Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 versus Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8??

<p><em><strong>The most recent posting I found on these two lenses was from May of 2008, so I hope you don't mind my asking for a more updated opinion.</strong></em></p>

<p>I have a Nikon D300 and have been looking for a fast wide-angle zoom. I originally thought I would try something in the 24-70mm range, but have decided for a shorter size. I'd LOVE another Nikkor, but they are WAY out of my price range (the 17-55mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S DX is $1,339.00).</p>

<p>I don't own a Sigma or Tamron lens and have been dragging my feet in fear of buying one and being disappointed. I need your help. Please help me decide what to do.</p>

<p>These are the two lenses I'm looking at:</p>

<ul>

<li>Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 EX DC HSM Macro Lens for Nikon DSLR - $419.00</li>

<li>Tamron SP AF17-50mm F/2.8 Di II LD Aspherical (IF) Lens with hood for Nikon-D DSLR Cameras - $459.89<strong> </strong></li>

</ul>

<p>The first version of the Tamron (without built-in motor and without VC) has a very good reputation for its optical quality; not so much for its mechanical stability though. It appears that is the one you are considering, so go for it.</p>

<p>the tamron has excellent IQ and the build looks flimsier than it actually is. i've had mine for 3 1/2 years now and no problems. it rattles a bit unless you set the zoom lock but that's about it.</p>

<p>i have both. both will give you excellent image quality. i use the sigma more now even for shoots that i get paid for like weddings and corporate events. i find it a tad faster to autofocus and the built and finish suits me better.</p>

<p>note that the sigma takes 72mm filter and the tamron 67mm. also the zoom ring turns the opposite way of the nikon. another neat thing to me is when the sigma lens hood is stored reversed into the lens, the wider petal is offset with reference to the top of the lens, giving generous room for your thumb when you zoom (assuming you cradle the lens with the left hand).</p>

<p>so i can say you can't go wrong with either one.</p>

<p>Just out of curiosity, why are you not considering the Tokina 16-50mm f2.8?</p>

<p>I went through a similar decision process and decided upon the Tokina because of the Manual Focus clutch (which I love, and prefer to AF-S systems), the build quality is on par with the Nikon and for the quality control which I feel is higher than Sigma.</p>

<p>The Tamron is a well known and well respected lens though. </p>

<p>Just out of curiosity, why are you not considering the Tokina 16-50mm f2.8?</p>

<p>I went through a similar decision process and decided upon the Tokina because of the Manual Focus clutch (which I love, and prefer to AF-S systems), the build quality is on par with the Nikon and for the quality control which I feel is higher than Sigma.</p>

<p>The Tamron is a well known and well respected lens though. </p>

<p>I compared the Sigma, Tamron and Tokina and found that I did not like the Sigma reverse zoom operation and the Tokina had slower auto focus (but built like a tank, I love my Tokina 12-24), so I decided on the Tamron VC because the build is better than the non-VC version, it's fast and of course, has vibration control.</p>

<p>The Tamron, Sigma, and Tokina have similar IQ according to the tests I've seen. If possible I'd handle them and see if one feels better to you. I read the tests, handled the Sigma and Tamron, and I bought the Tamron because it was the least expensive at the time and it had a 6 year warranty.</p>

<p>I have the Tamron 17-50 (non-vc) and am very happy with the IQ. Note also that Tamron make a 28-75 F2.8 which is just as good. To be honest, I don't think you can go wrong with either of the two lenses you've mentioned, unless you get a dud sample ( heaven forbid!)</p>

<p>I'm not familiar with the Tamron or Tokina lenses but I do own the Sigma 18-50 and even though it's very sharp in the center, the corners never really get very sharp. The new Sigma 17-50 f2.8 promises to be much better but it is also more expensive.<br>

<a href="http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/531-sigma1750f28os">http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/531-sigma1750f28os</a><br>

<a href="http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/482-tamron_1750_28vc_canon?start=2">http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/482-tamron_1750_28vc_canon?start=2</a></p>

<p>I have the Sigma and it is a fine lens but not great. A used one can be had for about $300 which is a fair value in my opinion. I have read good things about the Tamron and the Tokina too. Do a search on Photo.net there are a lot of other threads about these lenses. It seems to me like all of them are pretty good.</p>

<p>I'm happy with my Sigma 18-50/2.8. Pros in my book include decent OOF rendering/bokeh, good autofocus speed and accuracy and nice center sharpness. I haven't tried the Tamron, but I'm sure it's a nice lens as well.<br>

Agreeing with Mike E, I would also consider the new Sigma 17-50/2.8 OS if I was buying now. It's brand new and I haven't seen many reviews, but the ones that I have read have been positive (for example the one on photozone.de). Feature-wise, it looks like a pretty nice upgrade from the 18-50. As Mike said, it's a bit more expensive than the old one, though.<br>

The Tokina has been getting very mixed reviews, and a store I contacted actually discouraged me from buying it although I didn't get a very clear reason why (they just said it was bad optically, but didn't specify in what way). I followed their advice anyway.</p>

<p>I got one sigma 18-50mm f2.8 ex dc and love that lens, using on d200 & d300, great lens</p>

<p>I recently purchased the Tamron 17-50 (non-VC) for my D300. I read a lot of reviews of it and the other lenses in this bracket ( I liked Tom Hogan's review, it's worth reading).</p>

<p>In the end, the Tamron price to performance ratio seemed best to me. </p>

<p>You can see some of my recent samples here: http://bjornsramblings.blogspot.com/search/label/Tamron%2017-50</p>

<p>Enjoy your new lens, whichever one you choose :)</p>

<p>Thanks for asking this question. I was about to ask the same thing!</p>