Help me waste money on a new lens

[DiskoJoe]

I want to finally upgrade my kit lens to something with a fixed aperture and wanted to get others imput on what to buy. I use a Sony a200 and am looking at the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 or the Sigma 17-50 f2.8. I have read lots of good things about the Tamron and it is about $400 but I also have a sigma 70-210mm f2.8 and really like the look and feel of the Sigma. But the Sigma lens retails for about $700. I plan on using this professional for portraits and wedding photography as well as architechturual photography. So should I be cheap and go with the Tamron or is there a benefit to spending the extra $300 and getting the Sigma instead.Your thoughts?

 

[MLeeK]

Are you ever going to go full frame?

 

[DiskoJoe]

Are you ever going to go full frame?

Not yet. Full frame is out of my price range still. I will be using my a200 which is aps-c

 

[MLeeK]

I really love my tamron 17-50. The only headache it gives me is that I can't use it on my full frame. I thought that I'd never go full frame back when I bought it... That was a really stupid thought. Oh well! Live and learn!
I THINK I still have some test photos from it that I posted for Nikon_Josh somewhere... Lemme look

 

[MLeeK]

It's not bad wide open, very nice stopped down even 1/3 stop...
Here are a couple-NO processing done what-so-ever to the raw files.

f/4

f/2.8

 

[DiskoJoe]

I really love my tamron 17-50. The only headache it gives me is that I can't use it on my full frame. I thought that I'd never go full frame back when I bought it... That was a really stupid thought. Oh well! Live and learn!
I THINK I still have some test photos from it that I posted for Nikon_Josh somewhere... Lemme look

Good to know it cant be used on a full frame. I would like to go full frame one day but that is not happening anytime soon. i have seen pictures from the tamron and know the sharpness is good. So is the Sigma. I would rather get the sigma but am wondering if anyone would think that it is really worth the extra money.

So far 1 vote for Tamron.

 

[MLeeK]

You're in a large city... there's got to be a store that carries them. go in with your cam and try both out!

 

[o hey tyler]

Well, if you're looking to WASTE money, I'd suggest looking into Zeiss glass.

 

[QuadTap]

+1 Tamron

 

[Destin]

The tamron has better reviews in what I've seen. I've used it and can say its a good lens. Never seen the sigma in real life so I can't vouch for it, but if it's built to the standards of my old sigma 70-200 ex dg macro II, then it's a very good option. That sigma lens I had was a tank.

You really need to compare them side my side in a store and see what you like the feel of better. They're both gonna produce good images.

 

[Dao]

I have the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 non VC version.

I do not know too much about the Sigma version, all I know about that lens were from reviews. And I am sure you read most of them already. As for the Tamron, it is quite good optically and for what I need, it is perfect.

But I read that in the past the motor of the Tamron is a little noisy (when compare to other lenses that have HSM, USM or USD). In most cases, I do not notice the noise from the motor. But the post I read was when using it in the wedding, the lens draw attention when focus. Imagine inside a church with no noise except your lens.

Since I have not use my lens in that situation nor something similar such as art museum, so I really do not how bad it is.

But then again, I do not mean the lens is noisy, but the Sigma version you mentioned is HSM and I believe it should make less noise when focus.



If I going to buy a standard zoom lens now, it is going to be the same Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 non-VC.

 

[DiskoJoe]

I have indeed been reading many reviews and actually found a really good lens review site.

LensTip.com - lens review, lenses reviews, lens specification - Lenstip.com

They had tested both and the review pretty much sold me on the Sigma over the Tamron.

The part that really grabbed me was the image resolution difference between the two. The Tamron did well and was within the range they find to be acceptable. But the sigma was actually on par with image resolutions from many prime lens and basically blew away the Tamron. So looks like it will be a Sigma coming home. If I was only buying this for personal use I would probably save the money and go Tamron but since I do plan to use this professionally as well I think the added performance on the image resolution will pay for itself eventually.

 

[DiskoJoe]

tamron:

sigma:

"It’s worth reminding here that the best „primes”, tested on the 50D, reach the level about 52 lpmm and results near 34-35 lpmm we consider to be the decency level."

 

[LightSpeed]

It's not a 17-50, but it comes in as a highly rated lens by Nikon users, Canon users, Sony users, and Pentax users.
If you go to the Pentax forum and do a search, you'll see some images from each camera. The rendition is stunning.

That is, if you want the best bang for the buck, while losing 11mm's of focal length on the short side.

It's a 28-75 Tamron SP AF, f2.8, for digital.
67mm filter. minimum focusing distance, 13 inches.
Compatible with both full frame and aps-c,
439.00.

I doubt sigma has ever made a lens this good, as image quality goes.
I admit I'm a little biased on the Tamron side. I shoot with one. A 70-200 F2.8.
I've also had Sigma lenses.

Just food for thought. You can foot zoom 11mm on the short side most of the time.

 

[DiskoJoe]

I actually had wanted one of the 28-75mm's for a while cause I knew lots of people that had them and the price is good. But when closely analyzed the Sigma does in fact have better image quality. The Tamron by all respects is still a very good lens but Sigma is still better from what the review says. I think im going to read up on the new Sony 16-50mm f2.8 and see what folks say about it. I still plan to go do my own hands on testing as well very soon.