Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 OS vs Tamron 17-50mm f1.8 non-VC

H

HansSteinert

Well-known member
Which is the better buy? Using for video and photography work. Things I'm looking for:

-Image quality, lack of barrel distortion, and bokeh rendition, especially within the f2.8-f4 range throughout the 17-25mm range.

-A smooth manual focus ring (this is the one area I am worried about on the Sigma)

-Zoom smoothness

OS (image stabilization) is definitely a plus for run-n-gun newspaper work, but if the Sigma's focus ring is bad, no go.

Anybody have any insight on these two lenses? I also wouldn't mind saving 300 bucks by going with the Tamron.
 
In a bit of a rush for a shoot recently I bought the Sigma without doing very much homework. I'm mostly happy with it. I can't offer helpful thoughts about its optical performance ('seems pretty good to me'), but I will comment on the focus ring: it has a very short throw. Initially I thought this would be disastrous, but in practice I find it surprisingly easy to pull focus with it while hand-held. Considerably easier than with my Nikkor 50mm ƒ/1.4G, which has a very long throw. No, I don't understand either, but there seems to be something about the fingertip feedback that works for me with the Sigma, while the sharp spot with the Nikkor is very mushily-defined in comparison.

Whether it works for you will depend on how you operate and what you like. If at all possible, find a dealer and try it out. Yes, you'll pay a bit more than mail-order, but it's worth the time.

Other notes: the vibration reduction is pretty modest - much quieter and less obvious than my 105mm Nikkor's VR, but reasonably effective. It doesn't seem to do that horrid lock/snap thing I've seen on occasion (example: Panasonic HMC/HPX on a tripod with OIS left on by accident. Ugh). There's also a fairly significant degree of focus breathing. Sometimes I hate this, but while handheld I find I actually rather like the little zoom-pull it gives while snapping focus, within reason. Again, depends on your shooting style and how you like to operate.

The minimum focus distance is astonishingly close, particularly at the wide end of the zoom. At ƒ/2.8 it's a lovely lens for quick pick-ups of detail and odd perspectives, I very much appreciate this aspect of its design.

The zoom ring is considerably stiffer than the focus, and not entirely linear. However, I almost never zoom on shot with this sort of set-up, so it's not something I've paid attention to so far.

The Sigma's a perfectly good lens, but I could understand why some people might consider it hopeless for video. I'm happy with it, but YMMV.
 
oops, typo in the OP. Meant 2.8, not 1.8. That would be nice though, wouldn't it. heh.

Thanks for the links, but something to note: the Sigma 18-50 is an older and inferior lens to the Sigma 17-50.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top