Sigma perviously.

Frankly the tamron beats the sigma in every way. Build, autofocus, sharpness. It really is worth the extra money.
Click to expand...

+1

I have also had both of these, and my experience of them is the same.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top