Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II Lens or Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 Macro DC

[cedfong]

Hi all,


Recently i have been thinking of getting either one of these lens. I hope any canon users can share your experiences or give some recommendation on which lens is better?

My decision is more tilted towards sigma because of the extra zoom reach, macro len and apparently good reviews (esp sharpness across its entire focal length).

As for Tamron, I also interested in it because of the constant aperture 2.8 throughout its focal length (should be very good low light) and also very good sharpness as I have read in many reviews

Sigma is not constant 2.8 throughout, and it has no IS and so I am worry that it is prone to camera shakes at lower light/ or night shots?


I currently only have a kit lens 18-55mm, and sigma 18-200mm which I intend to sell away either one or both of them if i get the new lens.

thank you for the kind comments.

[calebk]

Originally Posted by cedfong Hi all, Recently i have been thinking of getting either one of these lens. I hope any canon users can share your experiences or give some recommendation on which lens is better? My decision is more tilted towards sigma because of the extra zoom reach, macro len and apparently good reviews (esp sharpness across its entire focal length). As for Tamron, I also interested in it because of the constant aperture 2.8 throughout its focal length (should be very good low light) and also very good sharpness as I have read in many reviews Sigma is not constant 2.8 throughout, and it has no IS and so I am worry that it is prone to camera shakes at lower light/ or night shots? I currently only have a kit lens 18-55mm, and sigma 18-200mm which I intend to sell away either one or both of them if i get the new lens. thank you for the kind comments.

I'd recommend the 17-50, just because it is a fixed f/2.8 throughout the focal range. It is quite a hassle to not have fixed f/2.8.

Neither lens has IS, but if I had to choose one, it'll still be the Tamron. Also, for night shots, if it's night landscape, please use a tripod. Don't for one moment think that IS is a substitute for a tripod.

[linkandzelda]

i owned sigma 17-70 but sold it away due to its... built and performance.

i still own the tamron 17-50. never regretted it

[2evans]

The 17-70 isn't much different compared to your current kit lens besides slight difference in focal length. If you're going for something better, the 17-50 is the way to go. Image Quality is supposed to be pretty good and you do get the fixed 2.8 like calbek mentioned.

[Blur Shadow]

I'm a Nikon user, but I have used both lenses on a Canon system on several occasions.

Both are good, although I am inclined to go for the Tamron.

I wouldn't call the Sigma a macro lens, although Sigma did include a "MACRO" designation for that lens. I believe it's minimum focusing distance is 20cm, resulting in a maximum reproduction ratio of 1:2.3. Not good enough for macro, if you ask me. The Tamron is not too bad, with a minimum focusing distance of 27cm.

I really appreciate the Tamron for the f/2.8. I wouldn't miss the 50mm-70mm additional reach the Sigma provides, since I'd usually switch to other medium telephoto lens if I do need a greater reach.

[suhadi]

Tamron more better with fixed f 2.8

[samchong]

I have recently got an used Sigma 17-70 to replce my Canon 18-55 IS
Same as you wanda to get Tamron 17-50/2.8 or Sigma 17-70 /2.8-4.5 marco
Have read some review said Tamron was slightly better in sharpness compared to Sigma.
But Sigma got a better reach -70mm plus marco.Moreover I am worry the new agent for Tamron
in Singapore hence some of them claimed that the calibration take month ??
After buying this Sigma, no regret ...Ha ha ..
I would said the image quality is much better than my Canon 18 -55 IS
Yes, I also worry about the no IS for this len too.
But when I seen my photos that recently I had taken for Hong Kong trip
Most of them shutter speed was less than 1/60 , and some even 1/6 by hand held
The photos turn out no probem in sharpness !
You may go to my flickr to view thoese photos

[cyquek]

I think i had your configuration once. Ended up I went for tammy 17-50 coz i cannot bloody afford another 700 for IS on a canon 17-55. Sold my tele and going to get the 55-250 to compliment the range when necessary though i have to say, its like i never even use the tele that i had owned. The tammy is so good i have it attached almost most of the time unless i am trying macro shots.

[Blur Shadow]

Originally Posted by samchong Moreover I am worry the new agent for Tamron in Singapore hence some of them claimed that the calibration take month ??

That's honestly because they don't have the necessary equipment or expertise yet. Hence, it takes about 1 month or perhaps a bit more to ship it to Tamron Japan. My experience with them has been pretty pleasant.

Originally Posted by samchong Most of them shutter speed was less than 1/60 , and some even 1/6 by hand held The photos turn out no probem in sharpness ! You may go to my flickr to view thoese photos

That's good to hear, although I doubt that it's any merit to the lens. If you can get reasonably sharp pictures at 1/6s, you have yourself to credit for.

[sukevin]

Originally Posted by cyquek I think i had your configuration once. Ended up I went for tammy 17-50 coz i cannot bloody afford another 700 for IS on a canon 17-55. Sold my tele and going to get the 55-250 to compliment the range when necessary though i have to say, its like i never even use the tele that i had owned. The tammy is so good i have it attached almost most of the time unless i am trying macro shots.

Originally Posted by linkandzelda i owned sigma 17-70 but sold it away due to its... built and performance. i still own the tamron 17-50. never regretted it

I too own a tammy 17-50 .. ever since it's on my body .. my 50mm and 85mm have been lying in the dry cabi .. lolx ..
i've tried doing some macro shots with the raynox converter .. turns out pretty gd too !
Never regretted the tammy .. hehe

[samchong]

Originally Posted by sukevin I too own a tammy 17-50 .. ever since it's on my body .. my 50mm and 85mm have been lying in the dry cabi .. lolx .. i've tried doing some macro shots with the raynox converter .. turns out pretty gd too ! Never regretted the tammy .. hehe

Its look like every body claimed that the tammy is worthy, I think I have to sell off my Sigma and get the tammy ...He ..he ..

[828282]

simply say, the one u own is always the best of all! everyone claims that!

[calebk]

Originally Posted by 828282 simply say, the one u own is always the best of all! everyone claims that!

I don't own the Tamron 17-50, but have used both the 17-50 and the Sigma 17-70, and I'd say the 17-70 is more versatile, but the 17-50 is a lens that satisfies the more demanding shooter, especially since with the 17-70, at the tele end, you are not getting a constant f/2.8, as compared to the 17-50.

[kwan0029]

17-50

[fws1981]

I am also thinking of which lens to get..if i get the sigma, i need not alway change my lens when walking down the streets..i think i getting the sigma to replace my 18-55 n 17-85 lens.

[spheredome]

I am using Sigma 17-70mm. My feedback is this lens is very sharp and bright. Without HSM, it can be a bit noisy. But bec it is sharp, tiny shake can be visible when you get to know the picture characteristics.

When shooting tree canopy with bright sky, you might see CA when crop closely but not very serious.

[alfredlau]

I've used the 17-70, and I am positively amazed by it. Not sure about the one of previous poster's (Blur Shadow) comments that it's not really macro. At 70mm, I can go as close as 2cm to the subject. 2cm, or 20mm.

[spheredome]

How did you managed to get that close 2cm for the sigma? I cannot do that on my SD14.

Originally Posted by alfredlau I've used the 17-70, and I am positively amazed by it. Not sure about the one of previous poster's (Blur Shadow) comments that it's not really macro. At 70mm, I can go as close as 2cm to the subject. 2cm, or 20mm.

[cedfong]

HI All,

Thank you so much for sharing your experiences. I definitely have a better picture of what to expect now. Anyway, I have not buy the len yet haa.. in the mean time, I have to be contented with whatever lens i have now.

[Justintime]

Hi hi

Tamron 17-50 is really very good.

But some copies have front and back focusing issues. Better to use a focus test chart to test before buying. This problem can be a pain according to some CSers.

http://www.dphotojournal.com/downloa...us-test-chart/