Seeking an opinion between Sigma 30mm F1.4 or Tamron 17-50mm

[ombre]

Hi guys,

I'm having a bit of dilemma choosing between the Sigma 30mm F1.4 and Tamron 17-50mm F2.8. Wonder if you guys can give me a little input.

My current set up consists of Canon 40D (crop), 18-55mm Kit, and 135mm F2 L, with a flash.

For leisure i pretty much shoot candids with my 135mm F2 L all the time, recently sold a 50mm F1.4 because i rarely used that range.

What I'm looking for now is a decent, yet budget replacement for my standard range, almost just to cover range, but of course I'm sure a standard lens will come in use for me.

I generally shoot people most of the time, occasionally cover simple events.


Actually I've kind of narrowed down my concerns too, i'll list them below:

Image quality - I believe they're somewhat comparable, but really I've read/heard many mixed opinions and reviews. Any users care to comment?

Tamron 17-50mm F2.8,
+ Advantage of Zoom
- Noisy focusing? Micromotor AF...
- Focusing inaccuracies issues... I actually owned a bad copy previously before.
- Dust issues? I know it doesn't affect much but it can be disappointing

Sigma 30mm F1.4
+ Aperture
+ HSM focusing (is it good? I've heard mixed opinions too)
- Lack of zoom
- Slight uncertainty of 30mm is a good range, leaving foot zoom to do the rest.
- If IQ below F2 is unusable, my decision will sway almost immediately.



That's what I think at the moment. Love to hear what you guys think.

In fact the very main question might be, is the 30mm alone good enough to cover simple private events (ie. birthday parties, small weddings)?

Thanks in advance!

 

[night86mare]

it depends on your style.

i don't think coverage of an event is going to be very interesting if all you have to show is 30mm perspectives though.

 

[An drew]

A good quality zoom would be essential as you will need something to cover all the critical focal lenghts, unless you plan to go with several primes instead.

Since you had the 17-50 before it should be easy for you to decide.

 

[ombre]

The 17-50mm is probably ok to cover range I guess. I was actually also considering 24-105mm F4L or 24-70mm F2.8, as long term investments , but probably too expensive to justify for my low use.

Yea so wondering if 30mm can supercede a zoom.

Hm, I often see professional wedding photogs covering the entire dinner with just 1 prime lens though.

 

[daredevil123]

The 17-50mm is probably ok to cover range I guess. I was actually also considering 24-105mm F4L or 24-70mm F2.8, as long term investments , but probably too expensive to justify for my low use.

Yea so wondering if 30mm can supercede a zoom.

Hm, I often see professional wedding photogs covering the entire dinner with just 1 prime lens though.

30mm on a crop is more like a normal lens. If you are covering events, it is most likely not enough. The 17-50 zoom will be the winner here. "Foot-zoom", as you called it, can only work if there is enough room to move back and forth. Problem with many events I see, is that sometimes it can get very tight, and 30mm will not be enough for you to fit what you want in the frame (especially table shots).

No need to think of the pros and cons already. Just get the 17-50 first and save up for the 30. The 30 will be good for street shooting.