A-Mount Tamron 17-50 or Sigma 17-70, which 1 is a good deal for my A58?

[Vikas Rana]

I need a replacement of kit lens for my A58 and I found Tamron A16 SP AF 17-50 mm F/2.8 Di II LD Aspherical (IF) which is not "XR " at around $375, where as Sigma 17-70 is around $500 and might not available in my country, I may have to pay 20 to 50 bucks extra for shipping, total $550.

• Which one is a better deal?
• Also what is the difference between XR and non XR tamrom lenses? I know they use VC for image stabilization.

 

[NPPhoto]

The Tamron is a very good lens and is a fixed f2.8 at all focal lengths. It is pretty sharp and balanced perfectly on my A65 and should be the same on your A58. I believe "XR" refers to "ED" glass or something similar to that. The focus on the Tamron is slower than the Sigma and a little more noisier. This might be an issue for videos. Also, the Sigma has a slightly longer range and could be more suitable for you. I was able to get good portraits with the Tamron at 70/f2.8.

Vikas Rana wrote:

I need a replacement of kit lens for my A58 and I found Tamron A16 SP AF 17-50 mm F/2.8 Di II LD Aspherical (IF) which is not "XR " at around $375, where as Sigma 17-70 is around $500 and might not available in my country, I may have to pay 20 to 50 bucks extra for shipping, total $550.

• Which one is a better deal?
• Also what is the difference between XR and non XR tamrom lenses? I know they use VC for image stabilization.

 

[K E Hoffman]

I could not be happier with my Sigma 17-70 "c"

The old version was pretty good. But they have really improved the lens this time. Aand I like the clean look and compact size..

I would compare the bench tests.. on both

http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1297/cat/23

http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1560/cat/31

The Sigma seems to be consistent and sharp across the range even wide open.

No Crazy corners where at one range the corners go to pot...

DPR hits if for soft edges that don't sharpen up with Fstop increases at 17mm

But its soft edges are better than a lot of lenses improved edges..

I wrote my review of the lens after a couple of days

here is my thoughts related to Sony use and a link to the DPR USER review I did for the lens in general.

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/52277816

 

[Vikas Rana]

I just found :- XR - extra refractive index on tamron

I am looking for:-

1. Great Image Quality
2. Wide Aperture (only 2.8 is in my budget)
3. Replacement for my kit lens

I don't care for A/F noise or speed, but need AF

Regards

 

[Vikas Rana]

K E Hoffman wrote:

I could not be happier with my Sigma 17-70 "c"

The old version was pretty good. But they have really improved the lens this time. Aand I like the clean look and compact size..

I would compare the bench tests.. on both

http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1297/cat/23

http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1560/cat/31

The Sigma seems to be consistent and sharp across the range even wide open.

No Crazy corners where at one range the corners go to pot...

DPR hits if for soft edges that don't sharpen up with Fstop increases at 17mm

But its soft edges are better than a lot of lenses improved edges..

I wrote my review of the lens after a couple of days

here is my thoughts related to Sony use and a link to the DPR USER review I did for the lens in general.

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/52277816

--
K.E.H. >> Shooting between raindrops in WA<<

Thanks for the links, I found the Sigma 17-70 better in test results, I also found non VC for Tamron 17-50 which is better than its VC version here:-

Loading…

www.slrgear.com

Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8-4.5 DC OS HSM could also be a cheap replacement for me as the test results are better than the 17-50 VC but not as good as of non VC..

Just wondering how will they perform on my A58:-

• Sigma 17-70 1st but expensive for me
• Tamron 17-50, 2nd as I'm not sure about "XR" and non XR tags, need more details as I'm getting non XR at only $375
• Sigma 18-50, better in results than Tamron VC lenses, not as good as non-VC. @ $200 its not bad either...

 

[masticina]

Vikas Rana wrote:
Thanks for the links, I found the Sigma 17-70 better in test results, I also found non VC for Tamron 17-50 which is better than its VC version here:-

http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/355/cat/23

Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8-4.5 DC OS HSM could also be a cheap replacement for me as the test results are better than the 17-50 VC but not as good as of non VC..

Just wondering how will they perform on my A58:-

• Sigma 17-70 1st but expensive for me
• Tamron 17-50, 2nd as I'm not sure about "XR" and non XR tags, need more details as I'm getting non XR at only $375
• Sigma 18-50, better in results than Tamron VC lenses, not as good as non-VC. @ $200 its not bad either...

My experience is only with the Tamron 17-50mm and well it is an awesome lens. F2.8 full range and not to big or heavy. And yes every Tamron 17-50mm has XR. The reason some sale websites drop a few of those letters is because the name already is rather long. I mean ASP AF IF LD XR F2.8 blah blah blah. Its a rather long name. But there are only 2 versions of the tamron 17-50mm and both have XR technology. it is part of why it is so small compared to other lenses in said ranges.

No experience with the 17-70, well it aint F2.8 full range but well it does offer a longer range.

The Sigma 17-50mm F2.8 is another option, it has HSM, a quite less noisy way of focussing. The Tamron uses screw drive!

There is yes the 18-50mm F2.8-4.5 tests show it is a good performer. Again no experience but it is tested well and yeah cheaper then the F2.8 full range variants. So not a bad first replacement lens. I think the sigma 17-50mm and tamron 17-50mm are kinda equal.

 

[123Mike]

Tamron can be found under $300 often. It's constant 2.8, even at 50mm. You can easily crop that extra 20m. photozine has great things to say about the sharpness of it. I think it's no content. Tamron hands down.