Why choose Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8?, and not Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5?
|
|
  Jan 22 2008, 02:54 PM, updated 18y ago
Show posts by this member only | Post
#1
|
 
Senior Member
1,266 posts Joined: Jan 2003 From: The Lion City  
|
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... » Click to show Spoiler - click again to hide... « » Click to show Spoiler - click again to hide... « This post has been edited by xavierchan: Nov 25 2008, 09:17 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
Jan 22 2008, 03:04 PM
Show posts by this member only | Post
#2
|
Senior Member
581 posts Joined: Jan 2006 From: KL/PJ 
|
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 ...
|
|
|
Jan 22 2008, 03:07 PM
Show posts by this member only | Post
#3
|
Junior Member
152 posts Joined: Jun 2005
|
good post..
|
|
|
Jan 22 2008, 03:10 PM
Show posts by this member only | Post
#4
|
Senior Member
639 posts Joined: Oct 2004 From: NEW GENERATION ONLINE STORE
|
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. |
|
|
Jan 22 2008, 03:16 PM
Show posts by this member only | Post
#5
|
 
Elite
7,826 posts Joined: Jan 2003  
|
Tamron, why? For the F/2.8 constant aperture which is extremely useful during low light.
|
|
|
Jan 22 2008, 03:16 PM
Show posts by this member only | Post
#6
|
|
Senior Member
581 posts Joined: Jan 2006 From: KL/PJ
|
but then ppl who like macro will get sigma as it come with a macro mode~
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jan 22 2008, 03:22 PM
Show posts by this member only | Post
#7
|
Elite
4,744 posts Joined: Jan 2003 From: Kuala Lumpur
|
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 |
|
|
Jan 22 2008, 03:33 PM
Show posts by this member only | Post
#8
|
Senior Member
1,077 posts Joined: Nov 2006 From: Sabah,Sandakan Status:STUNNED
|
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...
|
|
|
Jan 22 2008, 03:37 PM
Show posts by this member only | Post
#9
|
|
Elite
4,744 posts Joined: Jan 2003 From: Kuala Lumpur
|
^17-40L? 16-35 f2.8 II L?
 |
|
|
Jan 22 2008, 03:41 PM
|
Junior Member
36 posts Joined: Jul 2005
|
wow! now i know tke tamron fix 2.8 even 50mm ... thanks guys ... i thought i want to buy sigma 17-70 ...
|
|
|
Jan 22 2008, 03:51 PM
|
|
Senior Member
1,266 posts Joined: Jan 2003 From: The Lion City
|
QUOTE(derek87 @ Jan 22 2008, 03:33 PM) 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... what other lens in your mind?  QUOTE(mrmerell @ Jan 22 2008, 03:41 PM) wow! now i know tke tamron fix 2.8 even 50mm ... thanks guys ... i thought i want to buy sigma 17-70 ... 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? |
|
|
Jan 22 2008, 04:26 PM
|
Senior Member
3,589 posts Joined: Mar 2005 From: Bolehland
|
Sickma build turn me off
|
|
|
Jan 22 2008, 04:37 PM
|
 
Staff
7,529 posts Joined: Jan 2003
|
Sigma's coating on the lens is a big turn off for me when it starts to peel
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jan 22 2008, 04:53 PM
|
Senior Member
1,161 posts Joined: Dec 2006 From: http://www.vincentpang.ws
|
tamron, because of constant aperture
price wise, i think the tamron is cheaper. |
|
|
Jan 22 2008, 05:30 PM
|
Senior Member
2,502 posts Joined: Apr 2005 From: Kuching,Kuala Lumpur, Gifu,Japan
|
d tammy is cheaper than sigma's offerings but no hsm. so i guess i depends on your usage.
|
|
|
Jan 22 2008, 05:39 PM
|
Senior Member
2,477 posts Joined: Feb 2005
|
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 ? This post has been edited by mindkiller6610: Jan 22 2008, 05:40 PM |
|
|
Jan 22 2008, 05:41 PM
|
|
Senior Member
2,502 posts Joined: Apr 2005 From: Kuching,Kuala Lumpur, Gifu,Japan
|
nikon has the better build, maybe better optics(subjective) and a higher price.
|
|
|
Jan 22 2008, 05:48 PM
|
 
Forum Admin
44,415 posts Joined: Jan 2003 
|
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. |
|
|
Jan 22 2008, 05:59 PM
|
Senior Member
4,504 posts Joined: Jul 2005 From: Planet Naboo
|
QUOTE(nairud @ Jan 22 2008, 04:37 PM) Sigma's coating on the lens is a big turn off for me when it starts to peel 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... |
|
|
Jan 22 2008, 06:00 PM
|
|
Senior Member
1,266 posts Joined: Jan 2003 From: The Lion City
|
QUOTE(goldfries @ Jan 22 2008, 05:48 PM) 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. how much difference between 17mm and 18mm? 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.  |
| Change to: |  0.0478sec
 0.55
 6 queries
 GZIP Disabled
Time is now: 5th December 2025 - 05:07 AM |
Quote