I am considering going to one of these two lenses: the Sigma 24-70 or the Tamron 17-50? They are both 2.8, as I am sure you know.
I am being offered the Tamron for $360 and the Sigma for $325. They have similar but different ranges of course, but for my use they probably both will do. I am going to use it on a 30D. However, since the Tamron will only work on a 1.6x sensor and I may ultimately upgrade to a full frame sensor (at some point) I am leaning towards the Sigma, which will work on both.
My use will be primarily landscape and walk-around and the rare portrait (equine). But I am getting an 85mm 1.8 and I have a 70-200 L for the portrait work.
My primary concern is experience with each lens and the IQ.
Strictly from a "best image quality" point of view, I'd get the Tamron 17-50, and if you prefer the range of the Sigma 24-70, simply get the Tamron 28-75 (which will also work with a FF body).
At the Price i actually like the 24-70 on my 30D, and just added the 10-20 since i do miss the wide end, and i do not regret the choice of lenses compared to a single 17|18-50.
If you like to shoot wide, and don't want to spend double the money, the 17|18-50 variety is a nice choice.
I must say that it is a large standard zoom, so what. At least it doesn't shake like the old kit lenses did! It really helps cut down lens shake!
Pros:
Great contrast
Sharp (from f/4 at 70mm, from f/2.8 at 24mm)
Solid as a brick!
Cost!!!
Cons:
Bit of a crap hood
Lens flare
I actually love this lens, the lens flare is bad at times I will be the first person to admit that, but it hasn't stopped me yet! Stop down if need be, use your hand to shade the lens etc... What can I say, it is the most affordable 24-70mm f/2.8 and it delivers damn good images. Flare is its weakness, but for what it offers me it is my ideal standard lens. If I could afford it I would buy the Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8. But then if I could afford it I would buy the Sigma 200-500mm f/2.8 Who wouldn't!!
You must think about how wide you want to go, 24mm unless on full frame, ain't very wide, and I am frequently wanting more! I do own a 12-24mm f/4 which solves that, but I haven't seen it for a few months on account of it being on loan!
I had a Sigma 24-70 on my 20D for a while, and I distinctly did not love it. Ergonomics were very frustrating (zoom ring is backwards for canon users, manual focus is a pain to engage, and it's heavy -- too heavy for me to be comfortable on the 20D). I found the AF slow, and not as accurate as I would have liked. I just didn't find myself with many keepers from that lens, so I got rid of it, and stuck with my crappy old 28-135, which is imperfect but in acceptable ways. I haven't tried the 17-50, but it sure gets good reviews, and I have been tempted a few time, especially for the constant 2.8 aperture throughout the zoom range. But I have resisted for two reasons: First, my 17-40L is just fine in most situations where I need that range -- it has reliable AF, and works well outdoors for landscapes and indoors with my Canon flashes (which is where I most often find myself using that zoom range) -- for those situations, I find I don't usually need much faster than f/4 and when I do, f/2.8 wouldn't be enough. Second, the Tamron lens is designed for a smaller sensor, and I hold out hope of going full-frame later this year. I realize that's illogical, but there it is.
I love my 17-50 on my 30D just right is the 17 and its sharp at 2.8. Great little zoom. But the again I was looking back at some images with my 28-75 Razr and wow they are close. I bought both lens from wedding photog's so what else would you expect. Sorry but I can't help you with the Sigma.
At the moment I'm using a Tamron 17-50mm on my Canon 30d. It's a great lens and not expensive at all. A year ago I used a Nikon D50 and tried a Sigma 24-70mm and a Sigma 24-60mm. I can tell you that the 24-60mm is much sharper and smaller than the 24-70mm and with a streetprice of € 250 cheaper than the 24-70mm and Tamron 17-50mm.
In other words; the Tamron is really good but the Sigma 24-60mm is stellar lens! You can see examples of both lenses at my gallery at pbase
I've got both the Tammy's (17-50 & 28-75), along with the 24-70L. When I prefer a lightweight setup, I never feel bad grabbing one of the Tamron's, and always get a nice result.
It's not that the Sigma 24-70 is "bad" per se (as some posts have indicated), though it's not a great lens, either. It's Sigma's quality control that's bad. Really bad. So you'll find some people who love that lens, some people who don't like it, and others who simply hate it. I tried 4 copies and then gave up.
The other thing with that lens, even if you get a great copy, is the size, weight, clunky build, awkward control, etc. There's just too many things not right with that lens from a useage point-of-view.
Overall, and with two exceptions, I prefer Tamron's 3rd party lenses over Sigma's and Tokina's. The one exception for Sigma is Sigma's 12-24 (I lucked out and got a perfect copy right off the bat). The one exception for Tokina is their 19-35 budget-priced gem.
veroman wrote:
It's not that the Sigma 24-70 is "bad" per se (as some posts have indicated), though it's not a great lens, either. It's Sigma's quality control that's bad. Really bad. So you'll find some people who love that lens, some people who don't like it, and others who simply hate it. I tried 4 copies and then gave up.
The other thing with that lens, even if you get a great copy, is the size, weight, clunky build, awkward control, etc. There's just too many things not right with that lens from a useage point-of-view.
Overall, and with two exceptions, I prefer Tamron's 3rd party lenses over Sigma's and Tokina's. The one exception for Sigma is Sigma's 12-24 (I lucked out and got a perfect copy right off the bat). The one exception for Tokina is their 19-35 budget-priced gem.
I've got a Sigma 12-24 that's fantastic, and another exception would certainly have to be my other Sigma lens, their 30 f/1.4. Never had a bad macro from Sigma, either, but currently use the Canon 100 f/2.8. Sigma and Tamron both make their share of great glass, but one must be selective, rather than blindly brand-loyal to any one manufacturer.
I've owned both and if I had to choose one i'd get the tamron 17-50
I may get flamed for this but I think the Tamron 17-50 is the modern day Zeiss 35-70, small, sharp at f2.8, very sharp from f4, great range, it's a pocket rocket.
The only reason not to own it is if you have FF.
Here are some examples of the Tammy 17-50 on a 400D
