Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 VS Tamron 17-50mm?

[Sandi]

I'm looking at both of these lenses & trying to decide which one to go for.

Please can you give me your views.

Thanks in advance

[joele]

I have owned the Tamron 17-50mm (NON-VC) on Nikon (used on D90) and it was a lovely lens. For the price you couldn't really complain.. Mine was very sharp even from 2.8 and also very even performance across the frame which was important for me as I usually used it for landscape. AF was good as I had the older screw drive version, apparently the built-in-motor one is not the fastest for AF and a bit noisy, but apparently it isn't that bad..

I have never tried the Sigma in question, but you can see reviews of both lenses below..

http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/290-tamron-af-17-50mm-f28-sp-xr-di-ii-ld-aspherical-if-nikon-test-report--review

http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/315-sigma-af-18-50mm-f28-dc-ex-macro-review--lab-test-report

[Sandi]

Thanks for those. Interesting!

Now, I'm thinking to rather get the Sigma 17-70mm Macro? Argghhhh! This is frustrating!

Just to explain - I shoot mainly portraits so am looking for a lens (other than my 50mm f1.8) for that. Oh & I own a Canon:p

[joele]

My fiancée uses the 17-70mm lens and loves it, good value for money.. ;-)

OK so you are looking for a portrait lens? so what is the deficiency with the 50/1.8, might help myself or others recommend an alternative.

[Sandi]

My fiancée uses the 17-70mm lens and loves it, good value for money.. ;-)

OK so you are looking for a portrait lens? so what is the deficiency with the 50/1.8, might help myself or others recommend an alternative.

Oh no, I LOVE LOVE LOVE my 50mm f1.8 & hope to eventually get the f1.4 lens.
I just need a portrait lens that gives me a bit of zoom capability as well as enable me to zoom out a bit if I'm in a tight space.

I think the 2 will make a nice combination for me & give me a bit more flexibility.

[reaction]

Tamron 17-50mm (NON-VC)
18 is too long.

[s13eisbaer]

I haven't got any example pics of the Sigma, but I compared the Tamron 17-50mm VC and non-VC versions here (http://bit.ly/dnrkQB).

[DJT]

Have you considered 24-70 f/2.8

[Roosta]

I have the 18-50 Sigma, ball tearer of a lens, very sharp. The Tamrom is also a cracker, there are some good Camera shops here in Perth to try the lenses out. The Sigma is lighter and thats about the only real difference I found, someone mentioned the 24-70, great lens, but what Canon body are you using, The 24-70 is more for a full frame not to say you can't use it on a crop body.

I went through this dilema for the last month, it came down to feel and the Sigma won for the F2.8, very very sharp. I wanted it for a general purpose walk about, and to use for longer exp shoots.

Good luck.

http://www.sigmaphoto.com/shop/standard-zoom-lenses

With Sigma, the prefix DC is for Crop body sensor, DG for full frame.

The Tamron Dii for aps-c Crop body.

http://www.maxwell.com.au/tamron/di-ii17-50afspvc.html


Also try dpreview.com for a complete review on these lenses, they couldn't split then, so you need to get a feel for them.

[pod3009]

Hi! I have the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 (non VC version and am very happy with it - I have a number of other lenses that complement it). I wanted it for the f2.8 aspect in portrait work but actually recommended the Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4 to my mother-in-law because it would provide her with a useful focal range on her 550D and apparently is also quite sharp. The 17-50 Tammy is great, but the 17-70 Siggie would give you greater range. Oh the pain of decisions!!!

[EdZz]

Hrmm... i may be way out...
Are these lens in comparison to the Canon 17-55mm? or even the 24-70mm?

[LJG]

Hrmm... i may be way out...
Are these lens in comparison to the Canon 17-55mm? or even the 24-70mm?

I think the problem is Ed the Canon 17-55 2.8 is more than twice the price of the Tamron 17-50 2.8 non VC, yet many say the Tamron is nearly as good. I guess it all comes back to $$ in the end, Sandi could buy the Tamron non VC and a Canon 50mm 1.4 for less than just the cost of a Canon 17-55.

[tmd77]

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=400&Camera=474&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=398&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

according to this the tammy is much sharper than the Canon... at a more affordable price as well.

I recently bought the tammy and i'm stoked with the images it helps produce

[hus]

[QUOTE=tmd77;765098I recently bought the tammy and i'm stoked with the images it helps produce[/QUOTE]

Got to agree with you, I recently got the non vc tamron and the IQ really knocked me out, this one will not be leaving my camera bag for some other lens.

[mikew09]

I also had the Tamron 17-50 (NON-VC) and it was a cracker of a lens, very sharp a a great price for a f2.8. Only sold it as I am ramping up to go FF and replaced it with a 24-105. I highly recommend the Tamron.

[Tamtarn]

I know that this thread has been going for some time now, but I would just like to add that my Tamron 17-50 (NON VC ) when mounted on the 40D is sharp and quick to focus. Another recommendation for this great lens.