Nikon 17-55mm f2.8 vs Sigma 18-50mm f2.8

[joe_h3]

<p>My question is: I know EVERYONE raves about the Nikon 17-55mm, but it sure is pricey, do any of you have any insight / experience with using the Sigma or even the Tamron equivalent. I'm sure that the Nikon is "better" but I am trying to find out if it is THAT much better to justify the 4x pricetag.<br />I am mostly interested in getting one of these lenses for its 2.8 aperture and better low light / DOF capabilities.<br>

Thanks in advance for your help...by the way I shoot a D300.</p>

 

[mark_s8]

<p>Hi Cole, I have the Tamron unit shooting w/ a D80. I am plenty happy with it. I know some with say the Nikon glass is much more sharp, and for 1600 bucks, it darn well better be. And I suppose if money were no object I'd have the Nikkor unit....<br>

There are some review out there...I think you would be happy with the Tamron.<br>

Mark</p>

[jay_mungia]

<p>I had a few responses to my thread "<a href="../sports-photography-forum/00Sufo" >Indoor sports - Boxing/MMA/etc- lens question</a> " I started in the "sports" forum... check out the responses...<br>

I think I might go with the Tamron lens, I also cant afford the expensive nikon lens. Alot of peolpe say that the tamron 17-50mm 2.8 is pretty good and sharp and I need a fast lens for low light sports pics indoors</p>

 

[tim_knight]

<p>I am sure the Tamron 17-50 will take great pictures for you ( I love my Tamron 17-50), but I read your thread and sounds like this might be tough place for the camera and lens. Might want to take a second look at the Nikon 17-50, it is built for professional use.</p>

[joe_h3]

<p>Thanks to all so far. Sounds like people have had good success with the Tamron.<br>

Jay, looks like we are right on the same page...</p>

[john_vo4]

<p>I use the Nikon 17-55mm on my D90, and my roommate shoots with the Tamron 17-50mm on his D80 so we've asked ourselves this question plenty of times. The answer is that if you don't need a rugged build, and don't get paid serious money for your photos, just go with the Tamron.</p>

<p>The Nikon is 3x to 4x the cost, but it's not even 2x better. Most people are pretty conservative in their comparisons saying that optically, the Tamron gives you about 75%-80% of the performance of the Nikon. I feel that it's even closer than that. The biggest difference is the corner performance wide open, and the color rendition which is slightly different.</p>

<p>The Tamron can definitely hold its own against the Nikon. Even 80% of the performance at 30% of the price is too good to ignore.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>these questions come up a lot...it kind of boils down to, "is the tamron really that good for such a low price"? and "is the nikkor worth 4x as much"? after owning the tamron for about 2 years, i would have to say yes and no* (*unless you are a wedding pro or someone who uses the lens daily in a professional capacity). FWIW, i thought the nikkor was overpriced when it was only 3x the cost of the tamron. there are people who swear by it, i know, but what you're really getting is better performance at 2.8 and 17mm, faster, more accurate AF; and a much more durable build. that said, my tamron has ventured out into many seas of crowds and come back with nary a scratch or ding. for walkaround use, the light weight is a plus, and for street shooting, the smaller profile is also a plus. in terms of IQ, the tamron is good enough to seriously challenge the nikkor--the only issue i've encountered is misread distance info using TTL-BL flash. which is ok, since most of the time, i power down the flash in manual mode anyway.</p><div></div>

[bruce_margolis]

<p>Cole, I also use the Tamron with the D300. I read all the reviews first and not only did they seem to prefer the Tamron over the Sigma but optically, the Tamron always shows up right there with the Nikon except as Eric noted. </p>

<p>This is my go-to evening and party lens. Yes, the build is substantially less than the Nikon but that's one of the advantages to me. I wanted something lightweight for this purpose. The 17-55 definitely focuses faster but that wasn't critical for my needs. For all its little downsides, there are huge upsides to this lens. It would be a bargain if it was only half the cost of the Nikon version.</p>

<p>Just an aside, I got the version without the built-in motor. For whatever reason, the stuff I have read has been a bit kinder to this 'older' model but haven't read a full review of the BIM version yet.</p>

<p> </p>

[peter_n1664876959]

<p>If you're a pro/use your equipment hard I would say get the Nikon, lots of people on this board report availability (used) at around $800. The images I've seen from the Tamron are excellent, but there is a question of build and sample variance. I got the Nikon and I've been very happy with it but I probably would have been equally happy if I'd gotten a good Tamron.</p>

[nishnishant]

<p>Mark and Eric,</p>

<p>Do you guys have the one with the motor? Or do you guys have the one without (that Bruce has)?</p>

[Matthew Brennan]

<p>No doubt the Tamron produces equal IQ to the Nikkor. If you intend to use your lens in demanding conditions and want to keep it for a long while ie. 10 years as is opposed to 5 years then maybe the Nikkor is a better bet. </p>

<p>I'm yet another in the long line of 17-55mm Nikkor 'ravers'.........</p>

[joe_h3]

<p>Thanks to all that have responded.<br>

I am a little suprised there hasn't been any feedback on the Sigma, all of my research (sifting through Amazon user reviews) led me to believe the Sigma was favored over the Tamron, but it looks like that isn't the case. </p>

[bruce_margolis]

<p>Cole, you might do better by searching pro reviews instead of user opinions. While user thoughts may be helpful, many (most?) are going to inflate the quality of what they bought. After all, not many want to admit the weaknesses of their expensive purchases.</p>

 

[joe_h3]

<p>Bruce,<br>

Excellent point made! Thanks.</p>

[travishoover]

<p>Cole,</p>

<p>I have the Sigma HSM version. I am happy with it, bought it second hand for what I feel was a rather good price. It is my most used lens due mainly to its zoom range. For a short period of time, I thought I was unhappy with it and wanted to get something else. After looking through my pictures, I decided I was wrong and just had a case of LAS. It is quick to focus, seems to be very sharp. Fairly light and compact as well. I think it would be comparable to the Tamron and very close to the Nikon, but I have no experience with the other two. If you want to see an example, look at last Wednesday's pic thread (wednesday pic #13), my picture of my nephew bowling was taken with the Sigma 18-50 f2.8 on my d80.</p>

<p>I don't think you could go wrong with any of the three. I have several Sigma lenses and I am very happy with all of them. Good luck!</p>

[tim_knight]

<p>The number 1 difference I have read about Tamron vs Sigma is that the Sigma has a quicker auto focus than the Tamron. Maybe someone can expand on the othr plus or minuses between the two.</p>

[nishnishant]

<p>While Mark and Eric have not answered me, the reason I asked that is that I do remember some people asserting that the Tamron lens without the motor is better than the one with the motor (which is apparently more prone to defects). I couldn't find the photo.net threads that mentioned this - perhaps I read it elsewhere.</p>

<p>I will be buying the Tamron soon too and this bit about how the one without the motor is the better of the two has been worrying me, specially since that one's probably not even in production now.</p>

[terry_kenny]

<p>I have the Tam 17-50, with the motor in the lens, it is fast when you have light, tends to hunt as do most Tamrons do. I may be switching to a Nikon very soon, so it may pop up for sale. I'll be doing some landsacpe shots this weeend, so I'll have something to show. I never had the Nikon but the Tamron beat my Canon version.</p>

[larrybc]

<p>I had the Sigma 18-50/2.8 (non-HSM, non-macro model). I found it to be not very good wide open (can't recall if it was AF inaccuracy or softness) so I ended up avoiding taking advantage of the f/2.8 aperture....which is why I bought it in the first place. Bokeh could also be ugly at times.<br>

I found a Nikkor 17-55/2.8, used, for CAD$1000 so I bought it. AF is very fast and accurate and I have no qualms about using it wide open. Bokeh is also good.<br>

That's not to say that the Sigma is a bad lens. It just wasn't as good as I'd like it to be in some respects. And while I like my 17-55/2.8, it's bulk/weight can be limiting at times, which is why I also have a 16-85VR. <br>

larsbc</p>

[beligere]

<p>Cole, I have a Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 - I use this on a Nikon D40. Its low-light capabilities are very impressive - especially if you compare it to the kit lens. Here's a gallery I've setup for pictures taken with this lens. All these pics were taken hand-held, with the flash off.<br>

<a href="../photodb/folder?folder_id=893232">http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=893232</a></p>

 

[beligere]

<p>Cole, I have a Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 - I use this on a Nikon D40. Its low-light capabilities are very impressive - especially if you compare it to the kit lens. Here's a gallery I've setup for pictures taken with this lens. All these pics were taken hand-held, with the flash off.</p>

<p><a href="../photodb/folder?folder_id=893232">http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=893232</a></p>

<p>I decided on this lens after a lot of research comparing it to the Tamron equivalent. The deciding factor for me was the 1:3 magnification of the Sigma, as compared to the 1:4.5 on the Tamron.</p>

<p>While all reviews of the Nikon 17-55 indicate that it is way better than any other competing lens out there, settling for either the Sigma or the Tamron is not really much of a compromise. Good luck with your decision!</p>

<p> </p>

[bruce_margolis]

<p>Tim, you really hit on the achilles heel of Tamron. They have been a bit slow to adopt AF-S equivalent lenses and when they have included their 'built-in motor' lenses, they are still reportedly slower than Sigma's HSM.</p>

<p>Optically, they sometimes outshine Sigma, sometimes don't. Their 17-50 and 70-200 reviews say Tamron has better optics than Sigma but of course, Sigma has the faster autofocus. Combine better optics with faster autofocus, i.e., Sigma's 30mm and 50mm primes and their new 50-150 among others, and you have a fantastic third party alternative.</p>

<p>However, in the OP's focal range, the reveiws indicate a preference for the Tamron. Here are a couple of them......</p>

<p><a href="http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/46-nikon--nikkor-aps-c/290-tamron-af-17-50mm-f28-sp-xr-di-ii-ld-aspherical-if-nikon-test-report--review">http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/46-nikon--nikkor-aps-c/290-tamron-af-17-50mm-f28-sp-xr-di-ii-ld-aspherical-if-nikon-test-report--review</a></p>

<p><a href="http://www.bythom.com/1750lens.htm">http://www.bythom.com/1750lens.htm</a></p>

<p>And here's Photozone's review of the Sigma comparable. Not saying the Sigma is bad, only that the Tamron is a bit better in this range......</p>

<p><a href="http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/315-sigma-af-18-50mm-f28-dc-ex-macro-review--lab-test-report">http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/315-sigma-af-18-50mm-f28-dc-ex-macro-review--lab-test-report</a></p>

 

[allardk]

<p>Hi Cole,</p>

<p>I've got a Sigma 18-50 Macro. I'm pretty happy with it. The corners are less sharp than the center wide open, esp at 18mm, and it has some CA but generally it's a razor. It focuses very fast (I'm using a canon so that part may not be the same for you) and for a zoom it gives quite good bokeh at the long end. I'm quite impressed by the performance when shooting against strong backlight. Don't pay too much attention to the reviews of the non-macro version because the optical formula was significantly changed, there's and extra low-dispersion element and the filter size has increased from 67 to 72 mm.</p><div></div>

[tim_knight]

<p>Bruce, When I purchased the Tamron 17-50 I chose the optics not the better AF. I am still happy with my choice. I shoot family, church, and landscape with it. I also takes very nice close up pictures with a selected subject and I find the broken very acceptable.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>hey there, lens hunters!</p>

<p>i havent directly compared the IQ to the sigma, but i do have two other sigma HSM lenses and they have extremely fast AF. nice to see some 18-50 HSM owners chime in with their experiences.</p>

<p>i have the older screw-drive version of the tamron which may be faster to AF than the newer BIM version. on a d300 the AF is pretty quick. i shoot a lot of concerts and low-light stuff with no flash, so i use the 17-50 wide open A LOT. it's very sharp at 2.8, sharper than the sigma 30/1.4 and 50-150 at that aperture, and close to the nikon 50/1.8 @ 2.8 as well.</p>