Tamron sp 17-50mm f2.8 VS sigma 24-70 f2.8 ex

uk_stevie

uk_stevie

Suspended / Banned
Messages
34
Edit My Images
No
Hey,
I was wondering if anyone has both the lens above or has has the both of them in use.
Question: im sure the tamrons worth the money, but some people say when at f2.8 it gets messy... Anyone had problems?? when I looked at the display model in the shop I didn't see a problem but then it's only a small screen.

From what I hear the sigma is a good lens but is it £300 better? I have been reading reviews on what camera but they don't make it clear

Please help :)

Thanks
Stephen
 
A more direct comparison might be the Sigma 17-50 OS. It's a very good lens.
 
is this Canon aps-c mount? if I was looking at the Sigma 17-50 OS I would be finding the extra money and looking at the Canon 17-55 2.8 mainly for the USM; don't get me wrong I like Sigma, I rate them, half of my lenses are the EX range 2.8 Sigma's.. but I feel USM is a lot nippier than HSM.

the Tamron is a bargain lens, I use the older non VC version on Nikon and it never lets me down and I am always pleased with the results.
 
Nikon equivalent is the 17-55 2.8 but it's typically £600 used, £1000 new and doesn't have VR if that is a concern. Otherwise, it's said to be exceptional.
 
To behonest the focal 17-55, i feel VR is not really needed. Is nice to have but is not end of the day if not got it.
 
Sigma 17-50 still comes in around £550 would there but a big difference between the 2?
 
Agree don't think I will need VR or OS but I guess it might come in handy sometime
 
To behonest the Nikon 17-55 f2.8 used is around £500-600.

If i going to buy a brand new sigma i rather have a used Nikon instead.

The Tamron 17-50 is better out of the two in my opinion. Also i would buy used as well and they can be buy for £170-200.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top