Hi,
I'm more or less going crazy as I can't make up my mind between these two lenses.
Tamron AF 17-50mm f/2.8 SP XR Di II LD Aspherical [IF]
Sigma AF 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 DC macro
I was more or less leaning toward the Tamron 17-50 as most reviews say that is would be sharper than the Sigma and has constant f/2.8.
But then I stumbled upon these comparison shots and here the Sigma is noticeably sharper.
Is there somebody here that has the experience of both lenses that could help me out here? Or someone that has some more comparison shots?
I guess that I'm NOT looking at the Sigma because of the extra zoom or the fact that it has a quieter AF. I'm just looking for what would give better pictures (colors and sharpness).
P.s.: I'm looking for ONE all round, walkround lens to go with my Canon XTi.
And I don't need any links to reviews! Unless there is a comparison review
skuliaxe wrote:
snip . . .
I guess that I'm NOT looking at the Sigma because of the extra zoom or the fact that it has a quieter AF. I'm just looking for what would give better pictures (colors and sharpness). snip . . .
In that case, your decision is very simple - buy the 17-50.
skuliaxe wrote:
But then I stumbled upon these comparison shots and here the Sigma is noticeably sharper.
You'll always get sample variances when dealing with different copies of the same lens model. Especially when dealing with 3rd party consumer glass from Sigma and Tamron. Don't let one bad review sway your decision. You have to look at the bigger picture.
The general consensus is that the Tamron 17-50 is sharper and more contrasty than the Sigma 17-70.
If you are concerned with getting the best image quality possible, then you should buy the lens at an actual camera store. You can test several copies of the lens and have your pick of the litter. I bought my Tamron 17-50 in this manner, and found that 1 out of the 3 lenses I tested at the store had a severe backfocus. That's not the kind of odds I'm willing to gamble with, which is why I didn't buy mine online.
I'll echo the advice already given to you by others, and recommend the Tamron 17-50. It's great, and you'll love it!
My vote.....Tamron 17-50. When/if I go to full frame, I will keep the 17-40and get rid of the other17-?. I figure it would be better to spend a grande on a wide-prime than buy a 17-50IS.
My vote.....Tamron 17-50. When/if I go to full frame, I will keep the 17-40and get rid of the other17-?. I figure it would be better to spend a grande on a wide-prime than buy a 17-50IS. Tad
If you are anything like many of us when/if you go full frame a crop cam is a mighty nice thing to have as a backup, and makes a great vacation/travel lens.
If you don't change bodies for a couple of years, the resale value may be at such a price that you won't want to part with it or your lenses either...
Thanks for all the replies, I'm going with the Tamron
Only bad news is that I can't buy it ina camera store I live in Iceland and I'm going on a vacation to Chicago next month. So I'm ordering it online and having it shipped to where I will be staying.
Thanks again.
Can somebody link me to the site that has an interactive image. And one can change the zoom range in that image and more.... I forgot to bookmark it
I'm sure it's a bad copy of Tamron. I can send you 17&35mm WO-samples from mine and you'll see the difference. IMHO Tamron is visibly better for IQ, at least untill f/5.6.
HAve you ever considered the new Sigma 18-50EX macro , I did not like the old version of it but the new one is promising.
The IQ is superb according to many reviews (mostly magazine reviews ).
And my local camera shop raves about it , so I am going to rent it(free) as to test it for 1 day and see if this is as sharp as those reviews say and if so replace my Tamron 17-50 with it.
I love the macro-like feature of it even thought I know it is not true macro .
If a walk around lens have a close-up feature , I would not need an extra macro lens and can save alot of space of my camera bag.
The fewer lenses I have with me the better and more active I can be to shoot better pictures of flowers and people , I believe like that,and would like to have close-up feature on my general walk around lens ......... then can get rid of the sharpest lens of mine EF-S60mm macro , which has completely useless focal length for my needs .
As some one here said my current walk-around lens is the 17-85Is and it is a jack of all trades and does it all acceptably ... I love the lens and this is the lens I would always keep mounted on my XTI .
vyanush wrote:
I'm sure it's a bad copy of Tamron. I can send you 17&35mm WO-samples from mine and you'll see the difference. IMHO Tamron is visibly better for IQ, at least untill f/5.6.
Compare to what? but the Tamron is a good lens though, I think the new Sigma 18-50 macro is a bit sharper and this Sigma is also shaper than the Canon EF-S17-55IS ,which is ridiculously expensive as an EF-S lens and vignetting alot at 17mm ................also prone to flare and ghosting.
I will rent the Sigma tomorrow or day after tomorrow and try to compare it with my Tamron but I think no need to do it cause as I see on a few sites , the new Sigma is noticeably sharper then the 17-50 Tamron..
Maybe this new lens can change my bad bad bad experience with the Company.
I live in Iceland and I'm going on a vacation to Chicago next month. So I'm ordering it online and having it shipped to where I will be staying.