Reading mode: Light Dark

Tamron 17-50mm F2.8 or Sigma 17-70 F2.8-4.5

Go to last post
S

steve8264

Active member
Messages
74
Reaction score
0
Location
US
Just upgraded from a 5D to an A200. Looking to perhaps improve upon the kit lens. Debating between the Tamron 17-50mm F2.8 which stays at 2.8 but only goes to 50mm and the Sigma 17-70 F2.8-4.5 which goes to 70mm but does so at 4.5. Both are well reviewed at Dyxum. I already have the low-cost Tamron 55-200 4-5.6 which is fairly decent but has focusing problems at low light. I know the person behind the lens is more important than the lens, so maybe I should save a few bucks enjoy the kit lens? My eyesight is not that great anyways so mabye I wouldn't be able to tell the difference! Any suggestions?
 
Tamron is much better only couple of defects.

Sigma has plentiful design defects combined wiht the widely renowned sigma poor quality (tm)

Seriously the difference 50 to 70 is negligible. The difference 2.8 to 4.5 is difference between usable in all conditions to useless in most conditions. Siigma does 2.8 only at 17mm even at 18mm it closes to 23.5

Sigma has very pronounced vignetting, slow focus and very very soft corners.
steve8264 said:
Just upgraded from a 5D to an A200. Looking to perhaps improve upon
the kit lens. Debating between the Tamron 17-50mm F2.8 which stays
at 2.8 but only goes to 50mm and the Sigma 17-70 F2.8-4.5 which goes
to 70mm but does so at 4.5. Both are well reviewed at Dyxum. I
already have the low-cost Tamron 55-200 4-5.6 which is fairly decent
but has focusing problems at low light. I know the person behind the
lens is more important than the lens, so maybe I should save a few
bucks enjoy the kit lens? My eyesight is not that great anyways so
mabye I wouldn't be able to tell the difference! Any suggestions?
Click to expand...
 


I tried the Tamron 17-50 and the one I got had extreme back focus problems. I'm presently using the Sig 24-70 and like it very much but miss the wide end of the 17-70.

--
Busch

Take the scenic route! Life is too short to do otherwise.

http://www.pbase.com/busch
 
I just got the Sigma last week and I think it's awesome. I'd say go for the Sigma.

Here's one from it :



--

Sony A-Two Hundred | Canon A-Seven Hundred
 
steve8264 said:
Just upgraded from a 5D to an A200. Looking to perhaps improve upon
the kit lens. Debating between the Tamron 17-50mm F2.8 which stays
at 2.8 but only goes to 50mm and the Sigma 17-70 F2.8-4.5 which goes
to 70mm but does so at 4.5. Both are well reviewed at Dyxum. I
already have the low-cost Tamron 55-200 4-5.6 which is fairly decent
but has focusing problems at low light. I know the person behind the
lens is more important than the lens, so maybe I should save a few
bucks enjoy the kit lens? My eyesight is not that great anyways so
mabye I wouldn't be able to tell the difference! Any suggestions?
Click to expand...
Depends upon your personal philosophy for lenses. Personally, I prefer to sacrifice range for aperture, so the Tamron would be (and actually is) my choice. I also own a Tamron 70-200mm f2.8

Others adopt a strategy of sacraficing aperture for fewer lenses, which adds up to a lighter load and fewer lens changes.

Other still, prefer to collect only primes, which give the ultimate in IQ, but at a prohibative cost.

All approaches have their merits, you just need to decide which suits you best.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top