Anyone have the Sigma or Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 lenses?

dustin0479 · May 28, 2012

I am looking for 1st hand feedback on both of these lenses if anyone has one or has had one.
Thanks!

MonicaBH · May 28, 2012

I have the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 lens.

I purchased it used from someone on Craigslist. I really enjoy it. It's not the Nikkor equivalent as far as image quality with a larger aperture, but it certainly is serving its purpose as a general use, walk around lens. Well, I guess I use the 17-50 and the 24-75mm equally as walk around lenses.

What specific feedback are you looking for?

dustin0479 · May 28, 2012

Lens quality, image quality. Any negative or positive general feedback on the lens.

Markw · May 28, 2012

Sigma 17-50/2.8OS > Tamron 17-50/2.8.

Focus, sharpness, lack of CA.

Mark

bhop · May 28, 2012

Tamron Lens quality, it's plastic mostly. It feels kinda cheap, compared to Nikon lenses..
Image quality. Excellent for the most part. I'd say it's the next best thing you can get to the Nikon 17-55.

The main reason I upgraded to the Nikkor is because of the noisy, slow focus, but if you can live with that, the Tamron gives nice results.

few shots with mine
Meep, Meep | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
EK Civic Hatch | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
Green Machine | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
Olympus Stylus Epic | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

photo_joe · May 28, 2012

I think I've been getting pretty good picture quality with my Tamron 17-50mm. I use it alot as my walk around lense.

djacobox372 · May 28, 2012

Markw said:
Sigma 17-50/2.8OS > Tamron 17-50/2.8.

Focus, sharpness, lack of CA.

Mark

Ive found the opposite to be true, but sigma quality varies a lot, maybe i had a poor example.

That said id always buy tamron over sigma, as they have better quality control in my experience. Since i switched to full fram ive been using a tamron 28-75mm f2.8 as my walking around lens and it performs great--it doesnt look as big and awesome as the sigma and nikon f2.8s, but i prefer its lightweight design.

irfan.in.tx · May 29, 2012

I have the Tamron 17-50 (non VC) for Canon, which I have used on a 50D. Excellent sharpness and color rendition. The focusing mechanism is somewhat noisy and hunts a bit more than Canon zooms. Overall, a good lens.

dustin0479 · May 29, 2012

I have the hunting issue in my current sigma.

Has anyone seen a difference between the DI and the DI-II?

Nikon_Josh · May 29, 2012

I wanted a Sigma 17-50 2.8 OS, but I have just ordered a Tamron 17-50 2.8 Non VC. It is so much cheaper than the Sigma variant and seems to receive rave reviews from many many quarters!

If you check the results, the Tamron 17-50 2.8 pretty much matches the Nikon 17-55 2.8 in terms of sharpness. You will see alot of comments on here that say the Nikon 17-55 2.8 is superior in Image Quality, it simply is not and this is backed up by every test or review ever written. The Nikon is superior though in terms of build quality and focus speed but not image quality.

Quotes from Thom Hogans site on the Tamron 17-50 2.8... Thom is a highly respected photography expert!

''Overall, I'd put this lens in the same category as the Nikkor for sharpness, though I did feel that the Nikkor produced a bit more contrast, especially at the wide end.''

'Considering the price differential between this and the Nikkor 17-55mm, there's little tradeoff being made.''