Tamron SP AF 17-50 or Sigma 17-70mm ?

[steve_johnston9]

<p>

<p >Looking at the Tamron SP AF 17-50 F2.8 XR Di II LD mainly as it can maintain a constant aperture across it zoom range. Alternatively I am looking at the Sigma 17-70mm. Anyone able to offer any views as which one to get ?</p>

</p>

[tommyinca]

<p>How often you need f2.8 at 17-25mm verse 25-50mm? and How much does a 50-70 f4.5 lens worth to you? </p>

<p>Note: Bias answer from an owner of a 17-50/2.8 :-)</p>

 

[anders_carlsson]

<p>You can usually compensate for the 50-70mm reach advantage that the Sigma has by taking your Tamron a few steps forward. Really, those 20mm aren't that much of a gain. I don't know of any body movement that can compensate for the Sigma's smaller aperture however. Constant f/2.8 is a good thing.</p>

[mike_hitchen]

<p>The Tamron is a real bargain. I looked at the Tarom 17-50 f2.8, Sigma 17-70 and the Tokina 16-50 f2.8 and of the three I thought the Tokina was much the better value.<br>

I bought the Canon 17-55 f2.8IS only because I got a bonus at work, but to be honest at times I wish I had the smaller, lighter Tamron. At the 50mm end it is verging on being a good portrait lens, but the 2.8 is excellent for shooting indoors.</p>

[tom_burke3]

<p>But the Sigma has that extra 20mm on the long end, and to me that would be a big plus. The number of times I find 55mm just that little bit too short. Back in film days, the Canon 28-105 f3.5-4.5 was my favourite lens because of its range, and the 17-70 is pretty close to that.</p>

[jim_j2]

<p>The only third party lens I own is the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 AF SP XR Di II LD IF which was a "used" purchase.</p>

<p>I was always hestitant about third party lenses because of all the compatability and AF issues I had read about.</p>

<p>I can say now with some experience, that the Tamron works "just like my Canon's" on my 50D!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"Note: Bias answer from an owner of a 17-50/2.8 :-)"</p>

 

</blockquote>

[henrik_lauridsen]

<p>I would take the constant f/2.8 aperture any day over a slightly increased reach. Then again, I am also a biased owner of the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8.</p>

[bueh]

<p>I had the Sigma 17-70mm (on Pentax). Serious back/front focusing issues. Had it send to Sigma for calibration, but sold it shortly afterwards (not a big fan of zooms).</p>

[richard_martin10]

<p>I had the Sigma and now own the Tamron. Hands down the Tamron is a superior lens. Sharper, better focusing, CA not an issue. You won't even think about the extra 20mm focal length once you try the Tamron......non VC version!</p>

[brett_w.]

<p>also a Tamron 17-50 2.8 (non-vc) owner - sharp lens even at f2.8 ! </p>

<p> </p>

[jackaldridge]

<p>Do a search of photo.net and read some of the comments re slow focusing, etc.</p>

[anthony_bhe]

<p>I have the non-VC version in the Pentax mount. I can't comment on focusing, as I mostly manual focus and generally use manual mode 80% of the time, but otherwise the Tamron is a great lens. It's sharp, fast and covers a useful range. The only downsides I've experienced are some field curvature and barrel distortion at short focal lengths, but not so much that it stops me from using it frequently at short focal lengths. It's very usable wide open, and great value for the money.</p>

[railphotog]

<p>I doubt if I can add much to the discussion, I have the Tamron 17-70mm lens for my Canon XSi and I love it! In fact, it is on the camera all of the time in place of the kit 18-55 lens because of its longer range, macro capability and f:2.8 starting aperture. I didn't search out and buy this lens, I saw it advertised on a local online site and picked it up for a decent price ($200.00). I think the price here in Canada around that time was $600.00 or so, way beyond my normal interest. But for me the price was right and I do like the lens!</p>

<p> </p>

[kts]

<p>starting may 1st tamron will be offering a $70mail-in rebate on the 17-50 vc version so you should be able to grab one for about $580</p>