Sigma 18-50f2.8 vs. Tamron 17-50f2.8

[carl_johnson3]

Has anyone compared these two head to head? I know the Tamron has gotten some

very good reviews for sharpness. Of course the other option is save up for the

Nikon 17-35f2.8

[rainer_t]

Just in case you haven't seen the photozone reviews so far ...

 

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/tamron_1750_28_nikon/index.htm

 

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/sigma_1850_28m_nikon/index.htm

 

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/nikkor_1735_28/index.htm

 

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/nikkor_1755_28/index.htm

[tatephotography]

I got the Sigma 18-50mm a couple of years ago. This was before they upgraded to the new version, and I think before the Tamron came out. I really like the lens. It is small and sharp and focuses fast enough. I only have two tiny little gripes about it:

 

1. Zooms opposite the Nikon standard. Never been a problem because it is my primary lens, but if I switch back and forth between a couple of zooms it takes a moment to adjust.

 

2. A slight amount of CA at some apertures and focal lengths. But really this is a problem with just about every lens out there.

 

I don't regret the purchase at all. I have a friend who refuses to have anything to do with non-Nikon lenses, and would love a 2.8 lens. But he cannot afford the Nikon or justify its price to his wife. I am in the same situation regarding the Nikon, but I at least have a 2.8 lens to help ease the pain.

 

The Sigma is a great lens and I have recommended it for years. The Tamron looks like it is a pretty sweet lens also though, and from the tests it appears it might just edge out the Sigma. Personally though I was never really impressed with the build quality of other Tamron lenses. I have had excellent experience with Sigma support (drastically better than Tokina).

[bill_keane2]

This particular Tamron lens feels very well made, and it's very sharp.