User Tag List

Thanks useful information Thanks useful information:  0
Results 1 to 16 of 16

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

  1. #1
    Spammer - Permanent Ban
    Join Date
    13 Jul 2010
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    24
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

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

    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

  2. #2
    Account Closed
    Join Date
    22 Nov 2009
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    174
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    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--nikko...report--review

    http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikko...ab-test-report

  3. #3
    Spammer - Permanent Ban
    Threadstarter

    Join Date
    13 Jul 2010
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    24
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    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

  4. #4
    Account Closed
    Join Date
    22 Nov 2009
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    174
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    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.

  5. #5
    Spammer - Permanent Ban
    Threadstarter

    Join Date
    13 Jul 2010
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    24
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by joele View Post
    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.

  6. #6
    Account Closed reaction's Avatar
    Join Date
    18 Sep 2008
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    792
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Tamron 17-50mm (NON-VC)
    18 is too long.

  7. #7
    Member s13eisbaer's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 2010
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    2
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I haven't got any example pics of the Sigma, but I compared the Tamron 17-50mm VC and non-VC versions here.

  8. #8
    Member DJT's Avatar
    Join Date
    06 Jul 2009
    Location
    Werrington, NSW
    Posts
    151
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Have you considered 24-70 f/2.8

  9. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    31 Jul 2010
    Location
    Perth Northern Suburbs
    Posts
    3,712
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    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.
    They call me "Blue" it's a red head thing.
    "My Flickr Site"
    Canon Bodies - 1DMk2N + 50D - Lenses - 17-35mm F2.8 L - 24-70mm F2.8 L - 70-200mm F2.8 L - 300mm F4 IS L - Sigma 18-50mm F2.8 - Sigma 10-20mm
    " I Never get tired of looking at our diverse country, even if its through the lens of someone else".
    CC is always appreciated.


  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    23 Jan 2010
    Location
    Callala Bay
    Posts
    26
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    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!!!
    pod3009
    Canon 50D, Canon 40D, Canon EF-S 17-85, Canon 70-200 f4 IS USM, Canon EF-S 10-22, Tamron 90 mm f2.8, Sigma 150-500mm, Speedlite 430EXII

  11. #11
    Member EdZz's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Apr 2010
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    84
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Hrmm... i may be way out...
    Are these lens in comparison to the Canon 17-55mm? or even the 24-70mm?

  12. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    13 Apr 2010
    Location
    Bribie Is Sunny South East
    Posts
    1,047
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by EdZz View Post
    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.
    Lloyd
    Canon 5D2+40D+L+Σ+S100
    Never make the same mistake twice, there are so many new ones, try a different one each day
    Flickr

  13. #13
    Member tmd77's Avatar
    Join Date
    09 Feb 2010
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    181
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...mp=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

    Trent

    Canon 60d | Canon 450d | Tamron 17-50 f2.8 | Canon EF-S 55-250 | Canon EF 50 1.8 II | Canon 430exII speedlite

  14. #14
    Member hus's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Dec 2009
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    313
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    [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.
    Last edited by hus; 18-01-2012 at 2:33pm.
    The fastest way to a man's heart is through his chest with a sharp knife
    Canon 50D,
    Tamron 70-200 f/2.8, A very bright light, EF 50 f1.8, Tamron 17-50 f2.8

  15. #15
    The Commander mikew09's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 May 2009
    Location
    Lowood, Queenland
    Posts
    4,737
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    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.
    Please be honest with your Critique of my images. I may not always agree, but I will not be offended - CC assists my learning and is always appreciate

    https://mikeathome.smugmug.com/

    Canon 5D3 - Gripped, EF 70-200 L IS 2.8 MkII, , 24-105 L 4 IS MkI, 580 EX II Speedlite, 2x 430 Ex II Speedlite


  16. #16
    Member
    Join Date
    09 Jul 2010
    Location
    Launching Place
    Posts
    32
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    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.
    Canon EOS 40D : Canon EF 24mm f2.8 : Tamron Di11 SP AF 17-50mm f2.8 XR LD : Canon 70-200mm f/4L IS USM : Canon 400mm f/5.6L USM : Sigma APO 120-400 DG OS HSM : Tamron - F AF 1.4x Teleconverter.

    Images - http://www.pbase.com/rangeviewobservatory

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •