Sigma 18-35 1.8 or Tamron 15-30 2.8

[23NR]

Hey man. The Tamron 15-30 is one of the sharpest lenses I own! It's incredible, and if you have the money I would highly recommend it as a general purpose lens for a DX camera.
Check out my review here: <Link Deleted>

 

[dannylightning]

18-35 1.8 art is amazing.. for me its wide enough to get any shot that i have wanted to get.. sharp, colors are great, not having IS has never been a issue for me with this lens shooting in really low light.. if your shooting in low light 1.8 is much better than 2.8 but if you have IS that could change things i guess if what you are shooting will allow for a low shutter speed. you wold probably want to get the dock if you get the sigma, sometimes the newere sigma lenses are not tuned well. 2 of mine needed tuned one was dead on from the factory.. if you ever want to get a fx camea this is not a good choice..

that tamron is a nice lens.. i do not own it but what i know about it, its very good.

 

[PaulWog]

I wasn't going to post, but then someone came here just to plug for his review and throw around a ridiculous piece of advice.

There's no reason to get the Tamron 15-30 f2.8 for a DX camera. If you intend to put it on a full frame camera soon, that's a different matter. It will utilize approximately half the megapixels that the 18-35 f1.8 Art will on a DX sensor at f2.8. You won't see a "twice as sharp" image from an 18-35 Art, but the difference will be quite significant, especially if you crop at all.

The two lenses have wildly different purposes. On a DX camera, a 17-50mm f2.8 OS will perform just as well, and you'll get 20mm on the long end. The 18-35 f1.8 will beat out any of the competition on a DX camera in its focal range. The Tamron 15-30 does everything well on a DX camera, but nothing exceedingly well, and shoots in a very limited range. Get it if you plan to go FX, but that's it.

 

[lolland]

The 18-35 are also great for snapshots around the house with family, it really keeps the Iso down.
I also would want a FF, but as a hobby photographer it's too much money for now and near future.
When I eventually go FF i will probably loose 100 pounds on The sigma, but hey, years of fun and nice photos.
I got a 1 year old copy of 18-35 for 400 pounds, good deal and the lens is high quality build.
Happy hunting

 

[PaulWog]

I already said it, but you clearly did not read what I said.

What does the 15-30mm Tamron offer over a 17-50mm f2.8 lens? 2mm on the wide end, and NOTHING that is significantly notable otherwise. Maybe some better corner sharpness as you have mentioned.

What does the 18-35 Sigma offer over a 17-50mm f2.8 lens? f1.8, parfocal, and extreme sharpness.

Case closed. There is nothing to argue, unless if you ignore the facts.

 

[tirediron]

Enough! Any more of this back-and-forth bickering and it's going to get real quiet here real quick!

 

[fmw]

The crop factor on the d7100 will turn the tamron 15-30 into a 22-45mm equivalent. You've owned the 18-55, you should be able to discern if 22mm is wide enough for you to get your shot.

This information is wrong.

No, the information is correct. The 15-30 on a nikon crop sensor (1.5) will act as a 22.5-45mm lens, as the 15-30 is for full-frame systems.

Read it again.

Indeed it is correct that on a crop the tamron gives a field of view 22.5 to 45, but it then states that op owned a 18-55 and should be able to figure out if 22 is wide enough, but the 18-55 gives fov 27-82, so the statement is comparing focal lengths of two different lenses, but only taking the crop factors into account on one of them

Correct. The Tamron would be the choice for an FX body. Since you are considering fairly expensive lenses look at the Nikkor 12-24 f2.8. It is the wide angle zoom I use and it handles most wide angle needs. I don't think either of the lenses you are considering are wide enough for a DX body - at least for me. On the negative side, it is a G lens so you can't set aperture manually in case you may want to do that. Most of us get by fine with G lenses.

 

[Braineack]

On the negative side, it is a G lens so you can't set aperture manually in case you may want to do that.

unless you put it in M or A mode and set it manually...just not "mechanically".

 

[fmw]

On the negative side, it is a G lens so you can't set aperture manually in case you may want to do that.

unless you put it in M or A mode and set it manually...just not "mechanically".

Thanks for the terminology lesson.

 

[Braineack]

you're welcome.

I'm just being clear; the way you stated that, you made it seem like you cannot set the aperture you want on a G lens, and that's simply not accurate.

What you'll miss out on is being able to stop it down by hand, and having your viewfinder too dark to be able to accurately AF, or to be able to see the effect on DOF within the viewfinder (unless you camera has the preview button).