Sigma 18-50mm vs Tamron 17-50mm

[coastallight]

After searching the internet for comparisons and not getting enough real life

feedback, I'm posting here to see if anyone has used both of these and what your

impressions are.

 

I want the 2.8 for low light indoor photos such as graduations, holiday parties

and the like.

 

(Yes, I already have the 50mm 1.8)

[francois_gauthier]

This is not a real life feedback for these models but generally, i trust more Tamron than Sigma for reliability (sample variation, etc.) It means that at similar specs ans price, Tamron wins unless clear reviews say otherwise.

[bruce_margolis]

Carolyn, I also have been looking for a lens in this range so I have done some reading. Both look like decent low cost alternatives to the Nikon 17-55mm.

 

The Sigma claims to be a 'macro' lens, but not really. It does have a 1:3 magnification which is nice but hardly a substitute for a real macro.

 

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

 

 

Photozone says, in a nice way, the Tamron is better. I would think the builds are comparable. The Tamron costs a little more but then, there is that extra 1mm. Doesn't sound like much but it shows at the wide end.

 

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

 

Here's an older review from a user, about a year ago.......

 

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1030&message=18754749

[trunfio]

I use the Sigma all the time for newspaper, but it's slow focusing with the screwdriver-type focusing on the D200. Sometimes on the D200 it doesn't focus correctly and I have to repress the shutter again and it pops into focus. It's quite sharp.

[max_bian]

Be very careful with the Tamron 17-50. It over exposes very badly in TTL-BL mode.

[elliot1]

I have no experience with either of those lenses so I can't make a recommendation other than to buy one or both from a store that accepts returns and try them out for yourself. If you don't like it/them, return them.

 

If you are going to be using flash, I would stick with the Nikon 18-55 and invest in an sb-400 or sb-600. This will produce the best results for you. If you want more natural looking results with flash, get the sb-800 and use the supplied difusser dome while angling the flash at 45 degrees. Flash pictures shot this way look great.

 

If you want to shoot without flash, Nikon offers several fast prime wide lenses that are affordable and will do a fantastic job for you.

[bill_keane2]

I use my Tamron 17-50, in TTL-BL mode on my SB-600 more than any other lens. Doing so on a D80 and now a D200 has left me with excellent results 99% of the time.

[coastallight]

I do have a SB600, and I do want the zoom, not a prime. This will be, as I stated, for indoor events and general photo taking (family, etc). I do want the 2.8 for low light. I also have a macro which I love (Tamron 90mm) so I don't care about that part of the Sigma.

 

Sounds like the Tamron is the winner, both from what I've read here so far, and what I've gathered online. I wish I could afford the Nikon version, but I don't have it in my budget.

 

If anyone has used both, esp. with a D80, I've love to hear your impressions.

[philippartridge]

You may wish to search out one of the current major British mags which carries a comparison test of these lens against the Nikon and Canon equivalents. The Sigma was the clear overall winner using a combination of several categories, better than the makers' own zooms. It is also a very light, approx 450g as opposed to the ultra cost, boat anchor weighing Canon and Nikon offerings, both around 700-800g. They did not think much of the Tamron or Pentax [also included].

 

As always these days, opinions are all over the place about lenses. I try to factor in 5-10 authoritative reviews to try to get past this problem, and advise you to do the same. I recall the notorious Ken Rockwell stating that a disadvantage of buying a non-manufacturer lens is that you get less back when you sell it. Then again, you pay much less to *buy* one in the first place...

[ted_stone]

I recently bought the Sigma 18-50 Lens relying on the May Pop Photo review and also a review at www.photodo.com which found it to be one of the sharpest lens tested to date. I already am using the Nikon 18-200 VR which I enjoy very much, however, their are times where you want the 2.8-4.0 setting for a blurred background. The lens is fairly sharp wide open and I find that if focuses quickly on my D200. While it is not a tru macro being able to focus down to 1:3 is handy.I also purchased the Sigma 150mm macro which gives me more working distance than my Tamron 90mm macro. It is very sharp with great bokeh.Hope this helps.<div></div>

[rob_shooter]

I have the Tamron 17-50mm on a D80 and use it for 90% of the time. For me it delivers crisp quality results time after time and build quality is decent too. I also have Nikon 50mm 1.8 and don't use that much any more - probably a bit of laziness on my part though rather than the 50mm end of the Tamron being comparible.