Looking for new lens

[fausto66]

i was wondering if you all had any opinions of the aigma 17-70 2.8 lens im a novice family sports pohotgrpaher for the family nothing serious was looking for input on it

 

[Big Mike]

I assume you're talking about the Sigma AF 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5?

I've heard that it's a decent lens...not terrible and not great. It's a nice range on a camera with an APS-C sized sensor but the variable max aperture isn't ideal.

If you want something similar, but at a higher quality, I'd suggest looking at the Sigma 18-50mm F2.8.

 

[Goontz]

What kind of sports are you planning on shooting? Indoors or out? Like Mike said, the variable aperture isn't ideal, and f/4.5 isn't going to be great (without cranking ISO) if you're shooting indoors. For sports, in general, I would think you might need a little more reach than 70mm. Obviously, that depends on what kind of sports.

I have the Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 and can second that recommendation.

 

[fausto66]

well i have a 70-200 f 2.8 nikon for sports ....and my other len s are a 50 mm 1.8 nikon and the sigma 18-250 3.5-6.3 thats lens seems a bit redundant and i have a friend who wants to buy it...so hence ny situation was thinking of the sigma 1 mostly for walk around and vacation stuff ....the tamron looks nice....but dunno really if ill miss the gap of 20 mm in between the 50 to 70 range

 

[Big Mike]

I don't think that it's important to 'fill the gaps' (so to speak) in your focal lengths.
The difference between 50mm and 70mm (in terms of coverage) is one or two steps forward or back.

 

[fausto66]

well the tamron looks real nice and constant 2.8 any 1 have any opinions on that lens

 

[potownrob]

the tamron 17-50 f/2.8 is a nice sharp and fast lens but it's not good for macro work or otherwise focusing while up close to things. i have heard people say the sigma 18-50 f/2.8 is even sharper and works alright as a macro lens. you should be happy with either one unless you want to do macro work (in which case get the sigma)...

 

[Big Mike]

Which Tamron? The 17-50mm F2.8?

I have that one, it's a very good lens (for the price).

 

[fausto66]

not so much into macro work really just mainly for a walk around lens and some decent everyday photography since i have other lens for other purposes

 

[fausto66]

yes the 2.8 17-50 tamron

 

[Goontz]

The Tamron 17-50 f/2.8? I don't remember any of the specific articles (or threads I searched and found on here), but when I was researching, I did find quite a few. In the end, I ended up choosing the Sigma. I think the image quality (based on articles and reviews) is slightly better on the Sigma, but they're both good lenses. The Sigma also has the ability to do decent "macro" work. I think the magnification is 1:3 at 50mm, and it can still focus really close.

I think Tamron now has one available with VR (VC, IS, whatever you want to call it), but I don't think that's as important in this zoom range. I haven't missed having it yet with my lens.

Edit: I took too long to write that up...oh well, most is still pertinent.

 

[fausto66]

so the vibration comepnsation on the tamron compared to none on the sigma isnt a deal breaker for you i do alot of hand held was thinking having tamrons vc might be better that not having any at all compared to the sigma ...any thoughts

 

[icassell]

The Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 is my "walkaround" lens and lives on my camera >75% of the time. It is nice and sharp and the build is solid. I have the version that does not have stabilization (mine is 3 years old -- I bought it new), but have never missed it. It is not a macro lens, but I have a macro lens for that.

 

[fausto66]

being that i hand hold mostly would i miss the os or vc depending on which lens is there a real differnace in not having it

 

[SanDiegoPhotographer]

I used to have the tamron 17-50 f/2.8 and it was an amazing lens the image quality rivaled that of my Nikkor 17-55 f/2.8 which is about 3 times more $$$

I would go with tamron over sigma in almost all focal lengths. The glass is just better than sigma