Worth being concerned with production QC consistency with tamron 2.8 17-50?

[theregoesjb]

For my canon T2i, I am debating between the Tamron or the Sigma 2.8 17-50. I have read in various reviews, people stating that the tamron is a great lens if you can get a good copy. I realize this doesnt mean others are terrible, and that there is an accepted performance range, but of course I wonder what that performance gap could look like.

I am wondering how much people actually think its worth being concerned with this. It will likely be the last lens I buy for a long time and although I know its a "budget" lens compared to the canon equivalent but 400-500$ is still a lot of dough.

 

[JacaRanda]

I would be concerned a little and still take the chance and buy it; if theres a chance of getting a great lens (new versus used).

 

[pixmedic]

I have a tamron 17-50 2.8, 28-75 2.8, and 70-200 2.8 and love all of them. All 3 have been great performers.

Can't speak for sigma lenses because I don't own any, but I've heard they are comparable to the Tamron offerings.

I would not pay more than +/- $300 for a 17-50 f/2.8 that is non VR

 

[greybeard]

I had the Tamron 17-50 2.8 VC on my D7000 for a while. I found the Nikon 18-55 3.5-5.6 kit lens to be much sharper at comparable apertures. I have read that the non-VC model is much better.

 

[pixmedic]

I had the Tamron 17-50 2.8 VC on my D7000 for a while. I found the Nikon 18-55 3.5-5.6 kit lens to be much sharper at comparable apertures. I have read that the non-VC model is much better.

Forgot to mention that.
Mine are all non VC.
Haven't really had a need for VC at most of those focal lengths