Which one? Sigma 17-70 1:2.8-4.5 or Tamron 17-50 1:2.8

J

johnny8977

Messages
1,014
Name
Paul
Edit My Images
Yes
Evening guys

Looking to get a multi-purpose lens for my new 550D. The two above seem like the likeliest candidates in my price range.

I'm in a quandary though, should I go for the Sigma with 70mm or the fixed aperture of the Tamron but limited to 50mm.

I'll mainly be using it for portraits and people, so do I need 70mm anyway?

Why is nothing in photography easy?
 
The Tamron (or the Sigma 18-50), the 17-70 is just an average lens, I found it less sharp than the Canon 18-55 IS.
 
When I looked at these two lenses I decided that the f2.8 was important to me so I bought the Tamron, as Dave says... the very similar Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 may be worth a look too.

The Sigma 17-70mm has it's fans but the f2.8 disappears the second you even think about moving the zoom ring.

PS. The Tamron focuses quite close and that's nice too.
 
marry510 said:
Bones Bones DVDhas been my favorite from day one. I love all the seasons of that. I was not even concerned when Zach left, he was never big fan of the charactors. I always thought it was boring, and when he returned three thought the charactors do not serve the goal that had served in the first two seasons. but I think the program has gotten really better off without him. the camera was a brilliant choice in half and I love sweets. although I like every season I say that so far Supernatural DVDthe last three seasons have been dynamite .. , but five years was amazing. Episode 100 was the best episode written performed best in the series. and remembered the story. and although I am a fan of foot bones as a link. I'm not an obsessed fan who is angry or threatening not to see if they do not understand something. As everyone has complained the lastSons Of Anarchy DVD four. but the last four has taken a very large five years.As people complain more tips on the last five. I liked it. I loved everything about it. Above all, I liked it because it is very romantic. and you know you'll be together again, closer than ever. even if they come with other side. that unite them. but anyway, I've enjoyed Lost DVDfive years. Maybe in six whole world will see his battle for him to change. after all, in the fifth season, which had fought for it throughout the season. I think it would be an appropriate modification of events. Booth is back with a new girl, bones, jealous. his battle for him to see and take it as he wanted from the beginning. that's what romance novels and movies Supernatural DVDare real facts. if it lasts a long time or not. and you know, if it was fast or predictable when things happen, the show would not be so exciting.
－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－
Buy Cheap DVD
Bones DVD
Click to expand...

Good point
 
I agree with Alan. I would go for the constant F2.8 but you might want to check the Sigma version as it gets really good reviews
 
architectfadi said:
I agree with Alan. I would go for the constant F2.8 but you might want to check the Sigma version as it gets really good reviews
Click to expand...

I have the Sigma 18-50 2.8 and it is a great lens but I haven't tried the Tamron for comparison. Both seem very highly regarded and I certainly noticed a big improvement over the Nikon kit lens.

The Sigma 17-50 OS is meant to be even better but is a lot more cash.
 
I have the Tamron 17-50 and its easily the best bang for buck lens I own. On my Sony mount its incredibly sharp even wide open.
 
Few things that might be of help regarding the Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4

1) Sigma 17-70 2.8-4 (not 4.5) has Macro functionality, the Tamron doesnt
2) Sigma 17-70 2.8 aperture lasts from 17mm until around 23mm
3) IMO the 50-70mm range is next to useless...emergencies only
4) The OS of the Sigma is excellent....
5) Auto focus isnt the quickest, but its good enough and accurate
6) Sigma is very heavy
7) It isnt part of their "EX" line (supposedly similar to Canon's L lineup) meaning its a cheaper made lens...not sure on the Tamron 17-50 but I think its part of their L equivalent line up
8) Sigma tends to be a smidgen more expensive
9) Sigma 17-70 vs Tamron 17-50 VC Model is no contest, Sigma wins hands down on every level... against the non VC I dont know
 
I own the Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 DC Macro and it's a superb lens (many say better than the OS version), though your question is as old as time itself. Do you want range over aperture and the loss of 20mm?

I chose range as you'l likely be stopping down anyway. I have taken some glorious images with the lens which if you're interested in aviation, you can click my sig links and see what I mean.

Also, if you're buying from the UK, sign-up with Topcashback and click through them to the vendor (if they're listed), else (as I and other do), go to OSD. First rate service, no import fees and take out the extended Mack warranty as it's global. It's only about £10.00 for 7 years.

Mack website: http://www.mackcam.com/repairs/international-repairs.htm

Having just checked the Sigma UK website, only the 17-70mm f/2.8-4 OS version is showing, so am assuming they're dropping all the standard non-OS lenses to produce a full OS lens line-up for all mounts. Lens data for all other versions is still available.
 
Last edited:
twist said:
I have the Tamron 17-50 and its easily the best bang for buck lens I own. On my Sony mount its incredibly sharp even wide open.
Click to expand...
Different lens, same results maybe, as I have the standard Sigma AF 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 DC Macro. I bought it new (one of the very few I have BTW), and unless something mega comes along in the same price bracket that can top it, it's a permanent keeper.
 
Ahoy Mark, its just one of those lenses youll never get rid of and thats pretty tough to achieve. Hows the new Minoltas?
 
Can't compare but the Tamron 17-50 is a brilliant lens. Great price for an upgrade to the kit lens. And constant 2.8 is a big plus over the Sigma.
 
Just done a back to back test of my Siggy 17-70 2.8-4 OS shooting at 70mm F4 and 70mm F8 - massive difference!
I take back my above statement of "50-70mm is completely useless" - it appears I was quite incorrect! At F8 things are indeed very sharp! But definitely soft at F4 (wide open).

Pics uploading as i type this, will host in a min when complete
 
Thanks for all the advice guys. I managed to get an cheeky offer of £150 accepted on 'bay for the Tamron. Seems like an excellent price so fingers crossed it isn't all smashed. Thought for £150 it was a no brainer.
 
Hope it goes well. I have had a couple of the 17-50mm f2.8s, they have both been slightly out of focus without having micro focus adjust, the latest isn't so bad. The Sigma 17-70 (yes I do have both lenses) has always been super sharp and focus always spot on. If I had to choose one it would be hard as they both do a good job. I like having the constant f2.8 of the Tamron which is why it is the 2nd back up option left in the bag for weddings on the 7D but when my wife is out shooting with her 500D then the extra range of the Sigma is great.

So what am I saying to anyone else looking at making this choice? Basically as already said by some others it is horses for courses, reach or constant f2.8.
 
futureal33 said:
Few things that might be of help regarding the Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4

1) Sigma 17-70 2.8-4 (not 4.5) has Macro functionality, the Tamron doesnt
Click to expand...

No, the 17-70mm isn't a macro lens...

The Siggy 17-70mm will focus at 22cm and gives 1:2.7.
The Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 will focus at 27cm and gives 1:4.5 and for the VR version it's 29cm and 1:4.8.

None of these lenses are actually macro lenses. Manufacturers sometimes say things that aren't 100% true and in this case to call any of these lenses macro is a bit of a stretttttttttttttch, what the manufacturer should probably say is something like "We think that this lens will focus closer than some other lens we compared it to."
 
As far as I know the minimum focus distance is measured from the point at which the image is focused not how far it is from the front of the lens so 5cm from the front of the lens + however many cm it is to the sensor gives the answer and what the manufacturer means when they say that the min focus distance is xxcm. I think. Anyway, see the Sigma web site and all of the specs are listed including min focus distance.

Anyway, none of this matters as macro is generally accepted to be 1:1 or better. For example my 150mm f2.8 gives 1:1 but the minimum focus distance is 38cm.

I know I'd just being pedantic, it's a fault of mine... I used to work in computers... :o)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top