Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 OS

L

luis bunuel

Member
hi

im looking for a 17-50mm....
and was gonna get the tamron vc...but it looks too soft and without the vc this lens could be a head wreak for documentary stuff


as the canon is too expensive i was considering the sigma....any body have the sigma with the os and how does it hold up for
sharpness and stabilization?

cheers
 
the tamron 17-50 VC is indeed pretty soft; some people in these forums use it and are happy with it, but I wouldn't; I use the non-VC version and it is great, but if you need IS then the canon would be the only option; I haven't used the sigma, but depending on what you want it for I think I'd rule it out too: sharp in the center but not nice in the corners even if you stop it down (again, some people here use it and like it, perhaps you could rent or borrow one and see for yourself): http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=474&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=0 - http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=474&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=0 - http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=474&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=0
 
Basing myself on these tests, an important thing to notice is how sharp the Tamron gets when you close it down to f4. The Sigma remains as soft as it was in f2.8.
 
thanks for the reply Norm.....looking at those links the tamron looks sharper then the canon at 35mm.....but at 50mm the tamron looks very soft
 
luis bunuel said:
thanks for the reply Norm.....looking at those links the tamron looks sharper then the canon at 35mm.....but at 50mm the tamron looks very soft
Click to expand...

Specially the VC one. The non-VC, not so much. The non-VC Tamron is sharper from 17 to 35, so that's something to consider.

This thread was of great help to me because I was considering getting a Tamron 17-50 and I had no idea the VC one was worse than the non VC. I wonder why...

And look what I just found by accident: http://www.pentaxforums.com/reviews/pentax-16-50-vs-sigma-tamron-17-50mm/introduction.html
 
Last edited:
my personal tests also confirm that the tamron 17-50 non-vc is not as sharp in the long end as in the wide end:
http://www.similaar.com/foto/lenstests/lenstestsa.html
(suits me perfectly, as I have a nice 35mm and a nice 50mm, but no nice primes around 20mm)

but if you look at the tests at the-digital-picture you'll see it is not a clear decision:
the tamron non-vc is sharper than the much more expensive canon at 35mm: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=474&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=0
the canon is sharper at 50mm: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=474&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0


BTW: the reason the VC version is so bad is here: http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2011/01/stuff-i-wish-id-never-bought
 
Zoom lenses will never look as good as prime lenses..... I have used 1k+ zoom lenses and my nifty fifty still beats them in sharpness and of course f stop. My suggestion is to build a nikon prime set and a great shoulder rig + tripod. Truly the best method for shooting in my honest opinion.

I have the older Sigma 17-50mm and it's a great lens that I paid close to $400-500. Focal length aside though my favorite lens currently is my 55mm Helios 44..... beautiful contrast and dof.
 
I would still prefer the vc-version because I do mainly handheld. But: is VC really working with the AF101? Which is the adapter that communicates with the camera?
 
Most of these lenses are fine in the center and mid-frame. It's only in the corners that you really start to see the difference. So the big question is, how often do you have subjects in a video at the edge of the frame when shooing at f2.8?
 
A couple of Tamron 17-50 (on a GH2, -2 on everything except saturation, fine detail sharpening on post) samples from an audition I shot yesterday:

AnaMoura.png


JuniorVieira.png


I dig this lens... :)

Actors are Ana Moura and Junior Vieira. I had the opportunity to work with them in a web series and a short film respectively, both are great actors if you're from RJ or around and wondering.
 
Last edited:
nice pics. How do you use it on the gh2? is there a m 4/3 version?

I have the canon mount non VC version and its a really nice lens and i had the VC version and sold it. 2 soft for me.. I dont need VC at these short focal lengths...not 2 sure why people cant effectively shoot handheld with out VC under 85mm, but i do have a good shouldermount system.
 
jambredz said:
nice pics. How do you use it on the gh2? is there a m 4/3 version?

I have the canon mount non VC version and its a really nice lens and i had the VC version and sold it. 2 soft for me.. I dont need VC at these short focal lengths...not 2 sure why people cant effectively shoot handheld with out VC under 85mm, but i do have a good shouldermount system.
Click to expand...

It's a non-VC Nikon mount version with a cheapo Nikon/M43 adapter with aperture control.

I'm getting the Novoflex adapter soon since it's more rock solid, if you're on a budget a cheapo may do, I talked about the caveats of my cheapo adapter here: http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?266654-Cheapo-Nikon-adapter-vs.-Novoflex-Nikon-adapter
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top