Disney Information Station Logo

Go Back   The DIS Discussion Forums - DISboards.com > Just for Fun > Photography Board
Find Hotel Specials & DIScounts
 
facebooktwitterpinterestgoogle plusyoutubeDIS UpdatesDIS email updates
Register Chat FAQ Tickers Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read





Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 08-15-2012, 07:24 AM   #1
NateNLogansDad
Still Wish'n
 
NateNLogansDad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Glenolden PA (DelCO)
Posts: 2,739

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

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/produc...0mm_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/produc..._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!
NateNLogansDad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-15-2012, 07:42 AM   #2
HPS3
Disney Fanatic
 
HPS3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Slidell,La
Posts: 1,747

I can vouch for the Sigma. It's really sharp and the stabilization works great.
HPS3 is offline   Reply With Quote
|
The DIS
Register to remove

Join Date: 1997
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 1,000,000
Old 08-15-2012, 09:07 AM   #3
Shutterbug
Baba Ganoush is my hero
No parking baby, No parking on the dance floor
 
Shutterbug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 5,604

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.
Shutterbug is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-15-2012, 09:48 AM   #4
mom2rtk
DIS Veteran
 
mom2rtk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 28,149

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.
mom2rtk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-15-2012, 11:00 AM   #5
photo_chick
Knows a little about a lot of things, a lot about nothing.
 
photo_chick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: in the middle of Dallas/Fort Worth
Posts: 4,886

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.
__________________
Danielle

photo_chick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-15-2012, 11:06 AM   #6
nbaresejr
Mouseketeer
 
nbaresejr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 280

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
__________________
Visits: Every Summer as a kid up until the age of 16
Adult Visits: April 07- Wilderness Lodge, April 2008- Wilderness Lodge, July 2010 Disneyland, Dec 2010- CBR,, Oct 2011 CBR, April 2013 CBR
http://www.flickr.com/photos/57234495@N03/
nbaresejr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-15-2012, 01:10 PM   #7
HPS3
Disney Fanatic
 
HPS3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Slidell,La
Posts: 1,747

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 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-15-2012, 01:13 PM   #8
HPS3
Disney Fanatic
 
HPS3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Slidell,La
Posts: 1,747

The sigma also handles flare really well and is really contrasty which I like.
HPS3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-15-2012, 07:54 PM   #9
NateNLogansDad
Still Wish'n
 
NateNLogansDad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Glenolden PA (DelCO)
Posts: 2,739

Quote:
Originally Posted by HPS3 View Post
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 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-15-2012, 07:56 PM   #10
NateNLogansDad
Still Wish'n
 
NateNLogansDad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Glenolden PA (DelCO)
Posts: 2,739

Quote:
Originally Posted by mom2rtk View Post
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
NateNLogansDad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-15-2012, 08:03 PM   #11
HPS3
Disney Fanatic
 
HPS3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Slidell,La
Posts: 1,747

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.
HPS3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-15-2012, 08:18 PM   #12
NateNLogansDad
Still Wish'n
 
NateNLogansDad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Glenolden PA (DelCO)
Posts: 2,739

Quote:
Originally Posted by HPS3 View Post
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
NateNLogansDad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-15-2012, 08:44 PM   #13
mom2rtk
DIS Veteran
 
mom2rtk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 28,149

Quote:
Originally Posted by NateNLogansDad View Post
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!
mom2rtk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-15-2012, 10:04 PM   #14
ronfin
Mouseketeer
 
ronfin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 161

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
ronfin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-15-2012, 11:44 PM   #15
Gianna'sPapa
DIS Veteran
 
Gianna'sPapa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Elgin, Il.
Posts: 3,655

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.
Gianna'sPapa is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply



Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

facebooktwitterpinterestgoogle plusyoutubeDIS Updates
GET OUR DIS UPDATES DELIVERED BY EMAIL



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:50 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

Copyright © 1997-2014, Werner Technologies, LLC. All Rights Reserved.