Sigma 17-50 OS or Tamron 70-300 VC?

overco

TPF Noob!
Joined
Nov 20, 2015
Messages
27
Reaction score
0
Can others edit my Photos
Photos NOT OK to edit
If you could choose between one of these lenses which would you choose? I can only have one due to budget.
 
70-300mm, due to my shooting style.
Depending on your shooting style, that may make sense, or not, to you.
Only you can tell, and no one else.

What do you plan to shoot with the new lens? What lenses do you already own? What is your camera body? All key questions.
 
70-300mm, due to my shooting style.
Depending on your shooting style, that may make sense, or not, to you.
Only you can tell, and no one else.

What do you plan to shoot with the new lens? What lenses do you already own? What is your camera body? All key questions.

I use a D7100. The 70-300 VC is the only lens I own but I can return it and get a 17-50 OS if I wanted to. I had a 35mm 1.8G but it just didn't suit me. I was planning on getting a 70-300 VC + 50mm 1.8D or a 17-50 OS + 50mm 1.8D. I like the versatility of the 17-50 OS for low light wide angles and some portraits. But I also like the reach of the 70-300 VC. The 50mm 1.8D will just be my portrait lens or the occasional walk around with creativity needed. I like shooting wildlife considering I live on a beach, but I also would like the wide angle low light for stars and landscapes. Help me if you can.
BTW I like your photo blog!
 
I'd keep the Tamron 70-300mm VC, and start saving for:

Mid range lens (one of these):
- Nikkor AF 35-70mm f/2.8D (used)
- Nikkor AF 50mm f/1.8D (new or used)

Wide range lens (one of these):
- Tokina 11-20mm f/2.8 AT-X DX (new)
- Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 AT-X II DX (used)

And you'd have an excellent kit, from wide to tele.
Good luck.
 
I'd keep the Tamron 70-300mm VC, and start saving for:

Mid range lens (one of these):
- Nikkor AF 35-70mm f/2.8D (used)
- Nikkor AF 50mm f/1.8D (new or used)

Wide range lens (one of these):
- Tokina 11-20mm f/2.8 AT-X DX (new)
- Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 AT-X II DX (used)

And you'd have an excellent kit, from wide to tele.
Good luck.

The pictures I took with the 70-300 VC are such poor quality though. Why is that?
 
The pictures I took with the 70-300 VC are such poor quality though. Why is that?

That is a frustratingly open-ended question. What is more frustrating is the lack of effort that is going into your question: Provide some extra information. If I told you my car isn't running properly, do you think a mechanic could tell me over the internet with no other information what's wrong?

The likely answer is one of the following:
- You are shooting at too slow of a shutter speed
- Your hand-holding technique could use some work
- You are not focusing correctly
- You could stop down your aperture from f5.6 to f8 for a little bit more sharpness

Processing in Lightroom with proper sharpening can make a world of difference too.
 
The pictures I took with the 70-300 VC are such poor quality though. Why is that?

That is a frustratingly open-ended question. What is more frustrating is the lack of effort that is going into your question: Provide some extra information. If I told you my car isn't running properly, do you think a mechanic could tell me over the internet with no other information what's wrong?

The likely answer is one of the following:
- You are shooting at too slow of a shutter speed
- Your hand-holding technique could use some work
- You are not focusing correctly
- You could stop down your aperture from f5.6 to f8 for a little bit more sharpness

Processing in Lightroom with proper sharpening can make a world of difference too.

Sorry about that, I understand how frustrating that could sound. I am shooting at a 1000+ shutter speed in broad daylight. I sometimes use a tripod so I don't think that could be an issue. Focusing could be wrong, but it looks as sharp as it can get to me. And I am stopping down to f8 for most of the shots. The processing in Lightroom could help.
 
At fast speeds like 1/1000 second, having in-lens stabilization switched to ON can lead to really awful results many times. Same with tripod-mounting the camera and leaving in-lens stabilization set to ON...this can cause what many call a "feedback loop", in which the stabilization system tries to correct for what one might call phantom movement...and it regally effs up the images. Perhaps this situation has impacted your images shot with the 70-300 VC lens?
 
At fast speeds like 1/1000 second, having in-lens stabilization switched to ON can lead to really awful results many times. Same with tripod-mounting the camera and leaving in-lens stabilization set to ON...this can cause what many call a "feedback loop", in which the stabilization system tries to correct for what one might call phantom movement...and it regally effs up the images. Perhaps this situation has impacted your images shot with the 70-300 VC lens?

Even at less than 1000 it is still not as sharp as I would hope.
 
At fast speeds like 1/1000 second, having in-lens stabilization switched to ON can lead to really awful results many times. Same with tripod-mounting the camera and leaving in-lens stabilization set to ON...this can cause what many call a "feedback loop", in which the stabilization system tries to correct for what one might call phantom movement...and it regally effs up the images. Perhaps this situation has impacted your images shot with the 70-300 VC lens?

Even at less than 1000 it is still not as sharp as I would hope.

Did you check the VC settings?

At 300mm, its peak sharpness is about ~6.5 P-Mpix at approximately f11 on a full frame sensor. On a crop sensor it gets a measured ~5 P-Mpix at around f10 or f11. There's very little room for cropping, or mistake-making, with the lens.

The Nikon 70-300 VR is measured even worse at ~4 P-Mpix at 300mm and approximately f11 on a crop sensor. I had that lens. It was alright. I could crop a little bit, and I got some great eagle photos right before I sold it. The P-Mpix rating is based on DXOMark, which is relatively accurate when it comes to the measurements... perceived sharpness definitely differs a little bit from P-Mpix ratings, and copy variations will mean your mileage varies, but the number gives a good ballpark.

Test your 70-300 VC at 1/1600 at f8 and focus it correctly on a few static test subjects. If you can get sharp photos, then the problem probably is your autofocus or technique. It is really really really easy to screw up telephoto shots with handholding technique, or improper focus technique. There are several different autofocus modes, and what you choose can really influence the outcome of a shot when shooting moving wildlife.

Some lenses leave you with RAW files that will look much sharper once you use a sharpening tool. Some photos are soft no matter what, but some just need to be sharpened in Lightroom for that final crisp/sharp/whatever-you-want-to-call-it look that a prime lens gets without any sharpening.
 
Last edited:
At fast speeds like 1/1000 second, having in-lens stabilization switched to ON can lead to really awful results many times. Same with tripod-mounting the camera and leaving in-lens stabilization set to ON...this can cause what many call a "feedback loop", in which the stabilization system tries to correct for what one might call phantom movement...and it regally effs up the images. Perhaps this situation has impacted your images shot with the 70-300 VC lens?

Even at less than 1000 it is still not as sharp as I would hope.

Did you check the VC settings?

At 300mm, its peak sharpness is about ~6.5 P-Mpix at approximately f11 on a full frame sensor. On a crop sensor it gets a measured ~5 P-Mpix at around f10 or f11. There's very little room for cropping, or mistake-making, with the lens.

The Nikon 70-300 VR is measured even worse at ~4 P-Mpix at 300mm and approximately f11 on a crop sensor. I had that lens. It was alright. I could crop a little bit, and I got some great eagle photos right before I sold it. The P-Mpix rating is based on DXOMark, which is relatively accurate when it comes to the measurements... perceived sharpness definitely differs a little bit from P-Mpix ratings, and copy variations will mean your mileage varies, but the number gives a good ballpark.

Test your 70-300 VC at 1/1600 at f8 and focus it correctly on a few static test subjects. If you can get sharp photos, then the problem probably is your autofocus or technique. It is really really really easy to screw up telephoto shots with handholding technique, or improper focus technique. There are several different autofocus modes, and what you choose can really influence the outcome of a shot when shooting moving wildlife.

Some lenses leave you with RAW files that will look much sharper once you use a sharpening tool. Some photos are soft no matter what, but some just need to be sharpened in Lightroom for that final crisp/sharp/whatever-you-want-to-call-it look that a prime lens gets without any sharpening.

That would explain a lot, does it necessarily mean the lens is not that sharp in general?
 
That would explain a lot, does it necessarily mean the lens is not that sharp in general?

Here is an example of sharpness suffering from a 1/100 shutter speed: robin
This as well: Orange dot

Here is a photo with poor focus: Seagull

Here is a photo with approximately peak sharpness but at 150mm: DSC_0514

Believe it or not I spent 10 minutes searching flickr for a photo taken by the 70-300 VC at 300mm and 1/500 or faster. Couldn't find a single one. Everyone is shooting it at 1/50, or 1/100, or the fastest I found was 1/200 at 300mm. Every photo exhibited some minor amount of shake and loss of sharpness due to a slow shutter speed. This is something you should keep in mind: Most people who post their photos up on sites like Flickr don't have a clue how to get the most out of their gear.

Remember that lighting quality can influence sharpness quite a bit as well. If the light is dull, a photo can look dull even with a nice lens (this isn't just the artistic quality, nor the ISO setting, the actual end result of the sharpness can suffer). Also, the further the distance, the more chance on a hot day that heat distortion can reduce sharpness.
 
That would explain a lot, does it necessarily mean the lens is not that sharp in general?

Here is an example of sharpness suffering from a 1/100 shutter speed: robin
This as well: Orange dot

Here is a photo with poor focus: Seagull

Here is a photo with approximately peak sharpness but at 150mm: DSC_0514

Believe it or not I spent 10 minutes searching flickr for a photo taken by the 70-300 VC at 300mm and 1/500 or faster. Couldn't find a single one. Everyone is shooting it at 1/50, or 1/100, or the fastest I found was 1/200 at 300mm. Every photo exhibited some minor amount of shake and loss of sharpness due to a slow shutter speed. This is something you should keep in mind: Most people who post their photos up on sites like Flickr don't have a clue how to get the most out of their gear.

Remember that lighting quality can influence sharpness quite a bit as well. If the light is dull, a photo can look dull even with a nice lens (this isn't just the artistic quality, nor the ISO setting, the actual end result of the sharpness can suffer). Also, the further the distance, the more chance on a hot day that heat distortion can reduce sharpness.

So would I just be better off getting a 17-50 OS and do some landscaping and everyday use?
 
PaulWog just explained some of the key, critical faults that many novice shooters make! They will keep their ISO "as low as possible", which will very often lead to slow shutter speeds like 1/200, or more commonly, 1/125 or 1/100, or even ridiculous speeds like 1/50 second, and in their quest for the best image quality by keeping ISO as low as possible, they will inadvertently screw themselves by shooting at blur-inducing and/or shake-prone speeds!

Bright, high-contrast sun makes images look much sharper than flat, low-contrast lighting.

Good post, PaulWog!
 
That would explain a lot, does it necessarily mean the lens is not that sharp in general?

Here is an example of sharpness suffering from a 1/100 shutter speed: robin
This as well: Orange dot

Here is a photo with poor focus: Seagull

Here is a photo with approximately peak sharpness but at 150mm: DSC_0514

Believe it or not I spent 10 minutes searching flickr for a photo taken by the 70-300 VC at 300mm and 1/500 or faster. Couldn't find a single one. Everyone is shooting it at 1/50, or 1/100, or the fastest I found was 1/200 at 300mm. Every photo exhibited some minor amount of shake and loss of sharpness due to a slow shutter speed. This is something you should keep in mind: Most people who post their photos up on sites like Flickr don't have a clue how to get the most out of their gear.

Remember that lighting quality can influence sharpness quite a bit as well. If the light is dull, a photo can look dull even with a nice lens (this isn't just the artistic quality, nor the ISO setting, the actual end result of the sharpness can suffer). Also, the further the distance, the more chance on a hot day that heat distortion can reduce sharpness.

So would I just be better off getting a 17-50 OS and do some landscaping and everyday use?


You should shoot what pleases you, regardless of the results. I really like taking pictures of birds and I don't have "big glass". I'm not going to completely abandon birding because I can't afford a $10,000 lens. That's absurd! In fact, part of the allure of wildlife/avian photography is the challenge. I may take 200 shots to get a keeper. That's what keeps me coming back! If you are looking for easy you may just want to stick with the cellphone. Great photography is very difficult in my opinion.
 

Most reactions

Back
Top