Sigma or Tamron

EGuitarStar

EGuitarStar

EGuitarStar

Soldato
Joined
23 Dec 2009
Posts
3,304
Location
Earth
I am looking to get either a Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 EX DC OS HSM or a Tamron SP AF 17-50mm F/2,8 XR Di II VC LD Aspherical [IF] which are both f2.8 and stabilased lenses.

I will be trying out the lens before I buy and I have looked at various reviews on the web. I don't have a kit lens so thought one of these would be a fair better lens to get. I just want to know as a brand which would you recommend. The Tamron is a fair bit cheaper than the Sigma but cannot see why.

I am fairly new to DSLR cameras but have been using a bridge cameras for a few years.
 
Do you really need the stabilisation? The Tamron VC version is not as good as the non-VC version which is a very well regarded lens (and cheaper!).
 
Hmmm, the main reason why I am going for a stablised lens is that many of the poor lit pictures I take are blurred and the ISO on the Canon 30D is not great so I can't really push that up too much.
 
Thing is, unless it's a very slow subject or inanimate objects, you'll get blurring when you shoot less than 1/80s in low light condition, especially when people are involved.
 
Maybe I am expecting too much too soon without knowing what I am really doing. But almost 80% of my shoots where light is not great have come out blurred and I am getting fustrated, nevertheless this is not wholey the reason why I am now after a stablised lens.

Anyway I will take any advise I am given, as you people may have been through what I am going through at the moment.
 
Don't throw money at the problem would be my suggestion, try to learn why your shots are coming out blurred. I found the same thing but a lot is down to technique and settings.

Possibly the biggest factor: Have you considered a tripod and remote?
 
The f2.8 will help a lot where low light situation will be an issue.
The IS/OS won't be quite as useful for the money paid.
Check all your shots and see if any, if not all your blurred shots were taken under 1/80s?

I'd say go for the Tamron non-IS, for price and performance, they are best valued. You might also be interested in the 18-50mm f2.8 Sigma EX Macro DG. That's a great lens and I'm using it, along with the 50-150mm f2.8 for weddings.
 
bloodiedathame said:
Don't throw money at the problem would be my suggestion, try to learn why your shots are coming out blurred. I found the same thing but a lot is down to technique and settings.

Possibly the biggest factor: Have you considered a tripod and remote?
Click to expand...

Well put, I will consider spending the cash because it is not cheap and photography for me at the moment is just a hooby.

I have a tripod and remote, so I guess I already have a solution to my issues.
 
30d ISO is perfectly usable up to 1600 if you nail the exposure so I wouldn't worry about that. I'd much prefer a Sharp picture with a bit of noise over a blurred image at ISO 400.
 
Hmmm, thanks for all the info so far, I think rather than throwing my money at this I should be considering utilising my current equipment better and maybe learn a bit more about how I am taking the images.
 
EGuitarStar said:
Maybe I am expecting too much too soon without knowing what I am really doing. But almost 80% of my shoots where light is not great have come out blurred and I am getting fustrated, nevertheless this is not wholey the reason why I am now after a stablised lens.

Anyway I will take any advise I am given, as you people may have been through what I am going through at the moment.
Click to expand...

What sort of shots are these? Is the subject static or is it for example people so there is some movement? Stabilisation at this focal length would help with low light landscapes, museums etc. but for subjects where this is movement it will be your shutter speed that dictates if there is blurred motion or not. Your choices here is to get a flash and learn how to diffuse\bounce it (you'll end up doing this eventually!), get a lens with a wider aperture and\or raise the ISO as high as you dare.

The nifty fifty is a good cheap lens with a wide aperture of f1.8. However it's not great at focusing in low light so can be a bit hit and miss. It's also a prime not a zoom which is what you are looking for. f2.8 is as fast as you'll get
 
It was of buildings and landscapes mostly and I do have a 50mm f1.8 but had to stop using this because it would not focus as I wanted it to do so.

I think I gotta be a bit more brave in turning up the ISO, I rarely go above 400 ISO.
 
Sorry to revive an old thread but just wanted to make people aware of the Tamron 17-50 VC lens.

I got this yesterday and have been testing it and have to say it is not a gerat lens, the non VC is far better.

The lens is not sharp at f2.8 at either 17mm or 50mm you have to drop to about f4 to get anything decent. I tried the non VC a few weeks back and it was far better. Turning off the VC does not make a difference at f2.8

Well I will be returning the lens back to Jessops but am not too sure what I will go for now, back to the drawing board :(
 
EGuitarStar said:
Well I will be returning the lens back to Jessops but am not too sure what I will go for now, back to the drawing board :(
Click to expand...
If you're mainly shooting buildings and landscapes, IS/VR/OS/VC or whatever it's called shouldn't really be coming into the equation and shooting at f/2.8 isn't the way to go about your work.

If landscapes and architectural photography are your thing, I'd suggest that shooting at apertures where your lens is as at its sharpest (probably somewhere between f/8 and f/11 at a rough guess) and employing the services of a tripod in order to give yourself the stability to shoot at the types of shutter speeds you'll be encountering is the order of the day. Admittedly that's a bit of a generalisation, but it's decent advice all the same.

Without knowing exactly what you do it's hard to try and nail down where your problems lie, but I'd suggest it might well be an issue with technique rather than equipment. Almost any half-decent lens paired with a tripod and a remote control shutter trigger ought to see you nailing the sort of shots you're currently struggling with.
 
I think you fell into the amateur 'I must have Image Stabilisation trap', I too was like that when I got my first DSLR as I wasnt comfortable with my skill and didnt wanted to risk blurred shots. After a lot of practice, experience and general trial and error I realised how insignificant IS is on any lens but the very long focal lengthed ones.

I now own 7 lens across different system, none of them has any IS and I can safely say I dont miss it at all.

It's a nice feature to have but shouldnt be a deal breaker imo especially for such short focal length.
 
Thanks guys, I did further tests yesterday and have managed to find the len's sweet spots, though at f2.8 at any focal length it is not sharp.

I think mcc49 you said it right, I have fallen into the "I need stabilisation trap" I think I gotta look at my own skills rather than blame lens or camera.

I guess I was annoyed at myself rather than anything else yesterday and blamed the lens. Photography is a new found hooby of mine and after spending some $£$£ I was left heavily disappointed, it takes time and practise and plenty of it. Any beginner reading this just take it from me, it aint easy and no amount of money will improve things overnight.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom