C100: Torn between two Lenses

D

dale Mirror Films

New member
HI,

I am torn between two lenses for my C100... I want a standard zoom... I'm on a budget so am looking at the Tamron 17-50 and the Sigma 17-50...

I tested both lenses. Unfortunately it was in different lighting conditions...

I like the look of the Sigma slightly better BUT... I found the Tamron easier to use... zooming on the Sigma felt VERY stiff and the Tamron was a lot more user-friendly!

I am wondering what people are using out there? Have you used both?

I tested the VC version of the Tamron... From all accounts the non-VC is sharper... not that I can fault the sharpness of the VC...

I think the bokeh just looked nicer on the Sigma... but yeah, money is a factor and so is usability!

I also tested a Canon 24-105... I have shot with one before... great reach on it but I just feel it looks plastic.

Lastly, I tried a Tamron 70-200... I loved this lens. I am going to get one. I am concerned about the weight though... Should I use rails?

Ok, Thanks for reading...

Dale
 
I havent used those two lenses, but have a bunch of Sigmas. Image is great, but they feel a bit more fiddily to use than some of my other lenses. I also use a Tamron 18-270 as my all round lense when running and gunning when works great. Images are a bit soft at the end of the lens, but works very well for the price...
 
I have, like Sigma, also bought Sigma 50 150 2.8, that's a great lens with good close up distance and nice focusing ring action.
Also have Tamron, on my Nikon 5200, great lens too! There is more similarities to same focal length Sigma than differences.
 
I have the Tamron 17-50 VC lens and its been great. Its a great versatile lens and works well on the C100. There is a little vignetting when the APS-C switch is off but nothing too noticeable.
 
I have a Sigma 30, Canon 70-200 2.8, HAD a Tamron 24-70 2.8, and got the 24-105 with the C100.
I use the 24-105 90% of the time. I love this lens, I am VERY glad that I chose it for this camera, it seems perfect.
 
Dale - I have the Sigma 50mm 1.4, chosen over the Canon L 50mm 1.4... The Canon felt nicer to use, but as many report, the Sigma looks better wide open, nice bokeh.

The Sigma was a stinking, horrible pile of poo as a stills lens. Inaccurate AF, nasty feel, just a real bolshy handful. But as a VIDEO lens, ha! That worked.

I hear, and am willing to be corrected on this, that a certain camera manufacturer's stock lenses were based on rebuilt Sigmas, and in a test of PL vs Photo lenses, the Sigmas did very well as single lenses. IIRC, their 35mm 1.4 is to die for, and seeing some imagery from it, I'm saving up for one. Fully expecting its focus to feel like it's full of sand, never expecting to shoot stills with it, but just desiring its (seemingly) beautiful clarity, colour, contrast and its effect on sharpness.

So, I'm going for Sigma's look over Canon/Tamron usability on my primes. Zooms? Different story. And before you go Tamron on the 70-200, please please pretty please with sugar on top, check out the Canon 70-200 f4 L - lightweight, tack sharp, a delight to look through and a delight to use.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top