order your preference: sigma 18-50 or 24 -70 f2.8 or tamron 17-50 or 28-75 f2.8

p1tse

p1tse

Suspended / Banned
Messages
2,391
Edit My Images
No
any opinions on these four:
sigma 18-50 f2.8
sigma 24 -70 f2.8
tamron 17-50 f2.8
tamron 28-75 f.28

looking for a sharper lens in the future, and find alot of my pictures are of friends and family, and just general stuff i see fun.

any opinions and if you know and have tried or tested the above, order them in preference and why?

what's my money best spent on and any to avoid for sure?
 
You could try here, but remember a lens that works well on a Nikon or Canon might be crap on a Sony and vice versa...
 
I've got the Siggy 24-70 as well. Good choice :thumbs:
 
What about a Sigma 24-60? something not to rule out IMO, a cracking lens at a low cost

if thats of no interest the one that stands out from reviews etc is the Tamron 17-50
 
Flash In The Pan said:
You could try here, but remember a lens that works well on a Nikon or Canon might be crap on a Sony and vice versa...
Click to expand...

thanks, had a search, but nothing listed with all four.
also didn't realise about things being different for different branded body etc.
 
those above who have the sigma 28-70, why did you choose this over the others?
 
got a PM, when i asked someone else:

"I've owned both lens, the Tam 17-50 with my A700 and now the Tam 28-75 on the A900.

Ignoring focal length, I would say that the 17-50 is the sharper lens on APS-C and the one to go for.

The Tam 28-75 isn't really (IMO) very usable at f2.8, but does get mcuh better at f4.

The Tam 17-50 is also soft at f2.8, but sharper than the 28-75 and f2.8 is usable. Also the 28-75 are known to Back/Front Focus (as is the Sigma 24-70) - so you need to be careful when purchasing secondhand. I've not seen any FF/BF issues reported with the 17-50.

Hopefully this is helpful.. For the money the 17-50 is the one to go for "

any comments

to be honest, my money is on tamron 17-50, unless any of the above sold used at a unresistable price
 
All of these lenses are actually pretty good--the trick is to get a good one.If buying new thats not a problem as Tamron and Sigma warranty is pretty good.If buying second hand--then make sure you can either try it out first or have a money back guarantee.Most of the adverse comments about Sigma and Tamron are down to QC issues which are difficult to resolve on second hand lenses.
All things being equal then it really comes down to where you see the lens sitting in your lineup.Is the shorter or longer focal length more important?
I have owned both the Sigma 18-50 and the Tamron 17-50----they are both very good. I have also owned the longer Tamron and that was equally as good ---I am just happier having the wider angle.The review sites are all generally favourable.My guess is that you will enjoy whichever lens you plump for and thats whats really important.
Pete.
 
I have the Tamron 17-50 and its a cracker, reviews I read swayed me to it (just) over the Sigma's on sharpness for APS-C, don't think there is truely a lot of difference in the real world between them
 
I bought the Tamron 17-50 because it seemed to have a slight edge over the 18-50 Sigma. I only considered those two on the crop sensor of the 40D because I preferred the focal range.

If I was going full frame - and couldn't get the Canon equivalent - I'd go for the Sigma 24-70mm I think.
 
Andysnap said:
Yep he's right, sharper than a sharp thing thats been sharpened by something sharp. :thumbs:
All these were taken with that lens.
http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=103415

Andy
Click to expand...

Which lens are you talking about, Andy :thinking:?

From the post above, I assume that you meant the Sigma 24-60mm (which I'm currently researching), but in the linked post you wrote:

"Most, if not all, of these were taken using a Nikon D7, Sigma 24-70mm and my Xmas pressie, a set of Cokin filters so forgive any elementary mistakes as it was the first time they have been used".

:|
 
JUST bought a Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 EX DG.

Fast, accurate focussing, sharp, full frame (you know it's the way forward!) and a reasonable cost (Nikon fit is in the Jessie's sale - sorry, Sony isn't) plus a 3 year Sigma warranty.

I was also considering the 28-70 Sigma but after a search here and elsewhere, decided that the 24-70 was a better bet (and was the same price in the sale). Looking forward to giving the lens a more thorough test run when there's a little more unavailable light.
 
I can vouch for the Tamron 17-50 it's tack sharp. Just bought a Nikon 17-55 and the Tamrons IQ is on a par with it!!, i'll still be selling the Tamron on here soon though:thumbs:
 
anyone got the 28-75 tamron on a sony a300, which i'm thinking of a used model?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top