Tamron 17-50 or Sigma 18-50

K

kevmalone

Suspended / Banned
Messages
284
Edit My Images
No
What do you think?
I've read reviews that Sigma is better but I'm after real world expreience.

TIA
 
Cant comment on the sigma but own the Tamron, the non VC screw driven one and its very sharp throughout the range, nice colour retention and fast focusing
 
I can't comment on Tamron but I have the Sigma and think it's just fantastic, ultra sharp even wide open and very fast focusing.
 
There's a tonne of threads on this forum about the Tamron. I too have this lens and can echo everything Dan has just said about it. :)
 
Thanks for the replys.
How are each of them for focusing in low light?
 
The Sigma is a very nice lens, but the Tamron is better and probably the best you can buy on that price range. The Tokina recommended by Boldonian is also an excellent lens.
Take in account non of them is compatible with full frame cameras so, if you think you're going to migrate to a D700 or D3 soon, you better buy a Tamron 28-75mm or a Sigma 24-70mm.
 
I did immense amounts of research into the Tamron, Sigma and Tokina.

I eventually decided on the Tamron 2.8 VC. And I love it.

I'm sure they would all be similar without one being hugely better than the others, but I can say from using the Tamron extensively that it has a great build quality (feels incredibly well built), very quick focusing and doesn't struggle in low light, great quality pictures in terms of sharpness and colour. As I said, can't fault it really so would get the thumbs up from me.
 
The Sigma is great in low light, one of the reasons I didn't go for the Tamron was that I read of so many people saying that it took quite a while to focus in low light.
 
Which Sigma 18-50 are yu talking about as there are 2 to choose from. One has constant f2.8 aperture and the other is f2.8-f4 with OS. One is better optically than the other but i can't remember which.
 
When I bought my Tamron 17-50 (non-VC), I did a lot of research on the Tamron vs the Sigma and they're pretty much the same, but the Tamron is sharper wide open at the edges (as well as cheaper back then) so that's what I went for.

There also seem to be more Tamrons about so easier to buy one.

Comparison of here:
Sigma: http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikk...8-dc-ex-macro-review--lab-test-report?start=1
Tamron: http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikk...pherical-if-nikon-test-report--review?start=1
 
I agree with everything that's been said about the non-VC Tamron - an excellent lens that's very sharp throughout the range.
 
I would wait a month or so if you can for the new Sigma 17-50mm OS and see how well that performs and how much it will cost.
 
Thanks for all the replies everyone. I'm on a budget of about £300 so will have a browse through ebay and see what's on.
It seems as though opinion is split so I'm quite confident whichever I go for I'll be happy...
Cheers
 
Another vote for the Sigma from me... I've been using mine for a couple of years and it's served me very well at more than a couple of weddings. In fact, it used to be my main lens. It's small, light and pretty solid; locks onto focus quickly and the image quality is excellent. No problems with sharpness and the colour and contrast is good too. :)

If you take a look in my Flickr stream and type in '18-50', you'll see a fair few shots taken with it so you can decide for yourself. I can't comment on the Tamron but I haven't heard anything bad about it so it's probably best to try to compare the two and see which you prefer. :)

Si
 
Exactly how quick is the AF on the Tamron (non VC)?

Whats the focusing like in poor light, or is that dependant on the body?
 
I've had the Sigma 2.8 for a couple of years - it's a great lens and I notice Digital Depot have a secondhand one on their website if you're a Canon user......
 
i had the tamron 28-75 f2.8 and it was great on the sony

however i now have a d90 and a 18-200, and not sure i want another zoom, so gone for primes
 
The 2nd generation non-VC Tamron has pretty quick focusing, but my first gen screw driven version was noticeably quicker but also louder. I never had any problems with the focusing from either lens, even in the dark.
 
Another vote here for the Tamron :thumbs:.

I haven't tried the others, but I own the 17-50mm (motorised, non-VC) and the full-frame 28-75mm f/2.8 (also motorised). AF is a little louder on the motorised lenses and sounds slow (although I think that's a psychological effect of the moaning sound of the motor :lol:), but sharpness at all apertures is fantastic.

Great lens for the money - 92% as good as an f/2.8 Nikkor, for about 1/4th of the money :thinking:.
 
+ 1 for Tamron, I had the 17-50 and now have the 28-75 and they're both great.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top