Sigma 17-70/2.8-4 Vs Tamron 17-50/2.8

Hi All,

i own D90 and i m planning to purchase a new lens which i want to use it as a general walkabout..i have finalised these two lens..

1. Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4 DC Macro OS HSM1
2. Tamron 17-50/2.8

Both the lens are regarded as good walkabout lens confused in deciding which one to choose..
Advantage of Tamron is constant aperture and a well praised one..

Advantage of sigma is extra 20mm on the tele end and macrocapability is a plus..what i ll be losing the fast aperture when compared...

i already have 35/1.8 which i m using it most of the time..plz suggest me to choose b/n two..which one is significantly better?

I started out exactly wondering about these two lens when I got my D90. After I bought my D300s I then bought the Tamron. A few weeks later I saw some images taken with the Sigma, so I thought I would give it a go and compare.

A year later I am now shooting weddings, and all sorts of special events. I have up graded from the D300s and D90 to a D700 and a D7000. I just sold the D90, and I am selling the D300s and the Tamron 17-50 2.8 VC.

It was a very nice lens, sharp at 2.8. But I find I use the macro (ring shots and close ups) and the extra 20mm more. Especially on the D7k as I have a stop advantage over

my old and wonderful D90. The Sigma is just as sharp IMO but a stop slower at the long end, it is at 3.2 or 3.5 at 50mm where the Tamron was at maxiumum focal length. Here are a couple of walk around shots I got with the Sigma -









Not award winners, but solid images. Both shots have been cropped.

It really comes down to whether you need 2.8 for motion is low light. If not then the Sigma might be the answer. Either way you will get a nice lens to go with a very good and fun DSLR.

Good luck with your decision
--
All the best and keep shooting ---

TLAnderson
Boston West Photography
http://bostonwestphoto.squarespace.com
(Gateway camera club member since 2006) Natick, MA

For general walkabout I'd take the extra 20mm and better close-up ability over the extra stop. If I was still shooting DX I'd have bought the Sigma 17~70 by now. I actually used a Nikon 16~85, but that was slower in the portrait range and had fussy bokeh. It was sharp though!
--
http://www.andrewsandersphotography.co.uk

Please consider also SIGMA 17-50 2.8.

I have tallked toi some Sigma-representative in Germany, all of them recomended this lense. It is expensiver than 17-70mm but the image quality is from another world.
17-70 is not really Macro: Magnification Ratio is only 0.37x / 1:2.7
You can see via slidehow an decide yourself:

http://www.flickr.com/search/groups/?q=sigma+17-50

http://www.flickr.com/search/groups/?q=sigma+17-70

My 16-85 is extremelly sharp but bokeh....

Vladi

It took me a while to make this same decision. I wanted 2.8 but I just didn't not want to stop at 50 mm. I looked at my needs carefully until I decided that the closeup shooting ability combined with nice bokeh would better suit my interest in flowers and nature. Got the 17-70os.





--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/brev00

I am a very happy 17-70 OS owner, used on a D70.
--
RaymondR

Those macros don't look so good. If it is for the extra macro capatibility, i woud not choose that lens. The tamron (first version) is sharper than the sigma.

Yes the Sigma 17-50 OS HSM has the low light magic, is extremely sharp.

Vladi Stoimenov said:

Please consider also SIGMA 17-50 2.8.

I have tallked toi some Sigma-representative in Germany, all of them recomended this lense. It is expensiver than 17-70mm but the image quality is from another world.
17-70 is not really Macro: Magnification Ratio is only 0.37x / 1:2.7
You can see via slidehow an decide yourself:

http://www.flickr.com/search/groups/?q=sigma+17-50

http://www.flickr.com/search/groups/?q=sigma+17-70

My 16-85 is extremelly sharp but bokeh....

Vladi

Click to expand...

I've been having the same dilemma: I have 35/1.8 that suits me well, but sometimes a zoom might be handy. I went through my old pics and realized that actually I Don't use wa that much. I have almost talked myself into Tamron 28-75, since I dont want to stop @ 50 but want a constant aperture. It has no Vr or Vc or OS, but I have managed without this far... I think that I'll get one tomorrow and shoot a wedding with it on Saturday.

ltcdata said:

Those macros don't look so good. If it is for the extra macro capatibility, i woud not choose that lens. The tamron (first version) is sharper than the sigma.

Click to expand...

It's not just the fact that this sigma has a rather good magn. rat. but that it is almost impossible to be to close to your subject which makes it a user friendly standard lens.
Also the range : bit wider than normal and on APS-C 70mm is prety tele already!
Also the F-range: around F3.2 for a large portion of its focal-range.

It has a very effective OS and I like the HSM which allows me to track bee's using the D7000!

It's sharp wide open and when used for 'semi-macro's' I would stop it down one or two stops. The lens becomes just a bit softer at MFD

I don't own and never tried either lens and can't give advice on which to choose, but I think it may be wise to ask yourself a question - are you into portrait use as well? It seems to me that slower 17-70 may not be as good for portrait as faster 17-50 (either sigma or tamron). I would like to ask those who used either lenses:
1. is 17-70 really not so good for portrait when you need shallow DOF?
2. is tamron or sigma 17-50 good for portrait when you need need shallow DOF?

Of course, if you don't care for portraits - never mind.

As for the macro - I insist one should use dedicated lenses. I never saw an image I liked that is done by not a dedicated macro. "Acceptable" images don't impress me.

Nik

It’s a lot more expensive, though there is quite a significant difference for the better in the sigma 17-50mm os hsm – after f4 through the range and from corner to corner it’s remarkably sharp to just above f11. The caveat being its weakest point is at 35mm, there it has to be stopped down quite a bit to match its other focal lengths.

A good copy is far superior to the Nikon 17-55mm or the Cannon equivalent, which is remarkable.

In contrast the Tamron in its better non VC incarnation, needs to be stopped down to f5.6 to really excel.

Kind regards.

--

I also thing that a good sigma 17-50 is at least equal to Nikkor 17-55.
Just see this marvelous pictures

http://www.flickr.com/search/groups/?m=pool&s=int&z=t&w=1449225%40N25&q=nikon+D7000

Your investment is not for a few monts, wait a little and get the best!

Vladi

Macros? What Macros? They were cropped shots from a around 6 and 10 feet away. The comparison I did between the Sigma 17-70 and Tamron 17-50 at 17mm and 50mm didn't show the Tamron as sharper. They both had softness on the corners with sharp centers.

I said the 17-70 lens has a decent macro or should I say close up ability more so than a true macro.

The Sigma 17-50 is a lens I haven't checked out but I keep hearing good things about it.
--
All the best and keep shooting ---

TLAnderson
Boston West Photography
http://bostonwestphoto.squarespace.com
(Gateway camera club member since 2006) Natick, MA

What version of the tamron?
The sharper is the first version, screwdrive AF.

The other versions suffer from optical aberrations and are in the same league as the sigma.

nkarasev said:

Nik wrote:
1. is 17-70 really not so good for portrait when you need shallow DOF?
2. is tamron or sigma 17-50 good for portrait when you need need shallow DOF?

Click to expand...

Nik, 1st off there are two factors to depth of field. The distance from the subject and the distance the subject is from the back ground. You can have good bokeh with a 5.6 aperture if you know what your doing. You can blur out the back ground with a 70-300G vr lens.

nkarasev said:

As for the macro - I insist one should use dedicated lenses.

Click to expand...

Nik the Sigma 17-70 isn't a true 1:1 macro lens, it has a very nice close up ability 1:27 ratio. This lens is a very nice walk around lens that can do portraits.

nkarasev said:

I never saw an image I liked that is done by not a dedicated macro. "Acceptable" > images don't impress me.

Click to expand...

I am not sure what you mean by the last sentence you wrote.
--
All the best and keep shooting ---

TLAnderson
Boston West Photography
http://bostonwestphoto.squarespace.com
(Gateway camera club member since 2006) Natick, MA

I've owned both Sigma 17-70 old version (2.8-4.5) and

the three Tamrons 17-50 F/2.8 (Non-BIM, BIM, and VC). I have had several copies of each Tamron model in Nikon and even Canon mount.

Sigma 17-70 is an incredibly sharp zoom





and it has HSM unlike the three Tamrons, so it focuses fast and silently. I like that.

Out of the three Tamrons, as everyone knows, the non-BIM version is the sharpest and focuses fastest, the VC is second and BIM non-VC version is weakest of the 3. Tamrons are good and the 2.8 is nice, but I was very impressed by Sigma 17-70.
--

I too am impressed with the sharpness of my 17-70 but I have the newer version.

Lovely lady. Take on Maui? Fairmont Kea Lani or nearby?
--
RaymondR

RaymondR said:

I too am impressed with the sharpness of my 17-70 but I have the newer version.

Lovely lady. Take on Maui? Fairmont Kea Lani or nearby?
--
RaymondR

Click to expand...

Thanks, the lady is my wife, and Maui of course. The first photo is somewhere near Wailea and the second one I think was at Aston in Kaanapali.

--