p.1 #1 · Sigma 17-50mm F2.8 vs. Tamron SP AF 17-50mm
I am looking for a shorter and faster lens to add to my sparse--one--collection of lenses (Canon 70-300L). The 70-300L has been great but I feel like I am missing out on some landscape shots as I learn this new hobby. My budget is tight after purchasing the Canon lens (and a tripod, ballhead, bag, filters,...).
Any opinions on the Sigma 17-50mm F2.8 EX DC OS HSM DSLR lens vs. Tamron SP AF 17-50 mm f/2.8 XR Di II VC LD Aspherical IF lens? with some digging, I can get the Sigma for just under $585, and the Tamron for $400. I realize that the Canon gets the best reviews but the price is beyond my current budget.
I am aware that the Tamron has some AF issues that some people have had corrected when sent back to Tamron (or seller). Any input would be appreciated. Thanks.
p.1 #4 · Sigma 17-50mm F2.8 vs. Tamron SP AF 17-50mm
photoman333 wrote:
I believe the Sigma is the better lens between the two. But, if you can find a non-VC Tamron, get that one instead - it's a sharper lens.
Jason
Would you consider it sharper than the Sigma as well?
It's a superb, cheap little lens. There is some Tamron quality variation but if you can get a good one (or are prepared to use the excellent Tamron warranty) it's an equal for any other EF-S standard zoom if you can do without stabilisation.
p.1 #7 · Sigma 17-50mm F2.8 vs. Tamron SP AF 17-50mm
While I have never used the Tammy, I owned the Canon 17-55 for 3 years. I sold it about 1 year ago and recently decided to try the Sigma 17-50 OS. It is a terrific lens. It is just as sharp as my Canon was in the center, better built, and focuses quickly and accurately. The Canon focused a little more quietly and quickly and had FTM but for approximately, $400 less, the Siggy seems to be a great value. The color and contrast are quite nice as well and the OS works as well as Canon's IS.
p.1 #8 · Sigma 17-50mm F2.8 vs. Tamron SP AF 17-50mm
I have the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 non-VC and I really like it. Another consideration is the non-VC is smaller and lighter than the VC model, and that was important to me.
p.1 #12 · Sigma 17-50mm F2.8 vs. Tamron SP AF 17-50mm
It seems pretty unanimous that the Tamron non-VC is the way to go. I will keep an eye out for one. What is a ballpark of what I should expect to pay- new or used?
p.1 #14 · Sigma 17-50mm F2.8 vs. Tamron SP AF 17-50mm
I have the Tamron 17-50 2.8 non VC. I purchased it as a cheap but good wide angle (most of my shooting is over 50mm) for the odd times I need such. After wearing out a couple of 50mm 1.8 IIs the Tamron has been used as a 50mm prime. I've found the sharpness to be good (the 50mm 1.8II is better when looking at 100%, at 50% there is no difference), and other image qualities are to my liking. The zoom has progressively got looser and now wobbles about quite a bit but the sharpness and other functions are all still good. Paid US$400 for mine about 3 years ago.
p.1 #18 · Sigma 17-50mm F2.8 vs. Tamron SP AF 17-50mm
TDP is a very useful site, but I wouldn't put all your stock into the comparison charts. Remember, some of the tested lenses are from a very small sample size of usually one to three lenses. Given the fact that there can be large variances in lens performance the possibility that a lens tested by TDP is a dud or at the low end of the performance scale is there. A good way to counter this is to use Photo Zone as another source to compare results.
p.1 #19 · Sigma 17-50mm F2.8 vs. Tamron SP AF 17-50mm
adamvk1 wrote:
Yea, get a Tamron 17-50. I bought a Sigma 17-50, and I hated it. I'm currently trying to get rid of it in place of a Canon 24-70. DONT GET THE SIGMA.
I had the Sigma 17-50 2.8 OS and loved it, it was better than any of the Tamron's I have owned except the one I have now
