Sigma 18-50mm F2.8 verses Tamron 17-50 F2.8 – Nikon fit

mikeyw

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,436
Edit My Images
Yes
Guys,
I’ve had the Sigma 18-50 F2.8 for a good few months now and even did a wedding with it on my D90, in the main I’ve been pretty happy with it but my curiosity makes my wonder whether the similarly priced Tamron 17-50 F2.8 might be slightly better overall.
The Sigma seems pretty quick but does occasionally creep, I also seem to get some soft focus results at times but that might also be my poor technique. The last thing that I don’t care for is the yellow hue it delivers in certain light, easily corrected in pp’ing but rather it wasn’t there all the same.
I’m sure the Tamron isn’t perfect but I’m starting to get drawn towards swapping – what do people think ?....will I notice any improvement ?.....my key criteria is image sharpness and I believe the Tamron might just have the edge ?

TIA,
Mike.
 
can't comment, but when i do hook up a good image my tamron 28-75 f2.8 is super
 
I have recently been looking for a lens in this focal range and from a lot of recommendation I went for the Tamron.

the only issue people mentioned with the tamron is the noise from the auto focus but that really doesnt bother me.

I havnt used the sigma, so can't comment on its performance, but the tamron has been doing well soo far!
 
Any Nikon snappers experience of the Tamron ?
 
I have the 17-50 tamron on my d200 most of the time, I spent a lot of time researching this lens and the sigma 18-50.

I went to my local shop and test shot these two with the nikon 17-55 as a bench mark. The difference in image quality between between the nikon and the tamron is very small, in fact the only difference I could see was that the nikon held the highlights a little better! which I thought was strange?

The sigma had slightly more saturation in the colours but the tamron was the sharpest from what I could see. As you'd expect the nikon delivered both flawlessly.

the auto focus between the hsm sigma and the non hsm tamron from infinity to closest focus and back was very small, sigma was slightly faster but the focus motor in my d200 is quick anyway, so hsm made little difference, but the tamron was more accurate in lower light on my d200.

The tamron was louder but that didn't make any difference to me at all.

Over all at a 3rd of the cost of the nikon there was no contest! I went for the tamron, its so sharp sometime I feel I have to soften it out in pp!:eek:

I'd recommend the tamron to anyone wanting to upgrade there kit lens.

Hope this helps you out.

Daz:D
 
I can't help out from experience, but I have read about people having to wait for their FOURTH copy of the Sigma before getting a truly good one. The hood attachment on the Tamron is notorious for going loose, but this may be a mkI rather than mkII fault.

I find Sigmas use of a macro tag quite interesting considering the Tamron doesn't have one but it's minimum focus distance is a fraction closer than the Sigmas. All about PR I guess
 
Thanks for the '.' del !

Cheers guys - Think my mind might be made up - going to give the Tamron a try I think once I locate one.
 
I use the Tamron on the D300 and love it. For me, it's sharp, fast and gives excellent results.

It's my 'walkabout lens' and rarely off the camera. For me, as a hobbyist who can't and won't justify spending all the extra cash on the Nikon 17-55 it is a really excellent buy.
 
I'll throw in a vote for the Sigma just to confuse things.

I really like the build of this lens and was delighted with the image quality. I might have been unlucky but I've never had a Tamron lens where I was entirely happy.

A friend of mine had the 17-50 and initially loved it but soon found he had major focussing issues with it
 
Tamron A16 (No motor) is 67mm. And B005 (Motorised) is 72mm.

Sigma 18-50mm (No Macro) is 67mm, and Macro version (Either motor or no motor)is 72mm.

Most friends of mine perfer A16 than no macro Sigma. But Sigma with macro is more welcomed than A16 and B005.
 
Back
Top