Need some help picking a lens. sigma/tamron 17-50

[NateNLogansDad]

So I'm thinking of diving into the wonderful world of 2.8 lenses but I'm pretty torn on what would give me the best bang for the buck. After reading some of Tom's Blog a while back, I had my eye on.....

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/652137-USA/Tamron_AFB005NII700_SP_AF_17_50mm_f_2_8.html

But after a little web browsing, I keep reading about the same lens without the VC and how it's supposed to be a much sharper lens.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/550954-REG/Tamron_AF016NII_700_17_50mm_f_2_8_XR_Di_II.html


So I have come to you, my dis friends in search for some opinions that actually matter. What would you do? Sacrifice the VC for a higher IQ? Opt for the stabilization? Go with a different manufacturer like Sigma?

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/689623-REG/Sigma_583306_17_50mm_F2_8_EX_DC.html

Or just sell my camera and take up golf again?

Thanks guys. I have a little bit of time to make up my mind but it's starting to stress me out!

 

[HPS3]

I can vouch for the Sigma. It's really sharp and the stabilization works great.

 

[Shutterbug]

I have the Tamron and it has been a real good lens. Very sharp. I had originally planned to buy the Sigma but every one I tried out at the camera shop either front focused or back focused. The Tamron was dead on so thats what I ended up with.

 

[mom2rtk]

I shoot Canon and ended up with the more expensive Canon version for all the reasons listed so far. Tamron is supposd to be sharper, but lost some of that sharpness when they added the VC. I had a hard time reconciling that in my mind since the reason I was upgrading from my kit lens was to gain in the IQ department.

So I decided I'd go with the non-VC version. Many on here just raved about the sharness of their non-VC Tamron. Then I heard the focus motor. It was annoyingly loud. I'm not sure if that's the case on the Nikon version as well, or if they have made any improvements since I researched, but be sure to listen to it on youtube or in a camera shop before you buy.

 

[photo_chick]

From what I've seen the non-VC Tamron is sharper than the Sigma. For me and what I'd use it for I'd give up the VC for sharpness. Unless I could find a way to swing the Canon because like mom2rtk pointed out, it leaves the others in the dust with it's L quality glass and great build quality. But that's me, and not you.

 

[nbaresejr]

I had this decision about 2 months ago. I decided on the Sigma because the Canon was about $500 more then the Sigma and the Sigma is sharper then the Tamron (all the reviews say). IS, OS or VC was a must for me so i never considered the non VC Tamron.

I did have to return my 1st copy because it didnt work but like i said the $500 difference made that a non issue. Also Sigma has a 4 year warranty so any issues can be dealt with through them.

Take a look at my flickr. All almost all my Europe phots were shot with the Sigma 17-50 2.8

 

[HPS3]

These are shot with the Sigma. I think they're pretty sharp.


Building a Castle of Dreams by Harry Shields, on Flickr

My Princess Kitty by Harry Shields, on Flickr

 

[HPS3]

The sigma also handles flare really well and is really contrasty which I like.

 

[NateNLogansDad]

These are shot with the Sigma. I think they're pretty sharp.


Building a Castle of Dreams

Favorite picture with this lens so far 24 hrs ago I was telling a buddy of mine about the Tamron. Gonna do some more research but I am leaning towards the Sigma right now. Thank you!!!

 

[NateNLogansDad]

I shoot Canon and ended up with the more expensive Canon version for all the reasons listed so far. Tamron is supposd to be sharper, but lost some of that sharpness when they added the VC. I had a hard time reconciling that in my mind since the reason I was upgrading from my kit lens was to gain in the IQ department.

So I decided I'd go with the non-VC version. Many on here just raved about the sharness of their non-VC Tamron. Then I heard the focus motor. It was annoyingly loud. I'm not sure if that's the case on the Nikon version as well, or if they have made any improvements since I researched, but be sure to listen to it on youtube or in a camera shop before you buy.

I looked it up on Youtube and holy crap!!! That would drive me insane every time I touched the shutter! I never even thought about looking on youtube for things like that! Thanks soooo much

 

[HPS3]

The Sigma is an outstanding lens. I have never had a problem with Front/Back focusing. Sigma is very good with their warranty service.

The Sigma has the HSM motor so it focuses really fast and near silent.

 

[NateNLogansDad]

The Sigma is an outstanding lens. I have never had a problem with Front/Back focusing. Sigma is very good with their warranty service.

The Sigma has the HSM motor so it focuses really fast and near silent.

And it would compliment my Sigma 18-250 and Sigma flash very nicely in the bag

I need a bumper sticker made, Body by Nikon Optics by Sigma

 

[mom2rtk]

I looked it up on Youtube and holy crap!!! That would drive me insane every time I touched the shutter! I never even thought about looking on youtube for things like that! Thanks soooo much

Someone pointed me to youtube when I was considering that lens. My mind was made up the minute I heard it.

In the end, I just couldn't get past all the glowing references for the Canon lens. I know you don't shoot Canon, but I can't emphasize enough how happy I am to have an awesome walkaround lens. You're not spending this money to increase reach, but to increase IQ. So to me it had to really make a big difference. I've had my Canon now for over 2 years, so the extra it cost is a distant memory. And I don't regret it.

I will say that Sigma does seem to have a reputation for front or back focusing. I had a marked issue with my Sigma 50-150 f/2.8 so I sent it in for calibration. They were great to work with and got it back to me quickly.

Good luck with your decision!

 

[ronfin]

I shoot with a Canon 7D, and the last few trips to Disney having to decide on what type of set-up I was gonna go with have been a nightmare figuring out. One trip I took a Tamron 10-24mm, a Canon 50mm, and the Canon 28-300mm. Decided to walk around all day with the 28-300mm and realized it was too heavy, not close enough, and there was no need for 300mm anywhere in Disney, not even at the Animal Kingdom. The 10-24mm didn't give me what I wanted either, and I never even bothered to try the 50mm once. So after much consideration I decided to go with the Canon 17-55mm 2.8f, and it's an incredible lens. The glass is the same as a red series, it's light, and it has the best range IMO for Disney. The 2.8 is also great for at night, although I always step it up a little and never shoot at true 2.8. Add this configuration with a battery grip, and BlackRapids Sport strap, and I'm finally happy walking around the parks. I guess you need to decide before you go what your main focus is gonna be. If you need the extra zoom for wildlife at the Animal Kingdom then the Sigma 18-250mm is a great lens, but if you're looking for an all-around lens I'd go mid range like 17-55mm. You'll save on weight, and be happy with the larger aperture. Just my .02

 

[Gianna'sPapa]

There is another focal length you may want to look at and that is the 24-70 f2.8 because it synchs up with the next 2.8 step being the 70-200. I know many say the 24 is too narrow, but my walkaround lens is the 28-70 f2.8 and I really have not been restricted by it. Do I keep an 18-55 kit lens in my bag if I want to go wider, yes. I do want to upgrade with an UWA, something like a 12-24. My four go-to lenses are, my kit 18-55, 28-70 f2.8, 70-200 f2.8 and 100-300 f4. Of course those fit my style of photography and may not fit yours.

 

[bob100]

So I'm thinking of diving into the wonderful world of 2.8 lenses but I'm pretty torn on what would give me the best bang for the buck. After reading some of Tom's Blog a while back, I had my eye on.....

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/652137-USA/Tamron_AFB005NII700_SP_AF_17_50mm_f_2_8.html

But after a little web browsing, I keep reading about the same lens without the VC and how it's supposed to be a much sharper lens.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/550954-REG/Tamron_AF016NII_700_17_50mm_f_2_8_XR_Di_II.html


So I have come to you, my dis friends in search for some opinions that actually matter. What would you do? Sacrifice the VC for a higher IQ? Opt for the stabilization? Go with a different manufacturer like Sigma?

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/689623-REG/Sigma_583306_17_50mm_F2_8_EX_DC.html

Or just sell my camera and take up golf again?

Thanks guys. I have a little bit of time to make up my mind but it's starting to stress me out!

you read good things about the Tamron non-vc because it's sharper wide open (f2.8) than the other zooms
see www.photozone.de
or
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...&Camera=474&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=398

But if I was buying an f2.8 zoom for a crop model and had a budget of $700 I would seriously look at the Sigma 17-50 2.8 HSM OS EX

 

[Shutterbug]

I looked it up on Youtube and holy crap!!! That would drive me insane every time I touched the shutter! I never even thought about looking on youtube for things like that! Thanks soooo much

I really dont notice the noise and my ears pick up things like that.
Only time I think its noticeable is when its really hunting back and forth in a totally quiet surroundings. Outside, I really dont notice it at all.

 

[NateNLogansDad]

I really dont notice the noise and my ears pick up things like that.
Only time I think its noticeable is when its really hunting back and forth in a totally quiet surroundings. Outside, I really dont notice it at all.

I can see it being not too bad outside. There's been quite a few times where I'm taking pictures either in a church or during a school play and it's totally silent. The Tamron would force my wife to plunge a fork into my leg in those cases

 

[mom2rtk]

I can see it being not too bad outside. There's been quite a few times where I'm taking pictures either in a church or during a school play and it's totally silent. The Tamron would force my wife to plunge a fork into my leg in those cases

My issue is that my kids usually run and hide when I get the camera out. My greatest weapon is the element of surprise. No way could I sneak up on them with that lens!

 

[NateNLogansDad]

My issue is that my kids usually run and hide when I get the camera out. My greatest weapon is the element of surprise. No way could I sneak up on them with that lens!

Love it!!!