Sigma 15-30mm or 17-35mm? Opinions anyone?

[Airborne]

I am interested in buying one or the other.
Sigma 15-30mm EX ASP
or
Sigma 17-35mm EX ASP DG HSM

Has anyone used any of Sigma's 17-35mm lenses and or 15-30mm?
Is one possibly better than the other?

 

[Yves P.]

The 15-30 eats the 17-35 alive with sharpness and contrast.

It is bulkier but it is a much better lens.

I am interested in buying one or the other.
Sigma 15-30mm EX ASP
or
Sigma 17-35mm EX ASP DG HSM

Has anyone used any of Sigma's 17-35mm lenses and or 15-30mm?
Is one possibly better than the other?

--
Yves P.
PBASE Supporter

Some pictures I like:
http://www.pbase.com/yp8/root

 

[Jonathan F.]

Yves it right. The 15-30 is awsome. I haven't shot with the 17-35 though. It's my most favorite lens.

It is bulkier but it is a much better lens.

I am interested in buying one or the other.
Sigma 15-30mm EX ASP
or
Sigma 17-35mm EX ASP DG HSM

Has anyone used any of Sigma's 17-35mm lenses and or 15-30mm?
Is one possibly better than the other?

--
Yves P.
PBASE Supporter

Some pictures I like:
http://www.pbase.com/yp8/root

--
------------------------------



inhousephoto inc. digital / photography / media
http://www.inhousephoto.com

 

[Airborne]

Thank you for the information. That’s what I needed to know guys. By the way, I owe you an apology Yves P. One time I made a remark to you that was not necessary and out of line.

It is bulkier but it is a much better lens.

I am interested in buying one or the other.
Sigma 15-30mm EX ASP
or
Sigma 17-35mm EX ASP DG HSM

Has anyone used any of Sigma's 17-35mm lenses and or 15-30mm?
Is one possibly better than the other?

--
Yves P.
PBASE Supporter

Some pictures I like:
http://www.pbase.com/yp8/root

--
------------------------------



inhousephoto inc. digital / photography / media
http://www.inhousephoto.com

 

[Yves P.]

Hey, no problems ... To be honnest, I don't remember.

No hard feelings,

Take care now.

--
Yves P.
PBASE Supporter

Some pictures I like:
http://www.pbase.com/yp8/root

 

[Marco Frissen]

Guys,

hang-on a little bit..

the initial poster was talking about the new 17-35mm (the DG version) of Sigma, not the (below-average) old version (non DG)!

I haven't seen any samples of the former yet, and I bet Yves and Jonathan might be confused with the old Sigma..

Then again, they might not be, let them answer

In any case, I'll have a NEW 17-35mm sigma to test real soon (should be this weekend), I'll show samples from testing on my site next week probably.

Hey, no problems ... To be honnest, I don't remember.

No hard feelings,

Take care now.

--
Yves P.
PBASE Supporter

Some pictures I like:
http://www.pbase.com/yp8/root

--
http://marcof.net -- MarcoF photography

 

[Yves P.]

--
Yves P.
PBASE Supporter

Some pictures I like:
http://www.pbase.com/yp8/root

 

[funfoto]

Hi,

I've owned the Sigma 15-30 mm and sold it to a friend of mine who needed the widest lens possible (zoom) at that time. I now own a new Tamron, this is a very sharp lens with very good specs. The extra 2mm was not an issue for me after comparing both in several shots and the distortion of the tamron is better, both lenses give sharp images, tamron is faster glas, and performs really outstanding.

This is a D100 + Tamron 17-35mm shot at 17mm f/3.2 near sunset, don't mind the compositions but look at the details and shaprness almost wide open, this is without additional postprocessing (NEF to jpg)

I am interested in buying one or the other.
Sigma 15-30mm EX ASP
or
Sigma 17-35mm EX ASP DG HSM

Has anyone used any of Sigma's 17-35mm lenses and or 15-30mm?
Is one possibly better than the other?

--
Regards,
http://www.profoto.be

 

[nenad212662]

The sigma 15-30mm is the best bet guaranteed!

hang-on a little bit..
the initial poster was talking about the new 17-35mm (the DG
version) of Sigma, not the (below-average) old version (non DG)!

I haven't seen any samples of the former yet, and I bet Yves and
Jonathan might be confused with the old Sigma..

Then again, they might not be, let them answer

In any case, I'll have a NEW 17-35mm sigma to test real soon
(should be this weekend), I'll show samples from testing on my site
next week probably.

Hey, no problems ... To be honnest, I don't remember.

No hard feelings,

Take care now.

--
Yves P.
PBASE Supporter

Some pictures I like:
http://www.pbase.com/yp8/root

--
http://marcof.net -- MarcoF photography

 

[Yves P.]

hang-on a little bit..
the initial poster was talking about the new 17-35mm (the DG
version) of Sigma, not the (below-average) old version (non DG)!

I haven't seen any samples of the former yet, and I bet Yves and
Jonathan might be confused with the old Sigma..

Then again, they might not be, let them answer

In any case, I'll have a NEW 17-35mm sigma to test real soon
(should be this weekend), I'll show samples from testing on my site
next week probably.

Hey, no problems ... To be honnest, I don't remember.

No hard feelings,

Take care now.

--
Yves P.
PBASE Supporter

Some pictures I like:
http://www.pbase.com/yp8/root

--
http://marcof.net -- MarcoF photography

--
Yves P.
PBASE Supporter



Some pictures I like:
http://www.pbase.com/yp8/root

 

[Marco Frissen]

I just picked up the 17-35 AFD DG EX HSM Asph. for testing.
So far I'm pretty positive.
I'll write up a full test report for nikonians.org (ETA: within one, 1.5 week)
I try to get a hold of a friend's 15-30 and see how they compare..

Marco

 

[macuser]

Great lens at a reasonable price.

 

[Rich Simpson UK]

I third the Tamron.
Sold my Sigma 15-30.
Tamron is all you need. Makes a great pairing with the 28-75di

I've owned the Sigma 15-30 mm and sold it to a friend of mine who
needed the widest lens possible (zoom) at that time. I now own a
new Tamron, this is a very sharp lens with very good specs. The
extra 2mm was not an issue for me after comparing both in several
shots and the distortion of the tamron is better, both lenses give
sharp images, tamron is faster glas, and performs really
outstanding.

This is a D100 + Tamron 17-35mm shot at 17mm f/3.2 near sunset,
don't mind the compositions but look at the details and shaprness
almost wide open, this is without additional postprocessing (NEF to
jpg)

I am interested in buying one or the other.
Sigma 15-30mm EX ASP
or
Sigma 17-35mm EX ASP DG HSM

Has anyone used any of Sigma's 17-35mm lenses and or 15-30mm?
Is one possibly better than the other?

--
Regards,
http://www.profoto.be

--
Kind regards,

Rich Simpson

 

[ohhenryca]

Here is another link to read on the two lenses with many samples of the new Tamron http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1030&message=7574464

The Sigma is 3.5 and the Tamron is a 2.8. The Sigma colors are very Canon like (warm) where the Tamron is more Nikkor like (cool)!

I've owned the Sigma 15-30 mm and sold it to a friend of mine who
needed the widest lens possible (zoom) at that time. I now own a
new Tamron, this is a very sharp lens with very good specs. The
extra 2mm was not an issue for me after comparing both in several
shots and the distortion of the tamron is better, both lenses give
sharp images, tamron is faster glas, and performs really
outstanding.

This is a D100 + Tamron 17-35mm shot at 17mm f/3.2 near sunset,
don't mind the compositions but look at the details and shaprness
almost wide open, this is without additional postprocessing (NEF to
jpg)

I am interested in buying one or the other.
Sigma 15-30mm EX ASP
or
Sigma 17-35mm EX ASP DG HSM

Has anyone used any of Sigma's 17-35mm lenses and or 15-30mm?
Is one possibly better than the other?

--
Regards,
http://www.profoto.be

--
Kind regards,

Rich Simpson

--
Jay
Fuji S2, Nikkor 80-200 2.8, Nikkor 28-105, Tamron 17-35 2.8, Metz 54MZ-3
http://www.fotki.com/ohhenryca
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/viewportfolio?id=33171

 

[Daniel Tan]

Hi,

Nice shot..

No doubt it has nice colors & very sharp! I like the tamron colors than the sigma which is warm.

Just wondering.. how does it compare to Nikon 17-35 f2.8 and Sigma 15-30mm in performance wise? Specially in low light conditions....

thanks,
Dan

I've owned the Sigma 15-30 mm and sold it to a friend of mine who
needed the widest lens possible (zoom) at that time. I now own a
new Tamron, this is a very sharp lens with very good specs. The
extra 2mm was not an issue for me after comparing both in several
shots and the distortion of the tamron is better, both lenses give
sharp images, tamron is faster glas, and performs really
outstanding.

This is a D100 + Tamron 17-35mm shot at 17mm f/3.2 near sunset,
don't mind the compositions but look at the details and shaprness
almost wide open, this is without additional postprocessing (NEF to
jpg)

I am interested in buying one or the other.
Sigma 15-30mm EX ASP
or
Sigma 17-35mm EX ASP DG HSM

Has anyone used any of Sigma's 17-35mm lenses and or 15-30mm?
Is one possibly better than the other?

--
Regards,
http://www.profoto.be

 

[Airborne]

Thanks for the information. I just went on Tamron's web site and looked at the lens. Nice. I also went to Dealtime to price it. Wow, it's in the high $400's. Seems like a good bargain. I am definitely considering the Tamron, in fact it would seem to be the lens I am looking for at the right price. So much for spending $1000+ dollars on a wide angle lens. It certainly doesn't look like I will be having a wide angle Nikon. I have read such good reviews on the Sigma 15-30?

I've owned the Sigma 15-30 mm and sold it to a friend of mine who
needed the widest lens possible (zoom) at that time. I now own a
new Tamron, this is a very sharp lens with very good specs. The
extra 2mm was not an issue for me after comparing both in several
shots and the distortion of the tamron is better, both lenses give
sharp images, tamron is faster glas, and performs really
outstanding.

This is a D100 + Tamron 17-35mm shot at 17mm f/3.2 near sunset,
don't mind the compositions but look at the details and shaprness
almost wide open, this is without additional postprocessing (NEF to
jpg)

I am interested in buying one or the other.
Sigma 15-30mm EX ASP
or
Sigma 17-35mm EX ASP DG HSM

Has anyone used any of Sigma's 17-35mm lenses and or 15-30mm?
Is one possibly better than the other?

--
Regards,
http://www.profoto.be

 

[Rich Simpson UK]

I still have the Sigma - after buying the Tamron.

I think one vital aspect that we all often forget when looking at new lens purchases, is that if a lens feels unweildy or just plain bulky, as the Sigma 15-30 most definately is, then you simply tend not to take it around with you - and then what is the point of all this glass? OK we can all stash a few pounds of expensive glass in the car and bring it out when needed, but the Tamron is the sort of size of lens that is easy to drop in your bag, put in your pocket, and use. With the Sigma I have even been asked what sort of telephoto lens I was using !!

And adjusting the exposure compensation on every shot is a bit of a pain too. OK its sharp enough, but then so is the Tamron.

I've owned the Sigma 15-30 mm and sold it to a friend of mine who
needed the widest lens possible (zoom) at that time. I now own a
new Tamron, this is a very sharp lens with very good specs. The
extra 2mm was not an issue for me after comparing both in several
shots and the distortion of the tamron is better, both lenses give
sharp images, tamron is faster glas, and performs really
outstanding.

This is a D100 + Tamron 17-35mm shot at 17mm f/3.2 near sunset,
don't mind the compositions but look at the details and shaprness
almost wide open, this is without additional postprocessing (NEF to
jpg)

I am interested in buying one or the other.
Sigma 15-30mm EX ASP
or
Sigma 17-35mm EX ASP DG HSM

Has anyone used any of Sigma's 17-35mm lenses and or 15-30mm?
Is one possibly better than the other?

--
Regards,
http://www.profoto.be

--
Kind regards,

Rich Simpson

 

[nenad212662]

You'right on some points but I disagree on others.

The extra 2 mm is very handy. We're talking about 15mm at a good price! Not so long ago any 15mm was out of price... 15mm is, for me, a godsend.

It is bulky BUT NOT heavy at all. It really comes down to a matter of space and absolutely NOT a weight issue.

Since I have that inexpensive and super sharp Sigma I'm really not dreaming nor thinking of any 12-24mm lens. I think this is pretty good. If I had a 17 or an 18 I'd always be hungry for the 12-24 Nikon and it would've ripped my pockets and morale. I still can't believe how Sigma got this one so perfectly: Hell! It's 35mm compatible! This is what I call a major "tour de force".

I think one vital aspect that we all often forget when looking at
new lens purchases, is that if a lens feels unweildy or just plain
bulky, as the Sigma 15-30 most definately is, then you simply tend
not to take it around with you - and then what is the point of all
this glass? OK we can all stash a few pounds of expensive glass in
the car and bring it out when needed, but the Tamron is the sort of
size of lens that is easy to drop in your bag, put in your pocket,
and use. With the Sigma I have even been asked what sort of
telephoto lens I was using !!

And adjusting the exposure compensation on every shot is a bit of a
pain too. OK its sharp enough, but then so is the Tamron.

I've owned the Sigma 15-30 mm and sold it to a friend of mine who
needed the widest lens possible (zoom) at that time. I now own a
new Tamron, this is a very sharp lens with very good specs. The
extra 2mm was not an issue for me after comparing both in several
shots and the distortion of the tamron is better, both lenses give
sharp images, tamron is faster glas, and performs really
outstanding.

This is a D100 + Tamron 17-35mm shot at 17mm f/3.2 near sunset,
don't mind the compositions but look at the details and shaprness
almost wide open, this is without additional postprocessing (NEF to
jpg)

I am interested in buying one or the other.
Sigma 15-30mm EX ASP
or
Sigma 17-35mm EX ASP DG HSM

Has anyone used any of Sigma's 17-35mm lenses and or 15-30mm?
Is one possibly better than the other?

--
Regards,
http://www.profoto.be

--
Kind regards,

Rich Simpson

 

[Rich Simpson UK]

I think the choice of wide angle zoom is one of the most difficult of the lot!

Your right - the 15-30 isn't that heavy, but after I bought the 17-35 Tamron I started to question how much benefit I would get from the extra "2mm" - taking into account the "negatives" of the Sigma (at least for me) - ie the 82mm filter size against 72mm for the Tamron, the yellow colour cast, the need for -0.5 or - 1.0 exp compensation, and the strong flare pattern, the slower lens speed - and the bulk ...

In fact the Tamron (25.5mm equiv) gives pretty well the old standard 24mm focal length, zooming to 52.5. And I do believe that the majority of users tens to use a lens such as this on most occasions, at the wide end of the zoom ie you have 25.5mm equiv. with f2.8 on hand - so a good, fast speed especially particularly when used with 400 or 800 ISO as on my S2.

So I use the Tamron as a good wide to standard fast lens - without the quirky nature of the Sigma! One day when I want a very low distortion wide angle for architectural work - then I'll probably go for a 12-24 - and the Sigma in fact has a better controlled distortion pattern than the Nikon. In the meantime the Tamron does a great job for most situations.

The extra 2 mm is very handy. We're talking about 15mm at a good
price! Not so long ago any 15mm was out of price... 15mm is, for
me, a godsend.
It is bulky BUT NOT heavy at all. It really comes down to a matter
of space and absolutely NOT a weight issue.

Since I have that inexpensive and super sharp Sigma I'm really not
dreaming nor thinking of any 12-24mm lens. I think this is pretty
good. If I had a 17 or an 18 I'd always be hungry for the 12-24
Nikon and it would've ripped my pockets and morale. I still can't
believe how Sigma got this one so perfectly: Hell! It's 35mm
compatible! This is what I call a major "tour de force".

I think one vital aspect that we all often forget when looking at
new lens purchases, is that if a lens feels unweildy or just plain
bulky, as the Sigma 15-30 most definately is, then you simply tend
not to take it around with you - and then what is the point of all
this glass? OK we can all stash a few pounds of expensive glass in
the car and bring it out when needed, but the Tamron is the sort of
size of lens that is easy to drop in your bag, put in your pocket,
and use. With the Sigma I have even been asked what sort of
telephoto lens I was using !!

And adjusting the exposure compensation on every shot is a bit of a
pain too. OK its sharp enough, but then so is the Tamron.

I've owned the Sigma 15-30 mm and sold it to a friend of mine who
needed the widest lens possible (zoom) at that time. I now own a
new Tamron, this is a very sharp lens with very good specs. The
extra 2mm was not an issue for me after comparing both in several
shots and the distortion of the tamron is better, both lenses give
sharp images, tamron is faster glas, and performs really
outstanding.

This is a D100 + Tamron 17-35mm shot at 17mm f/3.2 near sunset,
don't mind the compositions but look at the details and shaprness
almost wide open, this is without additional postprocessing (NEF to
jpg)

I am interested in buying one or the other.
Sigma 15-30mm EX ASP
or
Sigma 17-35mm EX ASP DG HSM

Has anyone used any of Sigma's 17-35mm lenses and or 15-30mm?
Is one possibly better than the other?

--
Regards,
http://www.profoto.be

--
Kind regards,

Rich Simpson

--
Kind regards,

Rich Simpson

 

[nenad212662]

By your exposure compensation, are you meaning it's actually a f2.8 and even an F2.4 lens at 15mm widest aperture?

f3.5 + (-1Ev) makes it a f2.4... All I can say is that I'm even happier now ;-)

I confess with you though, lens decisions are hard today... My 80-200 F2.8 is a great performer but with the new VR someone gets really confused even if it's 1000$ more! (vs. used almost new 80-200)

Just to jump off the topic: I often ask myself how many people have that VR and just really don't need it at all. By need I mean NEED (sports, pros...)

Your right - the 15-30 isn't that heavy, but after I bought the
17-35 Tamron I started to question how much benefit I would get
from the extra "2mm" - taking into account the "negatives" of the
Sigma (at least for me) - ie the 82mm filter size against 72mm for
the Tamron, the yellow colour cast, the need for -0.5 or - 1.0 exp
compensation, and the strong flare pattern, the slower lens speed -
and the bulk ...

In fact the Tamron (25.5mm equiv) gives pretty well the old
standard 24mm focal length, zooming to 52.5. And I do believe that
the majority of users tens to use a lens such as this on most
occasions, at the wide end of the zoom ie you have 25.5mm equiv.
with f2.8 on hand - so a good, fast speed especially particularly
when used with 400 or 800 ISO as on my S2.

So I use the Tamron as a good wide to standard fast lens - without
the quirky nature of the Sigma! One day when I want a very low
distortion wide angle for architectural work - then I'll probably
go for a 12-24 - and the Sigma in fact has a better controlled
distortion pattern than the Nikon. In the meantime the Tamron does
a great job for most situations.

The extra 2 mm is very handy. We're talking about 15mm at a good
price! Not so long ago any 15mm was out of price... 15mm is, for
me, a godsend.
It is bulky BUT NOT heavy at all. It really comes down to a matter
of space and absolutely NOT a weight issue.

Since I have that inexpensive and super sharp Sigma I'm really not
dreaming nor thinking of any 12-24mm lens. I think this is pretty
good. If I had a 17 or an 18 I'd always be hungry for the 12-24
Nikon and it would've ripped my pockets and morale. I still can't
believe how Sigma got this one so perfectly: Hell! It's 35mm
compatible! This is what I call a major "tour de force".

I think one vital aspect that we all often forget when looking at
new lens purchases, is that if a lens feels unweildy or just plain
bulky, as the Sigma 15-30 most definately is, then you simply tend
not to take it around with you - and then what is the point of all
this glass? OK we can all stash a few pounds of expensive glass in
the car and bring it out when needed, but the Tamron is the sort of
size of lens that is easy to drop in your bag, put in your pocket,
and use. With the Sigma I have even been asked what sort of
telephoto lens I was using !!

And adjusting the exposure compensation on every shot is a bit of a
pain too. OK its sharp enough, but then so is the Tamron.

I've owned the Sigma 15-30 mm and sold it to a friend of mine who
needed the widest lens possible (zoom) at that time. I now own a
new Tamron, this is a very sharp lens with very good specs. The
extra 2mm was not an issue for me after comparing both in several
shots and the distortion of the tamron is better, both lenses give
sharp images, tamron is faster glas, and performs really
outstanding.

This is a D100 + Tamron 17-35mm shot at 17mm f/3.2 near sunset,
don't mind the compositions but look at the details and shaprness
almost wide open, this is without additional postprocessing (NEF to
jpg)

I am interested in buying one or the other.
Sigma 15-30mm EX ASP
or
Sigma 17-35mm EX ASP DG HSM

Has anyone used any of Sigma's 17-35mm lenses and or 15-30mm?
Is one possibly better than the other?

--
Regards,
http://www.profoto.be

--
Kind regards,

Rich Simpson

--
Kind regards,

Rich Simpson