debatable, a lot of people say the tamron is poorer built than the sigma and distorts a lot at 17mm. the sigma reportedly has faster AF.
Tamron 17-50 bargain
- Thread starter D.P.
- Start date
debatable, a lot of people say the tamron is poorer built than the sigma and distorts a lot at 17mm. the sigma reportedly has faster AF.
I've been looking at the Tamron, Sigma and even the Canon for a 17-50 (55 for canon), and the Sigma generally doesn't figure in the user threads. I was a bit dissapointed in this I was quite liking the Sigma as I do like my 70-200 f2.8. I haven't seen the Sigma viewed in a favourable light at all
Have you got any links?
Caporegime
- Joined
- 20 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 77,303
- Location
- Wish i was in a Ramen Shop Counter
Its fast enough
I had it, its a bargain for the price. AF is not as quick as the Canon variant but it also doesn't come with the price tag.
The Sigma is probably better built, and has HSM so quite Af. But the Af is not too slow, just noisy. Distortation is much the same, but note the 17mm is much wider than the 18mm of Sigma.
Objectively, the Tamron is sharper and has better overall IQ. Look at reviews at slrgear.com and photozone.de . People like Thom Hogan also rate the Tamron as a better glass, and I've seen dozens of comparisons on dpreview which have all concluded the same thing - the Tamron gives noticeably better images.
Of course there are QC issues for both companies.
http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1249/cat/31
http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/355/cat/23
Last edited:
Tokina has had issues getting their lens out to market in an real force, and reviews are also scarace. However, form what I have seen the Tokjina lens is worse than the Tamron for sharpness and abberations but has good build quality.
Associate
- Joined
- 27 Jun 2007
- Posts
- 1,777
Basing purely on personal experience (I have used both, but own the Tamron) the Tamron is noticably better optically than the Sigma. With regards to motor noise; even with speculation about the noise I would not say I have ever noticed it. Build quality, well I have dropped mine onto some rocks and it still performs as it did when it was new, so think that speaks for itself really. I think for the money there is no better lens of this focal range. Additionally, the 17-50 is much wider than the 18-50 so for me will always be the winner as I wonder what the Sigma would be like if it had the extra width.
The Tokina; I can only comment based on what I have read and I too have read the comments as per D.P's post above.
The Tokina; I can only comment based on what I have read and I too have read the comments as per D.P's post above.
Soldato
- Joined
- 26 Aug 2005
- Posts
- 6,901
- Location
- London
Thought I'd be cheeky and ask here. I've got a Tamron 17-50mm and a 50mm 1.8. Is it worth keeping the 50mm or is the Tamron good enough for portrait at 2.8?
I'd say keep the prime. The Tamron will be very good at 50mm no doubt, but the prime will always have the edge. Also, the prime has that lovely low apeture 
Tamron 17-50 is a really nice lens though. I really like small, fast lenses so it's something I'm considering for the future. I'm running a 16-105 at the moment and it's great. Really fast AF, but it's also big and heavy!
Tamron 17-50 is a really nice lens though. I really like small, fast lenses so it's something I'm considering for the future. I'm running a 16-105 at the moment and it's great. Really fast AF, but it's also big and heavy!
My personal opinion is that the Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 is better. Both lenses are awful for quality control. I have been through two copies of the Sigma (first had a weak left side, second front focussed), then I tried a second hand Tamron 17-50 and it was absolutely awful. Softest lens I have ever seen wide open. So then I went back to Sigma and finally I have a good copy.
The Sigma's macro is a massive advantage and I don't mean for doing Macro. I mean the minimum focus distance is much shorter than the Tamron so when you get in really close you don't get the dreaded non AF focus and then have to move back and recompose. In fact, the Sigma gets within a couple of cm's of some objects and still focuses fine.
As for IQ, it completely depends on the copy you get. Based on what I have seen from the copy of the Tamron I had, ALL of the Sigmas I had were better. The Sigma is better built by a mile, and the focus is not noisey and whiney. This is an issue when you want to not draw attention to yourself and distract an event you might be at. Everybody uses the argument that the Tamron is "much" wider. Well the 18mm on the Sigma is about 18.5mm and the Tamron is about 17.3mm in a review Iread. So it's just over a mm more. Not a huge difference to be honest. I personally think the Tamron is just the one that people have jumped on the bandwagon with and it gained massive popularity and following. The Sigma barely gets a look in on a lot of forums which I find odd.
The Sigma's macro is a massive advantage and I don't mean for doing Macro. I mean the minimum focus distance is much shorter than the Tamron so when you get in really close you don't get the dreaded non AF focus and then have to move back and recompose. In fact, the Sigma gets within a couple of cm's of some objects and still focuses fine.
As for IQ, it completely depends on the copy you get. Based on what I have seen from the copy of the Tamron I had, ALL of the Sigmas I had were better. The Sigma is better built by a mile, and the focus is not noisey and whiney. This is an issue when you want to not draw attention to yourself and distract an event you might be at. Everybody uses the argument that the Tamron is "much" wider. Well the 18mm on the Sigma is about 18.5mm and the Tamron is about 17.3mm in a review Iread. So it's just over a mm more. Not a huge difference to be honest. I personally think the Tamron is just the one that people have jumped on the bandwagon with and it gained massive popularity and following. The Sigma barely gets a look in on a lot of forums which I find odd.
The trouble is the QC on both lenses isn't great.
Your opinons seem to go against the vast majority on places like DPReview.
Many people have purchased both lenses to compare and have ended up keeping the Tamron. This confirms the numerous reviews online, which objectively measure the Tamron to be better.
The problem is, a faulty Tamron will be worse than a good Sigma.
And a good Tamron is sharper than an average Nikon or Canon 17-55 (although subjective IQ is worse).
For me, the macro of sigma is not useful, since it isn't a real macro lens. But the extra width of the Tamron is key. you say it is only 1.5mm differnce, but at this angle the difference is very noticeable. And extra width you sometimes can't achieve, but a closer focus you can (macro ring, or simple crop the image to increase subject size). You need to consider not the mm in focal length but the FoV
18.5mm = 98.93 degrees
17.3mm = 102.7 degrees
About 3.8 degrees difference.
The difference between a 400mm and 600mm lens is only 2 degrees....
Anyway, glad you have a good Sigma and like the Macro feature.
Your opinons seem to go against the vast majority on places like DPReview.
Many people have purchased both lenses to compare and have ended up keeping the Tamron. This confirms the numerous reviews online, which objectively measure the Tamron to be better.
The problem is, a faulty Tamron will be worse than a good Sigma.
And a good Tamron is sharper than an average Nikon or Canon 17-55 (although subjective IQ is worse).
For me, the macro of sigma is not useful, since it isn't a real macro lens. But the extra width of the Tamron is key. you say it is only 1.5mm differnce, but at this angle the difference is very noticeable. And extra width you sometimes can't achieve, but a closer focus you can (macro ring, or simple crop the image to increase subject size). You need to consider not the mm in focal length but the FoV
18.5mm = 98.93 degrees
17.3mm = 102.7 degrees
About 3.8 degrees difference.
The difference between a 400mm and 600mm lens is only 2 degrees....
Anyway, glad you have a good Sigma and like the Macro feature.
Associate
- Joined
- 27 Jun 2007
- Posts
- 1,777
Your opinion is very strongly against the Tamron given you have only had experience of the one, yet you are on your third Sigma? I am on my first Tamron as are two of my friends. As D.P says, QC could well be lacking on both, however, virtually every review I have read favours 'the older' Tamron as being noticably better. My own personal experience of using both, would lead me to believe the reviews are correct. I am certain I have a perfect copy of the Tamron also.
You say the 'Sigma is better built by a mile' ... how are you testing this? I dropped my Tamron on some rocks, it bounced and I have had no issues with it since. It did not even graze. Do you mean you 'prefer' the feel of it and how it works?
Lastly, the wide versus macro comment. My Tamron can go as close as a foot away from my son (even closer I think) when I have taken his picture and my camera has had absolutely no issue focussing. How close do you want to be to your subject? The width is 'very' noticable between the two when you are using them, you have only got to look through the viewfinder at a landscape to see this. Everyone favours the extra width, me included.
I am just countering your strong comments against the Tamron; not a pop at you in any way (I know what forums are like for people misinterpretting).
EDIT: Just to add, I have got Digital Camera magazine which reviews them all and the Tamron recieves a very average/poor review for IQ. I will add that this is the new version of the lens with Tamrons equivalent image stabilisation. The same magazine reviewed the older Tamron (second edition with motor in body) as outstanding performance. May be worth sourcing the older one for those looking.
Last edited:
Absolutely, the new Tamron with VC (Image stabalisation) has come up as having worse IQ in a number of reviews. The older version is much better. The thing with the Sigma, is most review sites and comparisons are on the OLDER Sigma lens which is the non macro version. The newer version with macro has much improved optics. The Tamron is a great lens, but I prefer the build quality, AF, MFD of the Sigma for the same price pretty much.
EDIT: The two lenses can be summarised as having more in common then they have differences. They are very similar and both perform very close to each other. Anyway back to the point, at the price listed in the OP for Nikon mount, I would be all over that if I shot Nikon.
EDIT: The two lenses can be summarised as having more in common then they have differences. They are very similar and both perform very close to each other.
Anyway back to the point, at the price listed in the OP for Nikon mount, I would be all over that if I shot Nikon.
Last edited: