Tamron 17-50mm Vs Sigma 17-50 for the Canon 400D

[vale_surfer]

<p>Hi<br>

Which is a superior lens for the Canon 400 D? The Tamron 17-50mm or Sigma 17-50 - I have lenses frm 10mm uptil 250 bit am missing the 20 -50 length. I mostly shoot interiors, architecture, portraits sometimes and street.<br>

Thanks.</p>

[jack_nordine]

<p>Neither is superior. First, from all reports I've read the non VC version of the Tamron has better IQ than the VC version. However the Sigma appears to have slightly better IQ than the non VC Tamron. You also get stabilization but it's more expensive. In fact the Photozone review stated the Sigma has slightly better IQ than the well respected but overpriced Canon 17-55mm 2.8.</p>

[drake_barton3]

<p>I recently purchased the Sigma 17-50 to mount on a 7D, it is a fine lens. For me it was a choice between a Canon lens and a third party lens and it was really a pretty agonizing process. I've only shot with Canon lens before this. I think I may miss some of the build quality of the Canon but I am very pleased with the quick and quiet operation and excellent IQ and the build quality is very good. I can't speak to the Tamron but the Sigma is great on a 7D. The one caveat, it does focus hunt in low light, an area Canon certainly has the advantage. The image stabilizing is effective and so quite I had to run some tests with it on and off to see if it was working.</p>

[thomasly]

<p>I had the Sigma 17-50 with my Canon XSi for a few months...<br>

from memory, the sigma did a decent job indoors in the school auditorium without flash (i was close up.)<br>

I thought it also was Okay as a portrait lens but I thought MY photos were on the Softer side..<br>

hope this helps! </p>

[sheygetz]

<p>The Sigma I tried was better built than the Tamron I had for 2 weeks. The Tam's stabilizer visibly shudders into action, which I found rather disconcerting. I have the distinct feeling that sample variation between two copies of either make is going to be bigger than that between the makes. So buy where you can easily test several samples or return hasslefree.</p>

[jim_mcdermott1]

<p>To (slightly) disagree with Jack above, I've seen a couple of comparative tests that suggest that, while the Sigma has slightly better central IQ than the (non VC) Tamron wide open, its border resolution lags behind that of the latter until about f8. My own experience with the Tamron (again, non VC) is that it's effectively pin-sharp by f4. In fact, it matches my primes over the same focal lengths. Much of my photography involves landscapes and church interiors; my only (occasional) wish is that the Tamron was slightly wider.</p>

[yakim_peled1]

<blockquote>

<p>In fact the Photozone review stated the Sigma has slightly better IQ than the well respected but overpriced Canon 17-55mm 2.8.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not so. The <a href="http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/425-canon_1755_28is_50d">Canon got 4 stars </a>and the <a href="http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/531-sigma1750f28os">Sigma got 3.5 stars</a>. BTW, the <a href="http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/482-tamron_1750_28vc_canon">Tamron got 3 stars</a>. FWIW, I have the Canon for ~3 years and don't think it's overpriced. It's a simple case of YGWYPF.</p>

<p>Happy shooting,<br /> Yakim.</p>

[vale_surfer]

<p>Thanks all - I'm leaning in favour of the Sigma, what kind of pictures is this lens best for and does anyone have any sample pics ?<br>

Thanks.</p>

 

[yakim_peled1]

<p>FWIW, both Tamron lenses were just tested on D7000. Results are like Canon. VC version gives you stabilization but is optically worse.</p>

<p>Happy shooting,<br>

Yakim.</p>

[vale_surfer]

<p>Thanks all. I've decided to go for the Tamron 17-50 (non VC). The Sigma is that much more expensive.....Just wanted to make sure if this will mount on my Canon 400D?</p>

<p> </p>