Sigma 17-70 or Tamron 17-50???

Jimbo_468

Jimbo_468

Suspended / Banned
Messages
416
Name
Jim
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi All,

I am currently running a Nikon D3100 and looking to upgrade my gear.

I'd like to replace the 18-55 kit lens. I also have a 35mm f1.8 prime and a 55-200mm.
I 'm stuck between a Sigma 17-70mm or the Tamron 17-50 (both with the optical/vibration stabilisers). While the Sigma has slightly more reach, the Tamron is cheaper.

I will use it as a walk around lens and I like to walk through London (south bank etc) taking random shots of people/buildings, and also take it in the countryside/seaside.

Anyone got these lenses that could provide a bit of feedback etc to help me make my mind up? I will be looking to upgrade to a D7000 in the near future.

cheers!!
 
I have a d3100 and the Tamron 17-50 VC. Its a brilliant lens - much,much sharper than the kit lens and a constant f2.8.

I do sometimes want a bit more reach..but the more gear we have, the more we want...
 
I have a D7000 with the Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4 OS 'Contemporary' lens, and find them to be a great combination. I love walking around cities with the camera, and this lens is a great performer. If you can live with not having a constant f2.8, then id say go for the Sigma....but then again ive never owned the Tamron so cant comment on that.
 
Cheers guys, although still non the wiser :-)

Im tempted by the Sigma for the extra reach and by the excellent reviews its had.

Looked on Flickr at photos using those lenses and they both look excellent!
 
Jimbo_468 said:
Cheers guys, although still non the wiser :)

Im tempted by the Sigma for the extra reach and by the excellent reviews its had.

Looked on Flickr at photos using those lenses and they both look excellent!
Click to expand...

Do you have a shop near you where you could try both?
 
+1 for the Sigma, both the older Stabilised HSM one or the new Contemporary. It's razor sharp, fast focussing and has a closer minimum focussing distance.
 
I was look at the same lenses, sigma due to the reach but in the end went for a Tamron 17 - 50 non vc with my D90, and it is a very nice sharp lens.
 
I had the Tamron 17-50 VC on my D7000 and sold it to buy the new Sigma 17-70mm which I now have on a D7100.
I much prefer the Sigma.It's smaller,lighter and has a better build quality..It's quieter too. It's sharp and I love the combo.

It also feels better balanced than the heavier Tamron,which I never really liked.
They both have a 72mm filter size.
 
Thanks so much guys. I don't have a shop near me that i could go and try both which is a shame.
Will keep an eye out to see if i can try individually.
 
I also have a D7000 and the Sigma 17-70os. Does everything i need, quick and sharp enough for me.
 
I have the Tamron on my Pentax K-R 90% of the and think it's a great lens in all conditions.
 
I had this decision 3 years ago. Did I go for reach with the Sigma or constant f2.8 with the Tamron. In the end I opted for the Sigma and haven't been disappointed, and when I upgrade from my 450D to a 70D, I imagane I'll get the extra stop anyway with the better high ISO performance of the 70D.
 
I've been looking at the sigma 17-70 2.8-4 & sigma 17-50 2.8 for about 4 months now (if not longer) and still can't decide to go for reach or the better low light of the 17-50! And have since spent the half the cash put aside for this lens on other things! Really need to get down to castle cameras and try them both out to make up my own mind as both have there great reviews
 
I have just ordered the Tamron after reading all the great reviews and it coming with the 5 year guarantee. Amazon have them at the moment at £323 (I ordered mine the day before and the price was £311, so it might come down again)
 
I was in a similar situation, although i was looking at the Tamron 28-75 vs Sigma 17-50, i ideally wanted the extra reach of tamron but after trying the sigma and seeing how sharp and lovley it was i couldnt resist, plus its very hard to get hold of the tamron over here currently and the sigma was on sale :)

This is my third sigma now, had a 24-70 (beast version) and 10-20 a few years ago and both were excellent. My only advice is try them out first to make sure you get a good copy!
 
Last edited:
I need a local camera shop!! although I am only half hour away from london, it is a bit of hassle to get there. Will make the effort! can anyone recommend one near one of the tourist places? that way I can drop the family off for half hour while I go and have a look. Will deco need to keep the Mrs away before she sees me spending hard earned cash :-)
 
I have the Tamron & I'm actually thinking of getting rid of it. Not because it's a bad lens (it's definitely better than the kit 18-55), but because the zoom isn't enough for interesting close ups & my 35mm 1.8 produces better images with nicer bokeh with a bit of movement on my part. I've not tried the sigma but I do own the 10-20 4-5.6 & that lens is beautiful, really nicely built & trustworthy. I think having the extra reach of the 17-70 might be good but would you be better looking for a lens that offers better options for a range you don't already have covered?
 
Plus one for the tamron non VC 17-50. Fabulous lens for the price on my d90.

Plenty of examples on my Flickr.

S
 
Jimbo_468 said:
I need a local camera shop!! although I am only half hour away from london, it is a bit of hassle to get there. Will make the effort! can anyone recommend one near one of the tourist places? that way I can drop the family off for half hour while I go and have a look. Will deco need to keep the Mrs away before she sees me spending hard earned cash :)
Click to expand...
I'd go to Cameraworld - just off Oxford Street, between Oxford Street and Tottenham Court Road tube stations.

Another vote for the Sigma here. I find the close-up facility very useful for tabletop work like my avatar.
 
Vote for the Tamron 17-50, posted an almost identical thread a year or so ago. The constant f2.8 sold it for me. Went for the non VC as it gets better reviews and haven't had a regret since.

Someone mentioned their prime getting better results, same justification for the Tamron over the Sigma, just move your feet (where possible), the constant f2.8 is great for indoor portraits - I'd of been frustrated with the Sigma at f4.

Hope that helps. a little.
 
Had a Nikon 18-70 and after going round the houses replaced it with a Sigma 17-50, which I dropped. Went all round the houses again and decided to get a S/H Nikon 17-55 2.8, but when I looked at my pics more than half were at 17mm or 50mm. So I got a Nikon 16-85 and think it is great. I'll probably get the Sigma fixed and sell which ever I use least, but I think I know already which that will be.
 
Thanks for all the comments - much appreciated.

I've been reading an online review of lenses that are available to upgrade your Nikon kit lens. This is what started me looking at the Sigma. I hadn't read it properly for a few days so went back and re-read their recommendations. Link is here - http://www.techradar.com/news/photo...lens-upgrade-for-nikon-dslrs-8-tested-1074259

They seem to say that the Tamron is actually not very good due to a few areas, namely lack of sharpness near the edge of the picture and build quality. Now, I'm no pro, but i also don't want to spend hard earned money on something that is not well rated.
Do any Tamron owners notice this, is the review acurate? They also rate the Sigma as runner up to the more expensive Nikon! so it seems that the Sigma is the way to go?
But this is only one review.

Also, is the vibration control required on the Tamron, or could I save a few pennies and get the previous versions?
 
Jimbo_468 said:
Thanks for all the comments - much appreciated.

I've been reading an online review of lenses that are available to upgrade your Nikon kit lens. This is what started me looking at the Sigma. I hadn't read it properly for a few days so went back and re-read their recommendations. Link is here - http://www.techradar.com/news/photo...lens-upgrade-for-nikon-dslrs-8-tested-1074259

They seem to say that the Tamron is actually not very good due to a few areas, namely lack of sharpness near the edge of the picture and build quality. Now, I'm no pro, but i also don't want to spend hard earned money on something that is not well rated.
Do any Tamron owners notice this, is the review acurate? They also rate the Sigma as runner up to the more expensive Nikon! so it seems that the Sigma is the way to go?
But this is only one review.

Also, is the vibration control required on the Tamron, or could I save a few pennies and get the previous versions?
Click to expand...

The non vc version is the good one.
 
I don't know how they are on Nikon, but I have the Tamron (non VC) and used to have the Sigma.
While I found the Sigma to be a good lens, I found the Tamron to be a definite upgrade. The constant f2.8 makes all the difference. I have never had cause to regret not having the extra bit of reach.
I believe, from reviews I read before buying the Tamron, that the non-image stabilised version is sharper.
 
Cheers guys. The Tamron would save me a few pennies - looking to get a D7000 soon :-)
 
Cheers guys. The Tamron would save me a few pennies - looking to get a D7000 soon :-)
 
Jimbo_468 said:
Thanks for all the comments - much appreciated.

I've been reading an online review of lenses that are available to upgrade your Nikon kit lens. This is what started me looking at the Sigma. I hadn't read it properly for a few days so went back and re-read their recommendations. Link is here - http://www.techradar.com/news/photo...lens-upgrade-for-nikon-dslrs-8-tested-1074259

They seem to say that the Tamron is actually not very good due to a few areas, namely lack of sharpness near the edge of the picture and build quality. Now, I'm no pro, but i also don't want to spend hard earned money on something that is not well rated.
Do any Tamron owners notice this, is the review acurate? They also rate the Sigma as runner up to the more expensive Nikon! so it seems that the Sigma is the way to go?
But this is only one review.

Also, is the vibration control required on the Tamron, or could I save a few pennies and get the previous versions?
Click to expand...
The one I had seemed very sharp (non OS version) but it felt really cheap and plastic. I'm sure it is a pretty good build quality but it felt much closer to the kit lens than my other lenses. Granted though that my other lenses were either long L lenses (3000 f/4 and 70-200 f/4) or tokina lenses so anything made mostly of plastic would feel cheap. I only had mine for a week before it broke and I replaced it with a 35 f/2.

Interesting to hear the 17-70 is smaller than the Tamron as the Tamron is a tiny lens.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top