Sigma or Tamron 17-50 f2.8 vs Sigma 18-35 f1.8

[cfburke]

Let me give you a bit of background. I am looking mainly for an indoor and low light lens. I am teacher and have started running the yearbook at my school as well as work for a student travel company. I am taking a lot of photos of concerts, shows etc. for the yearbook and many night photos (many at restaurants at dinner) for the travel company. I am not a professional photographer (this has become a serious hobby only for the past few years), but like anyone would like these photos to look nice as much of what I take becomes displayed publicly.

I currently use the Nikon 35mm f1.8 on my d7100 for low light. It takes very nice photos, but I would like the option for a zoom lens. I have narrowed my search to either the tamron or sigma 17-50 f2.8 or Sigma 18-35 f1.8. The 17-50's are less expensive (especially the tamron), wider zoom range and have optical stabilization. Both seem to take fairly nice, sharp photos from what I have read.

The Sigma 18-35 apparently is superior in just about every way in regards to image quality. However, it sounds as if it is quite large and heavy and does not have OS. Obviously a bit more expensive too.

Anyways, any suggestions from people who have used any or all of these lenses? If price did not matter, what would you purchase in my situation?

Thank you for your feedback!

 

[minicoop1985]

If you go the Tamron route, AVOID OPTICAL STABILIZATION. The Tamron 17-50 f2.8 NON-stabilized version is actually a very, very nice lens. Very sharp, particularly at f5.6, but still very sharp otherwise. Excellent all around lens, particularly for the price. Not the fastest thing on earth, though, but on my 7D, it focuses in just about any circumstances as long as there's some (read: very little is actually necessary) light.

 

[TWright33]

If you go the Tamron route, AVOID OPTICAL STABILIZATION.

This should be taken lightly.

It all depends on the model/version/age of Tamron lens you are getting.