Tamron's AF is noisier, but I wouldn't call it slow. The focus throw on the 17-50 is so short that it focuses very quickly. Trying to manually focus it is extremely difficult.
The Sigma 30/1.4 and Tamron 17-50 are among the best 3rd party lenses.
The Sigma macro lenses are all very good as well.
The Sigma 50mm macro I have is excellent, if you're talking about sharpness. AF is slow, no USM/HSM, awkward hood, and only a 2.8. When you get the shots on the big screen though you easily forget all the short comings. As a 50mm prime, it's head and shoulders above my 50mm f/1.4 (though that's expected for a short macro).
Depends greatly on which maker has the lens you need.
If, for instance, you're a PJ doing a lot of indoors available light work who needs a lens that is both the fastest and widest you can get, then the Sigma 20mm f/1.8 is your only choice.
If you want the closest to the Canon L f/2.8. 70-200mm lens, then the Sigma HSM lens is probably your closest choice.
If you want the closest to the Canon 24-70 L lens, then Tamron makes your closest choice.
Esquire08 wrote:
Got it for graduating college, I've somewhat babied it but it is definitely my daily. I added a Breitling but quickly sold it, and now should be adding a Rolex GMT-II ceramic for graduating law school.
pawlowski6132 wrote:
I'ver never bought anything but canon lenses and am now curious about Sigma, etc.
Which particular lenses are regarded as some of the best and how would they compare to their canon conterparts?
thanx
tamron 28-75 f/2.8 (way less expensive, smaller, lighter than the 24-70L if probably less contrasty, but probably no less sharp though)
tamron 17-50 f/2.8 (sold the 17-40L)
and it is said that:
sigma macros, at least ones 90mm or more
sigma 100-300 f/4
maybe the new sigma 50mm 1.4
some claim the new sigma 18-50 f/2.8
tamron 70-200 f/2.8 (but AF supposed to be the worst ever)
sigma 70-200 f/2.8 not too bad, but I'd still get canon in this case, not quite the IQ and dodgier AF IMO.
Mr_Sukebe wrote:
I really must be the only person on the planet who doesn't completely love the Tammy 17-50 and 28-75 lenses. I've owned both, and whilst they both exhibited excellent sharpness, their colours were nothing like as vivid as the Canon L lenses that I also own.
the color and contrast on the 17-50 seemed pretty close to me if not quite there but close enough to not care.
the 28-75 did seem to lag a little more in this regard but it's not as much of a lag as the kit lens.
I have the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8, the Sigma 150 F2.8, and the Sigma 10-20.
The first two are amazing lenses, just really superb. The 10-20 is also an excellent lens, but not quite in the same class as the others. It's the only one where I'm wondering if I should have gone with the Canon. I can't say I'm in a rush to switch, it still gives me great results.
I had the Tokina 12-24, great lens. Less expensive and better built than the Canon, just no as wide. Also works with a 1D, but have sold mine for a Sigma 15-30, which is on the way, for FF use.
Sigma 100-300F4, great lens, very fast AF, almost as sharp as the 300F4L prime. No real Canon equivalent.
gberger wrote:
The 10-20 is also an excellent lens, but not quite in the same class as the others. It's the only one where I'm wondering if I should have gone with the Canon. I can't say I'm in a rush to switch, it still gives me great results.
You'd probably only see differences in large prints.
Tamron is going to release a 10-24 f/3.5-4.5 that they claim is much better tha the existing 11-18. They haven't announced a release date yet.
Sigma 30 1.4 has been great for me. Pretty sharp at 1.4 and just gets better stopped down.
Sigma 10-20mm is okay. I haven't noticed anything particularly wrong with it, but something in my head is keeping me from really liking the lens the more I use it.
