Tamron 17-50mm vs Sigma 17-70mm HSM lens

[lcwl99]

Hi there

Can you tell me the difference between the two lenses....thinking of getting one of them but still unsure..........I am looking for a Walkabout lens (my first lens) and had varying views of the two lens mentioned above.

Any advice? Thanks in advance ;-)

 

[Simon_84]

most ppl would advise you to get the tammy 17-50 instead of the sigma 17-70.
the tammy is f2.8 constant throughout the zoom range so its low light performance is bound to be better than sigma which is only f2.8 at 17mm wide only.
for the sigma at the end of the 70mm, the f-stop is f4.5 making it slower than the tammy already.
if i not wrong go look at the sigma sub-forum cause i think the sigma 17-70mm is not really a that popular of a lens in sg.
who knows maybe john 3.16 does carry it.

 

[lcwl99]

thanks so much....I will go with the Tamron 17-50mm ;-)

 

[stupidbloke]

if im not wrong there is a sigma 17-50 2.8 hsm which would i believe focus faster than the tamron. i have the tamron...love it...its been my work horse since i got it.

 

[synapseman]

Like many, I was also deciding between these two lenses. I got the Tamron 17-50mm. However, I did find the 50mm end a bit too short. f/2.8 performance wasn't all that fantastic either, so I found myself shooting at f/4 most of the time anyway.

Then I bought the Sigma 17-70, and I have found the extra 20mm very useful. Also, it focuses REALLY close (min focusing dist of 20 cm is measured from the CCD plane, not the front element), so it makes for a semi-decent macro lens as well. Found myself using this so often that I let go the Tamron without regret.

 

[lcwl99]

oh dear!! now i'm stuck with your advice........cos' i actually like the 70 mm of Sigma....but so far...everyone prefer the Tamron lenses....Hmmmm...decisions decisions decisions

 

[synapseman]

oh dear!! now i'm stuck with your advice........cos' i actually like the 70 mm of Sigma....but so far...everyone prefer the Tamron lenses....Hmmmm...decisions decisions decisions

Well, different people have different needs. What're yours? What do you normally shoot? For me, I shoot weddings, landscape and architecture.

Check out my most recent shots using (mostly) the Sigma 17-70mm here: Pulau Semakau Gallery.

 

[lcwl99]

hmm....mainly people and landscape.........

your photos are very nice!!

 

[Yappy]

Well, different people have different needs. What're yours? What do you normally shoot? For me, I shoot weddings, landscape and architecture.

Check out my most recent shots using (mostly) the Sigma 17-70mm here: Pulau Semakau Gallery.

Thank you for the sharing with all the details.

Wish that I can too take such great pic.

Great job!

 

[Simon_84]

ask yourself are you a low light/night photography person?
if not then go for the sigma 17-70mm.
sigma lens are slightly more solid in build thus most most of them are also heavier than the tarmon counterpart.

if you do end up with sigma, go for a local set as there are some minor complains that grey set users are being treated differently at sigma service centre in the sigma sub-forum.

for tarmon save the money and go for a grey set (shop warranty) as their service centre needs to send lens back to japan to service since they got no technicians around.

 

[calebk]

Hmm, synapseman, perhaps you got a bad copy, because the sample I've tried (and I keep borrowing it from my friend, simply because it's excellent) is sharp at f/2.8. By f/4, it's bleeding sharp. Heh.

TS, it really depends on your needs. IMHO, 50mm to 70mm is one or two steps, but I'd take a constant f/2.8 lens over one that's f/4.5 at the long end. I have this phrase that I always remind my photographer friend with, "a lens is only as fast as its slowest aperture". That means to say, if a lens is a f/2.8-4.5 variable aperture lens, then it's really only as fast as f/4.5, especially since it's at the long end that you want the fast shutter speed.

 

[synapseman]

Hmm, synapseman, perhaps you got a bad copy, because the sample I've tried (and I keep borrowing it from my friend, simply because it's excellent) is sharp at f/2.8. By f/4, it's bleeding sharp. Heh.

TS, it really depends on your needs. IMHO, 50mm to 70mm is one or two steps, but I'd take a constant f/2.8 lens over one that's f/4.5 at the long end. I have this phrase that I always remind my photographer friend with, "a lens is only as fast as its slowest aperture". That means to say, if a lens is a f/2.8-4.5 variable aperture lens, then it's really only as fast as f/4.5, especially since it's at the long end that you want the fast shutter speed.

You may be right, about my copy being a lemon (bought it from Japan, didn't test it out there). Sometimes it could be the camera that plays a part also, I suspect. My Sigma 10-20mm produced terrible shots on my older Konica-Minolta D5D and Sony Alpha A100 (essentially the same camera), but the pics look sharp on my A350/700.

Yup, at the end of the day, the consensus is that it depends on what you generally shoot. For me personally, that 20mm makes quite a bit of difference, and when I shoot weddings, I tend to want to shoot to include the environment, so everything has to be sharp, so smaller aperture is OK. And since Sony is a stabilised system, for indoor night scenes, I can still get by with f/4.5, but with higher ISO.

If I want to manipulate aperture for achieve DOF effects, then I'll use the 50/1.4 or 85/1.4.

When I was doing my own personal research, I came up with the following conclusion:

Tamron 17-50mm
Plus:
Sharp (according to what I've read online)
Constant f/2.8

Minus:
50mm at long end. A bit short, IMHO

Sigma 17-70mm
Plus:
Slightly longer focal length.
Very good close focus capability.

Minus:
f/2.8 only at 17-19mm (approx).

p.s. I have since replaced my Sigma 17-70mm with the Sony Carl Zeiss 16-80mm as my main work lens. But I am definitely keeping the 17-70mm as a very reliable no.2 lens.

 

[hammiepie]

how much is the Sigma 17-70mm lense and the 17-50mm?