Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 VS Sigma 18-50 f2.8

[Samriel]

Looking at pics on the internet of either is not going to help too much, but if you need a basically SOOC pic from the Sigma:

Is that a 100% crop?

What will help is that in a shootout last year (as I said before), between Tamron, Sigma and Nikon, Sigma kicked butt in 3 independent tests done by 3 different magazines. On top of that, the Sigma has a 3:1 macro that none of the others have. It also has a slightly better numbers concerning CA, distortion, flare and is sharper.

Jerry, I've seen you mention the three magazines a couple of times, but before you said that the Sigma came out best in a very close match. Now you say it kicked butt - was it just slightly better, or did it really excel extremely in certain areas compared to the other two lenses? Not that I'm considering an update, but I'd like to know it before I start giving some bad advice to people around here.

 

[bhop]

I just bought a used copy of the Tamron this past Monday. I haven't had a chance to "really" use it yet, but just playing around with it, I think it'll be a good lens. Better than the d70 18-70 af-s kit lens I was using as far as the constant 2.8 aperture anyway, but it is slower focusing, with a louder focus motor. I only paid $250 for mine so it was really a no-brainer since I haven't found any Sigmas for a similar price.

One thing I do like about it is it's the same filter size as my Nikon lens (67), so I didn't have to buy any new filters, while the Sigma is a 72mm i think

 

[bdavis]

From what I've heard, the Tamron hunts for focus like Elmer Fudd.

LMAO I love that

 

[ksmattfish]

I've got the Sigma for my APS-C format cameras. It rocks. It's got that slight yellow cast thing going on that many Sigma lenses seem to have, but it's easy to fix with a minor wb adjustment, and hey, it just makes the golden hour last all day long!

I've made 20"x30" prints from the Sigma on my 20D. They look fantastic. I have no doubt though that the Tamron is just as good. I know many professionals and enthusiasts who are very happy with it.

 

[bdavis]

I was so sure I was getting the tamron, but now I'm torn between the two....not sure which is best.

 

[ksmattfish]

I was so sure I was getting the tamron, but now I'm torn between the two....not sure which is best.

Advice from the 1880s:

"The lens is always considered the most important of all the tools the photographer employs. So it is, but I should like to say boldly that, within limits, I do not care what make of lens I use. It is as well to have the best your means will allow, but there has always been too much made of particular variations in the make of lenses. It has been the fashion to think too much of the tools and too little of the use made of them.

I have one friend who did nothing last year because he had made up his mind to buy a new lens, and could not determine whose make it should be, and he was tired of his old apparatus. His was of the order of particular and minute minds that try to whittle nothing to a point. I have another friend who takes delight in preparing for photography, and spends a small fortune in doing so, but never takes a picture." -H.P.Robinson

Stop whittling and start shooting. It doesn't matter which you choose; they are all better quality lenses than you are a photographer (no insult intended, it's that way for almost everyone including me).

Check the warranties. Last time I looked Tamron's was 6 years.

 

[bdavis]

I know its mostly the photographer but the lens has a little play in how in how the photo turns out in the areas of sharpness, CA, distortion, etc. I think the Tamron controls these a little better, at least from the reviews I've read.

 

[anubis404]

Let me add that the upside of the Tamron is that its a lot cheaper. Unless you're going to be doing shots which require a little bit of closer focusing, I'd go with the Tamron (if you can find it used and good for <$300). If not, go with the Sigma. It is no doubt better.

 

[potownrob]

From what I've heard, the Tamron hunts for focus like Elmer Fudd.

The AF seems no worse than my kit lens and 55-200 VR to me; you can hear it focusing though, down to the chirpity fine tuning just before it locks focus. What's worth noting is that it is not at all a macro lens, so trying to focus on things nearby can cause it trouble. I've also noticed that, on my D40, it seems to block the AF assist beam a little (even though it's not that big a lens, though bigger than the Nikon DX lenses I have), which may be (at least partially) what's causing some troubles in low light situations.

 

[AtlPikMan]

Another Vote For The Tamron...

 

[Tolyk]

Another Vote For The Tamron...

Thank you for not using a Star Filter there!!!!

 

[AtlPikMan]

What do you mean? Star Filter?

 

[Tolyk]

What do you mean? Star Filter?

It's a cheesy filter that creates star-like effects.. often used on car shots years ago. Horrible filter! (I liked your photo) (example)

 

[TUX424]

I wonder if the tokina 16-50 f/2.8 would be worth looking at, ive never tried but i like tokina's lens, good quality.

 

[Aggressor]

Is there a difference in IQ between the HSM version and non-HSM of the Sigma 18-50?

What about AF speed? I have the Sigma 24-70 right now and its loud, but focus is fairly quick. Can I expect the same out of the 18-50?