Sigma 18-50 vs Tamron 17-50

J

jrod81

Veteran
If I am understanding correctly there are basically three lenses to discuss in this thread
1. The Tamron w/ VC for $659
2. The Tamron w/o VC for $459
3. The Sigma (and from what I understand its important to make sure its the HSM version) for $199
All prices based on BH search so brand new- used prices will obviously vary.

So at those price marks why wouldn't I go with the Sigma to shoot video?
 
Because that Sigma is not the one everybody talks about...

You want to be looking at the Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 not the 18-50 f/2.8-4.5. The cheaper version you've linked to will change aperture throughout the zoom range and it's optical performance is not on par with the other lenses you mentioned or with the more expensive Sigma lens.

That version is basically an alternative to the original manufacturers kit lenses with better build quality, marginally better low-light performance and OS. Since the Canon kit lens already has IS, it doesn't offer a whole lot more.
 
you may want to visit this site:
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=2&APIComp=0

they don't have the cheap sigma, but the more expensive one, and both tamrons, are there

the tamron 17-50 non-VC seems to be the best general purpose zoom for APS-C
I've used one and it's great; other users of this forum use it too and many are really happy with it (rockmore is coming to this thread in 3, 2, 1...)
 
Last edited:
check out my links for the-digital-picture, and play with the settings in that page (compare at different focal lenghts, apertures, etc)

(and still keep in mind: sharpness, though very important, is not the only thing to look for in a lens)
 
jrod81 said:
looks like sigma has the 17-50 now and i am leaning toward it...
Click to expand...

Be careful.

If I were you I would go to a camera dealer where you can put both lenses on your camera run a series of tests, take the files to your own computer to see blown up results for yourself. I did this a few times between the Tamron 17-50 2.8 and other lenses. Don't buy on the numbers alone, pick them all up and check them out before putting you cash on the line. Never by a lens on feeling or impulse.

I bought 3 lenses on impulse last year and used each lens for one shoot.
The Canon 55-250 now for sale
The Canon 24mm 2.8 now for sale
The Canon 50mm 1.8 not worth selling

The Tamron 17-50 2.8 used every day since Dec.
 
Last edited:
somehow i'm not happy with my tamron 17-50 vc... everybody says its great but on a shoot on the weekend i was comparing it on and of with my super takumar 50mm prime.
while the tamron looked muddy and dull when i focused on the logotype of a russian arm the super takumar had a lot more contrast and a much more appealing image. i begin to suspect that something is wrong with the tamron... maybe its the vc...
 
ROCKMORE said:
The Canon 24mm 2.8 now for sale
Click to expand...

what's wrong with the 24mm 2.8? looking at the tests from the-digital-picture, I thought it was a great lens (much better than the 28mm or the 35mm), and was about to buy one


mrchirster said:
somehow i'm not happy with my tamron 17-50 vc...
Click to expand...

the VC version is absolutely horrible
totally different design, horribly soft, has nothing to do with the non-vc version apart from the name
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=474&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=0
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2011/01/stuff-i-wish-id-never-bought
 
The tamron is definitevely better then the sigma 18-50, however the new sigma 17-50 seems to be a little better (based on reviews). If you are buying them new, you are probobaly better off with the Sigma. They are close enough performers though that if you are buying them used you should go for whichever you can find a better deal on.
 
NormanBates said:
what's wrong with the 24mm 2.8?
Click to expand...

Nothing wrong with the 24mm 2.8. I bought it for a 5D shoot thinking I would use it on my future 5D. Well the 5D hasn't arrived and I got the Tamron 17-50 2.8 which sent the 24mm 2.8 into storage.
My point was only to be sure you think about lenses you really need. I also bought the 55-250 I needed for a shoot but now not really satisfied with the picture quality. At the time I had the 70-200 f4 L in my hands but bought the 55-250 because it had IS and I could save money. Now I wish I bought the 70-200 f4L. Just passing on my experience it's easy to buy lenses, make sure they are the ones you want in the long run.

Shot below today. Tamron 17-50 @ 50mm f2.8 auto ISO & focus / Neutral 0,-4,-2,0 / CC Contrast +40 Saturation +35 Photoshop
Both shots cropped
 

Attachments

  • RENO 1.jpg
    RENO 1.jpg
    51 KB · Views: 0
  • RENO-CLOSE-UP.jpg
    RENO-CLOSE-UP.jpg
    64.1 KB · Views: 0
Last edited:
Just to throw my 2 cents in here-
I bought the Tamron non-VC a while back to do some product shoots for a deal-a-day website (example: http://www.mmahq.com/Grant-M-1-Training-Gloves-2011-05-01.html NOTE: not all of the products on this site were shot by me- if the image stinks and looks really flat, chances are it was a generic product shot from the vendor).

I found that when doing this kind of shooting, the autofocus on the Tamron is very often completely inaccurate. At first I just thought the lens was softer than I expected, then I realized that it was just not focusing the way it was supposed to, and a bit of manual focus tweaking yielded awesome looking pics.

But the problem is, I bought this lens completely for the autofocus abilities. I own a nice set of vintage manual focus lenses and I thought that during product shoots, I would prefer not to manually focus. Once I found myself manually focusing so often, I've actually switched back to my vintage lenses mostly (since they have a nice big focus wheel) and found the results look nicer to me than those coming out of the Tamron.

I've heard wedding photographers complain that the Sigma's autofocus is even worse, so maybe its just an aftermarket lens problem in general (the kit lens focuses perfectly every time, as I would imagine most Canon lenses would).

Basically in summary, the Tamron is a great lens, inexpensive, relatively fast, and works well in most situations (photographing people seems to focus just fine). I've found that I don't use it as much as I expected to, however, and actually prefer the cheaper vintage Nikon glass for most things. I mostly use the Tamron now when I want to go wide (17mm at 2.8 is pretty awesome and worth the price alone). I guess if you can afford Canon L-series glass, that would be the best if you're after a modern autofocus lens. Otherwise, I haven't been as impressed with the Tamron's automatic features as I expected to be, and you might be better off with cheaper used lenses.

I dunno, maybe I put my expectations too high because everyone on this forum seems to LOVE that Tamron!
 
does your camera have microadjustment?

the tamron 17-50 that I have used also had huge autofocus issues... until I used the microadjustment option in the camera

in fact, I've come to accept this as a rule of life: before calibration, no lens (canon, tamron or any other brand) will take sharp pictures with autofocus, specially of small objects, except by pure luck
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2008/12/this-lens-is-soft-and-other-myths
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2010/03/this-lens-is-soft-and-other-facts

if your camera doesn't have that (i.e. if it is the 550D on your signature), the easiest alternative is to use contrast-detection autofocus, which doesn't have all these problems (it is slower, but you have time, your items won't run away)
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2010/07/how-autofocus-often-works
 
M. Gilden said:
I found that when doing this kind of shooting, the autofocus on the Tamron is very often completely inaccurate.
!
Click to expand...

I haven't had too many problems with the auto focus, but I would focus manually on any important shot that I had enough time.
 
yeah a chart is a chart... tamron 17-50 vc version is awesome for video... go to the store and play with it, bring the files home, check them out, it's my go to lens for the most part
 
If you have the money and critically accurate auto focus is important then get the canon 17-55mm f2.8
Canon service is great, sent mine in for free calibration and tune up. AF hits spot on no matter how shallow the dof
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top