Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 VS Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4.5

  • 26-01-2009 12:03pm
    #1
    kgiller
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 694 ✭✭✭


    Just interested in finding out peoples views on these 2 lenses. Ive read some reviews already on dpreview and fredmiranda but want to know what people here think.

    Both are about the same price. Tamron has shorter length but f2.8 all the way through. Sigma has longer length but smaller aperture on the long side.

    Anyone tried these lenses out?


Comments

  • #2
    Howitzer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 461 ✭✭Howitzer


    A previous post of mine may be of some help: link

    In my case I went for the 18-55is kit lens. (keeping it on the cheap side and spending money elsewhere.)

    happy choosing. let us know what you go for.
    If I were to choose between the 2 you are looking at I'd go for the 17-50 2.8.

    Have a look online for the breakdown on 2.8 to 4.5 and at what focal length the changes are.

    Cheers


  • #3
    kgiller
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 694 ✭✭✭kgiller


    I should say that i have the 18-55 (non IS) kit lens, and am looking for a must sharper and faster lens that i can use as walkabout lens. Also have the 50mm 1.8 and sigma 70-300.


  • #4
    sasar
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 617 ✭✭✭sasar


    Tamron is a great lense for it's price.


  • #5
    Pivot_Al
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 596 ✭✭✭Pivot_Al


    I have the Sigma 17-70 and it stays on my camera most of the time. It would be nice if it was 2.8 all the way but for me its not really an issue as I usually take landscape type pictures where mid apertures are the norm.

    build quality is good for the price and image quality is excellent- definitely a good step up from the kit lenses.

    I think it boils down to whether you prefer the continuous 2.8 of the Tamron over the extra reach of the Sigma. I think either would serve you well if you don't need the better build quality and focussing speed of the pro series lenses.


  • #6
    Arciphel
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,843 ✭✭✭Arciphel


    Go for the Sigma 17-70 in my opinion. If you go for the 17-50, then you will have a big gap in your focal range from 50 to 70mm which is where you should be shooting your portraits on a cropped D-SLR camera. You will probably be stepping down from f2.8 on the Tamron lens anyway to get better sharpness.

    The copy I had of the 17-70 was razor sharp on my Nikon D200, I only sold that lens when I went full frame, and if I could have kept it I would have. Just my two cents...


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    Balfey1972
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 811 ✭✭✭Balfey1972


    waiting on my new tamron 28-75 f2.8. Like you Kieran I am just repllacing the kit lens that came with my 400d. Next on the list is the sigma 10-20.


Advertisement