18-50mm lenses

[Ratpack]

Just wondering if anyone has experience with either of these lenses. I am looking to get a fast zoom for general photos both at Disney and everywhere else. Not sure if I should go with a wider range in the 28-70 or the lower focal point in the 18-50. I have a nikon 18-135 so all ranges are covered already, I would just like to get a faster lens with a zoom.

Thanks!

 

[Steve's Girl]

I have been looking at these lenses as well. I believe the Sigma is 24-70 and the Tamron is 28-75. I would primarily use it for indoor/no flash shots. Looking at my EXIF data, I find that I do not take many wide angle shots indoors. So, I pretty much ruled out the 18-50. Also thought the extra reach may come in handy for Disney stuff such as Lion King show, etc.

 

[allyn]

i have the sigma 18-50 f/2.8. i generally like it. of course i wish it was longer at the telephoto end but i bought it for the aperture not the zoom. i use it as my walk-around lens and keep it on the camera most of the time.

 

[DVC Jen]

I have the Sigma 28-70mm f/2.8-4 but I also have a Canon. I really like the lens. Easy to focus, not so large it is like carrying a lead weight around your neck and my pics with it are sharp.

 

[DragonSlyr]

I have the Sigma 28-70mm f/2.8. Originally I purchased it for taking high speed indoor sports without a flash. I find myself using this lens the most. Very compact, decent focal range and sharp pictures.

 

[Ratpack]

I have the Sigma 28-70mm f/2.8-4 but I also have a Canon. I really like the lens. Easy to focus, not so large it is like carrying a lead weight around your neck and my pics with it are sharp.

Jen,
Were the photos from your trip to WDW this year done with the Sigma 28-70? I have resurrected my thoughts og getting one of these lenses.

 

[Anewman]

I tested the sigma 24-70mm but ended up buying the Tamron 28-75mm, maybe I got a bad copy but the Tamron just seemed so much sharper wide open. Stopped down a bit the sigma was amazing and the build quality is pro level(imo), but I was not buying a lens for build quality I needed something to actually shoot at 2.8.

 

[Ratpack]

I tested the sigma 24-70mm but ended up buying the Tamron 28-75mm, maybe I got a bad copy but the Tamron just seemed so much sharper wide open. Stopped down a bit the sigma was amazing and the build quality is pro level(imo), but I was not buying a lens for build quality I needed something to actually shoot at 2.8.

Do you have any samples of shots from the Tamron? This is my other choice.

Thanks!!

 

[Anewman]

Do you have any samples of shots from the Tamron? This is my other choice.

Thanks!!

I did not have any wide open shots online, so I put up the first one I found. The wife with my 15 year old son.

But that is only a 100% crop, here is the full image, my 17 year old daughter was being grumpy that day.

Not great pictures, I just redid my computers with VISTA and I am having trouble getting everything calibrated. Online images look washed out, in photoshop they look too contrasty.

 

[Groucho]

I have the Tamron 28-75mm F2.8... my understanding (having done modest but not thorough research) is that the Tamron is sharpest, the Tokina has the best build quality, and the Sigma is somewhere inbetween.

Here's some sample shots from a recent "Pageant of Steam" event we went to. My lens is the Pentax mount but optics should be identical no matter which mount it has.

28mm, F6.3, 1/160th, ISO 200

28mm, F2.8, 1/60th, ISO 800

33mm, F2.8, 1/30th, ISO 800 (it was getting pretty dark, though you can't tell by looking at the photo)

Here's a decent bokeh shot... and even some Disney content, my son's wearing his WDW "How To Be a Pirate" t-shirt. 28mm, F2.8, 1/40th, ISO 800.

Overall I'm pretty happy with the lens. It doesn't always blow me away with the sharpness like a prime can, but it's certainly capable of delivering good results for a zoom.

 

[DVC Jen]

Jen,
Were the photos from your trip to WDW this year done with the Sigma 28-70? I have resurrected my thoughts og getting one of these lenses.

I'm sorry I just saw this - no they were not. Most of the photos taken from our June trip were taken with my canon 28-135 IS lens.

I recently took these to frame for my dh for his birthday - he wanted some new photos to hang in the new office he is moving into tomorrow. I love the lens. It IS so easy to focus and fast enough that I don't really worry too much about camera shake with it when I am hand holding.

 

[Groucho]

In a somewhat unrelated note... Looking back at the photos I posted, it might be worth noting that the first shot was taken through a circular polarizer, hence the nice blue sky. The others weren't, as it was getting dark and I wanted all the light I could get, so they got the more typical whitish sky. I'm glad I picked up that CP!

 

[DVC Jen]

I did not have any wide open shots online, so I put up the first one I found. The wife with my 15 year old son.

But that is only a 100% crop, here is the full image, my 17 year old daughter was being grumpy that day.

Not great pictures, I just redid my computers with VISTA and I am having trouble getting everything calibrated. Online images look washed out, in photoshop they look too contrasty.

Your wife looks like she is FREEZING!

 

[Shutterbug]

Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 EX DC Macro

and the

Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II LD Aspherical

Right now I am leaning toward the Sigma because it zooms the same way as the canon lens'. Also it zooms smoother than the Tamron.

I have read all the other reviews from other sites..was wondering if anyone else here as an experience with them.

 

[DizzyV6P]

Flip a coin.

I have the Tamron 17-50. It's tack sharp and a great lens. I also have its big brother the 28-75 f/2.8 as well. It's living its life in a bag right now ever since the 17-50.

Zoom? Didn't make a difference to me. They both felt good to me when I tested both. I went w/ the Tamron because I wanted the extra 1mm and I knew it was tack sharp just like its big brother. Many folks on POTN split about 50/50 on those lenses so you can't go wrong with either one.

Like I said....if all else fails, flip a coin.

 

[Shutterbug]

Flip a coin.

I have the Tamron 17-50. It's tack sharp and a great lens. I also have its big brother the 28-75 f/2.8 as well. It's living its life in a bag right now ever since the 17-50.

Zoom? Didn't make a difference to me. They both felt good to me when I tested both. I went w/ the Tamron because I wanted the extra 1mm and I knew it was tack sharp just like its big brother. Many folks on POTN split about 50/50 on those lenses so you can't go wrong with either one.

Like I said....if all else fails, flip a coin.

Thanks for the input...down at the local camera shop the Tamron is about 50 more. So that may also figure into it some.

 

[Shutterbug]

Update....I got the Tamron.
I actually had gone in with full intentions of buying the Sigma.
Reasons for the Sigma was it zoomed the same direction as Canon lens's.
Its motor also was quieter.
I brought a focus test chart with me to check them out. They had two of the Sigma lens's in stock. Both of them had front focusing problems!

The Tamron on the other hand was focusing just like its supposed to be. So thats what I ended up getting

 

[bnorm27]

First, let me say that I definitely do not have the cash for the Canon equivalent of this lens. I just purchased a Canon 70-200 f2.8L, so my photo budget cannot support another big purchase. So, I was wondering if any of the Dis'ers on here have either one of these lenses, and what they think about them. I have read the comments on B&H, and on a few other photo boards. What do you guys think?

 

[JimbobJimbo]

I have the Tamron 17-50 f2.8, and I think that it is a great lens. I used it pretty much exclusively during our last trip to WDW. Here are a few examples from that trip with the Tamron lens on a Canon Rebel XSi.

 

[jfinke]

I don't own either. But from what I have read, the Tamron is a nice lens. I don't know if the IS on the canon (plus name) is worth the extra $400+.

What is driving the purchase? My feelings is if it is for Disney, you could probably get away with a slower lens with IS. If you are trying to catch fast moving objects, then go with the fast lens.

That was my thinking when I picked the 70-200 f/4 IS over the 2.8 non IS. Plus the size and weight that I did not want to carry around while traveling.