Tamron 17-50 (non-vc) or Sigma 18-50 Concert Photography

carlosftw

carlosftw

Suspended / Banned
Messages
148
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi

I'd like to know which lens is meant to be better for low-light and concert photography out of the Tamron 17-50 non-vc and the Sigma 18-50 os hsm. Both 2.8 of course.

I've heard good and bad things about both. I'd really like to know which is faster at focussing and any info of first hand usage with concerts.

Does the HSM mean the Sigma will be faster? I currently have a D3000 but will probably upgrade to d90 or d7000 in near future. I currently have a 35mm 1.8 prime, just want more flexibility so looking to have a 2.8 alongside it.

Thanks.
 
i wouldn't think the difference in speed between the HSM on the sigma and the micro motor on the tamron will make much difference for concert photography to be honest, and they're both 2.8. OS won't help with moving people (jumping up and down on stage etc) but it might give some interesting blur at lower shutter speeds. Either would do
 
Thanks for your post.

Do you think I should go for the tamron non-vc? Apparently the non-vc is better than the VC version. Not even sure VC will help in concerts when I'm trying to keep shutter speed relatively fast?

I'd go with the nikon but at around double the price just cannot afford it.
 
i've got the tamron non-vc and it's sharp wide open which is what you need. 2.8 isn't very fast for dark indoor venues anyway so you'll be needing to bump your iso up pretty high to at least 1600 i should think, so you might struggle with noise.
 
How fast is the focussing motor when shooting low light though? ISO shouldn't be a problem when I upgrade to better camera. Do you have any concert shots with this lens? Thanks.
 
hi just got back to this, i've got a 40d and it's very fast to focus in low light. a little noisy but i can live with that
 
I also use the Tamron 17-50mm. I mainly specialise in Gig and event photography and use it on an EOS 550D. To be fair I cant fault it. Focus is fairly good and fairly fast in low light and the image quality is superb, even wide open at 17mm. It also seems that the Tamron suffers from less general issues over time.

A friend of mine has the Sigma 18-50mm and is now on his third lens. 1st one had issues with decentering (a common issue with the Sigma) and also the aperture stopped closing down from 28mm through to 50mm. The 2nd one also had decentering issues and the 3rd one seems to be ok.

From trying the Sigma on my camera the focusing does seem marginly faster and general image quality is as good as the Tamron, but for me I would stick with the Tamron.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top