Guys, wondering why most of the people will choose Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 instead of Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5?

Which one will you choose? and what is the reason behind?

Both lenses overview...

i like tamron f2.8 fix aperture myself~mean it can be f2.8 from 17mm to 50mm while sigma not able to do so ...

good post..

aiyo...no need create wan

answer already listed.

CONSTANT 2.8 and NON CONSTANT 2.8 APEATURE!

Tamron zoom until 50mm still f2.8

whereas Sigma nope. Zoom until 50-70mm its F4.5. No large apeature.

Tamron, why? For the F/2.8 constant aperture which is extremely useful during low light.

but then ppl who like macro will get sigma as it come with a macro mode~

sigma also have a f2.8 constant aperture lens I'd go for that over the tammy and its the same zoom range as the 18-50mm, except for the extra 1mm on the wider end the tammy have

I think i'll go for tammy, can easily replace the 50mm 1.8 II when u wanna shoot bokeh. but... i wont buy this tammy. =) coz i have another lens in mind. hahaha...

^17-40L? 16-35 f2.8 II L?

wow! now i know tke tamron fix 2.8 even 50mm ... thanks guys ... i thought i want to buy sigma 17-70 ...

what other lens in your mind?



lol... so now you know... actually same to me as well... because I was asking this to vladimir, but I don't want to hear his words... you know la, taukeh sure tell you apa pun good one ma, right?

Sickma build turn me off

Sigma's coating on the lens is a big turn off for me when it starts to peel

tamron, because of constant aperture

price wise, i think the tamron is cheaper.

d tammy is cheaper than sigma's offerings but no hsm. so i guess i depends on your usage.

how about the nikkor vs sigma vs tamron ?

and canon vs sigma vs tamron ?

i heard for canon / nikkor still the best, just the price is higher for the same features
izzit true ?

nikon has the better build, maybe better optics(subjective) and a higher price.

Sigma coating is damn nice to hold but not nice when peel. mine not yet peel. hehe. Let's see how long it takes to peel.

anyway should compare the Tam 17-50 f2.8 with http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_al...320&navigator=6

AFAIK the Sigma is more costly.

I used to have a sigma lens before on my E500 Olympus (55-200).
Not good one. The rubberish feel is yucky as it feels like sticky but powedery.

But I still choose Sigma here as I am looking for Macro lens... thatsall...

how much difference between 17mm and 18mm?

preference la. i like the Sigma's feel. hehe. of course i don't buy because of the feel la but it's still nice.

nikkor 17-50 f2.8 sharp... but cost around RM 3K... almost double the price of the tammy

that is why some people will prefer to get a 3rd party lens instead of that...

but if stick to the topic, is it only because Tamron has constant f/2.8 in between 17-50mm? anything else?

how much does the Tammy cost?

rm1.5k or less.

a constant 2.8 is one hell of an advantage d and it's prolly sharper than the mentioned sigma lens

1 mm makes alot of differences for men of course

Dude where do you get the Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8 lens for RM3k man? So cheap!

Most of them I see brand new even at YL Camera is around RM5k while the 2nd hand ones are around RM4.2k

We ask him Bulk la... then we all buy... come come...

i think i have mistaken that with the canon 17-55 f2.8 IS sorry this one second hand RM3K - RM3.5K

as for me ah... two lenses in mind. one is 17~85mm F4~5.6 IS, and maybe 17~40mm f4 L gua.. cause both lens also not bad and is around the my price range.

17~85mm
pros: wider range of focal length, IS, Build of lens is good. permanent lense length(when zooming lense's length is still the same), solid touch.

cons: no hood comes along when purchase, 17mm have barrel distortion, very sharp but not super sharp like L lens. LOL.

17-40mm L
pros: it's a L lens LOLs, less barrel distortion at 17mm, EF lense can be used in full frame body in future, super sharp.

cons: short range of focal length lor, no IS.

Grr.....

the 17-85 does extend when zooming, I got that lens, unless there's a another ef-s 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM lens

if you look for reviews, the Tamron above is sharp .... while the Sigma above is not sharp

just now tested the Tamron's one, kinda sharp as yuo mentioned...

Tamron 17-50mm vs Sigma 18-50mm Macro.

Found this on a Taiwan forum, this is the english translate version:
http://209.85.135.104/translate_c?hl=en&la...tamronsigma.htm

Original source:
http://www.mobile01.com/topicdetail.php?f=248&t=259497

i've been testing this 2 lens just now and finally i bought the tamron..picture were sharp! trust me, u wont regret a thing ! haha

tamron cheaper and constant aperture ..



where u got it ?

bought at sungei wang fotokem..near the front entrance there..sure u know one la..

below are my summary after playing with them for quite some while ago.

Sickma focus real fast but does not guarantee pristine image quality, tammy in the other hand, offers quality instead of focusing performances.

Nikon offers both at the cost of 3 times more expensive. Canon offers an over priced lens at this FL range.

somehow, I only hear Nikon users said it is sharp and not Canon... Because so far I am using it as my main lens, but, I don't think it is really sharp enough like a lot of people saying how sharp it is and etc etc...

Can any Canon user clarify this? For me, it is not sharp, but soft...

Reading the topic's title my first thought was.... "When in the world did Sigma release a 17-70mm f2.8 constant aperture lens"

The second thought was "How come I haven't heard of it"

The answer is plain for me at least : Tammy 17-50mm f2.8 for the constant aperture.

You forgot something. Canon offers both and on top of that the only 17-55 which comes with IS

yeap, its still an overpriced lens

the IS at this FL is not necessary and the for the price, the image quality is nothing to boast about. If tamron can make it so cheap and yet still kicking ass in the image quality why can't them at least come close.





i tested with D70 & D200, on D70 it is pristine sharp while at D200, the lens obviously does not have as good resolved power compare to my N17-55. On canon, I tested it with 400D & 40D, and I notice the edge sharpness is not as distinctive as nikon variant, the Canon jpeg need a minor sharpening, but then it still obviously sharper than the C17-55IS. You might wan to test whether ur C Body having mis focus issue with the lens as usual.



p/s: i personally own some of the lenses or have access to it anytime to came to the conclusion. Not sit at home reading from INTERNET

i wouldn't agree on tammy offering good quality. I'm using one, and I would say if budget allows I will take the 17-40 f4L or the 17-55 f2.8 IS anytime. The tammy is sharp, but the colour is abit bluish (can easily be fixed in photoshop) and the bokeh is not smooth and edgy.


Sigma has release the 18-50 f2.8, but i will take the Tammy because it's slightly sharper

I agreed on the 1740L offering much better value but not the 17-55IS, as for the bokeh, very subjective loh. majority of my clients are not die hard creamy bokeh lovers. As for the bluish, can easily fixed by WB adjustment or Hue adjustment lah.


the Sigma 18-50 is an very old lens, much pricier and not anything worth to boast about. I wouldnot mind using the 18-70 as a travel lens. still the only option that has a reasonably wide FL and offer 2.8-4.

given the over killing price of almost double the nikon cost over tamron, i don't think the nikon has double the sharpness of tamron or perform anywhere twice the better than the tamron.

the sigma 18-50 f2.8 is not that old, launch July 2004. The nikon 17-55 f2.8 is even older, launch July 2003.

cheers i dint say the N is cheap my 1st post already say the N is expensive. I also dint say N17-55 is newer than S1850.


My points is, for budget usage the T is worth the price while if u got the money to burn, go for the N if u use F mount lah of coz.
For canon, budget is still the T, but better options would be the C1740 rather than the C1755.

cheers

i'm just looking at every single aspect, be it Canon, Nikon, Sigma or Tamron. Sharing with others what I know and don't hide the truth from others the brand being 'whoreship'. That is just so immature and fanboy. I'm sure you are not

Worshiping rocks! At least it made a lot of persons felt great after paying luxury for gears


Don't worry I am not fanboy, i uses both C & N day in and day out. I find that most of the time, my C have problem on the focusing accuracy rather then the lens fault. If time permit, MF can get much better sharpness from the C lenses.

some users told me the tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 's AF is slow on D40..

i havent got a chance to try it out.

This lens is in my wishlist as well.. so many lenses to buy.. lol..

no need to argue....

i owned 17-40 f4L, tamron 17-50mm f2.8 ( previously ), both lens are sharp!

18-50 mm ... i have no idea..

17-70mm i also no idea..

but any lens can take good picture with smart skill.. :-)