Sigma 18-50 or Tamron 17-50

[dandcp]

on a Canon 30d.

Is there any reason I should buy a Tamron 17-50 2.8 for $449 at B&H when I can get a Sigma 18-50 2.8 for $359 at Sigma4Less? Am I missing something? What is the difference? Just personal preference? Is one better than the other?

What do you think?

[drew_viii]

this 2 lens are actually similar! i also had the same dilemma for my 30D... the reason why i bought the sigma because there is no reason for me to get a more expensive lens with the same quality and almost same focal length.

according to several lab test from my research, bot lens performs almost the same at all levels, but sigma slighty got more points because of its accuracy in focusing compare to tamron... and also its price

[dandcp]

this 2 lens are actually similar! i also had the same dilemma for my 30D... the reason why i bought the sigma because there is no reason for me to get a more expensive lens with the same quality and almost same focal length.

according to several lab test from my research, bot lens performs almost the same at all levels, but sigma slighty got more points because of its accuracy in focusing compare to tamron... and also its price
That is what I was thinking exactly. From what I can see they are about the same in quality. I did hear something about a longer warranty on Tamron. right now price is the most important to me I think.

[cdifoto]

I read somewhere that the Tamron actually focuses more accurately/faster (don't ask for a link because I don't remember where I read it). Neither has any kind of USM/HSM though so they're probably pretty close.

[dandcp]

I read somewhere that the Tamron actually focuses more accurately/faster (don't ask for a link because I don't remember where I read it). Neither has any kind of USM/HSM though so they're probably pretty close.
I think I read that somewhere too. I can't remember either. Also not sure if this will be a serious factor for me or not on this lens.

[Cricketer]

Peter K. Burian the noted author and technical reviewer of photo equipment has praised the Tamron 17-50 lens which he used at the recent Chinese Lantern Festival at Ontario Place in Toronto. I photographed the same event with the Tamron 17-35 lens on my Nikon D70. I believe Peter used a Canon DSLR. The quality of his pictures is first rate. Although very pleased with the image quality, speed and construction of my 17-35 Tamron, had the 17-50 been available I would have selected it for the extra range without question. In case you are wondering I also use a Sigma D lens 28-105 f2.8-f4, and Nikon lenses.

[jcon]

The Sigma 18-50 2.8 focuses just fine and is quite sharp on my D50. No complaints here.

[cdifoto]

The Sigma 18-50 2.8 focuses just fine and is quite sharp on my D50. No complaints here.

I read a lot of complaints about it on Canon bodies though.

[rawpaw18]

Sigma 4 less is not an authorized Sigma distributer. Your warranty is less with them (only one year), then say B&H where they extend the US warranty (additional 3 years).

[dandcp]

Sigma 4 less is not an authorized Sigma distributer. Your warranty is less with them (only one year), then say B&H where they extend the US warranty (additional 3 years).
I wish I would have known that sooner. I already bought it at Sigma4Less. Oh well.... It seems to be ok on my Canon 30d. Though I have still to put it to major testing.

[da_teacher]

Not a thread hijack!!!!

I'm in the same boat--I've never bought anything besides Canon glass for my film cameras but right now, I rather have more lenses than one lens for the price.

I'm hihgly considering the Tammy 17-50 for my upcoming 30D (with the kit lens) but I want something better than just the kit lens to begin with. I'll most likely sell the kit lens in the future.

I've been reading tons of reviews of lenses and I think I'm starting to go insane with so many opinions!

What about the following? I'm looking for something wide but with zoom (with 1.6 crop in mind) but sharp. What's the next best thing compared to the Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 USM IS?

Sigma 17-70 2.8-4.5?
Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 EX DG Macro DF?

Or do I bite the bullet and grab a Canon 17-40mm f/4 USM?

thanks for the help!

[unix04]

Not a thread hijack!!!!

I'm in the same boat--I've never bought anything besides Canon glass for my film cameras but right now, I rather have more lenses than one lens for the price.

I'm hihgly considering the Tammy 17-50 for my upcoming 30D (with the kit lens) but I want something better than just the kit lens to begin with. I'll most likely sell the kit lens in the future.

I've been reading tons of reviews of lenses and I think I'm starting to go insane with so many opinions!

What about the following? I'm looking for something wide but with zoom (with 1.6 crop in mind) but sharp. What's the next best thing compared to the Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 USM IS?

Sigma 17-70 2.8-4.5?
Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 EX DG Macro DF?

Or do I bite the bullet and grab a Canon 17-40mm f/4 USM?

thanks for the help!

depends on your needs... if you need the extra range...the 17-70
if you want a longer more portrait oriented lens or more speed without wide angle, the 24-70
if you want the same range as the 17-55 and same speed, the sigma 18-50
if you dont need the speed, have the money and really want to L, then the 17-40L.

that's how i'd see it...

[SpecialK]

Got that Sigma 18-50 for my K100D at Sigma4less and the 70-300 APO DG from Adorama. No complaints about any of it.

[sheridancarole]

I read somewhere that the Tamron actually focuses more accurately/faster (don't ask for a link because I don't remember where I read it). Neither has any kind of USM/HSM though so they're probably pretty close.

this is probably a stupid question but..what is the adavantage of USM?:confused:

[michaelb]

this is probably a stupid question but..what is the adavantage of USM?:confused:

Lighting fast focusing and usually full time manual focusing ability (no need to flip a switch to manual focus).

Also, the front element does not rotate, which is nice when using circular polarizing filters. I know that the front element also does not rotate on the Tamron 17-50 and the Sigma 17-70.

[zmikers]

"The Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 EX DC Lens is very, very similar to the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II Lens. These lenses are more similar than different. They are very similarly sized and shaped. They function very similarly.

The differences? The Sigma is less resistant to flare. The Sigma shows more CA. The Tamron is noticeably wider (17mm vs. 18mm - and even wider than the Canon with the same 17mm designation). The Tamron focuses faster, the Sigma focuses more quietly. The Tamron focuses much more accurately - My keeper rate is far higher with the Tamron. My Sigma has a weak left side - For sharpness, the Tamron beats the Sigma easily on the left side, but the Sigma is slightly better on the right. The Sigma rings rotate the Canon direction, the Tamron rings rotate the opposite direction. The Sigma is less expensive (but not by much). The Sigma's requires its lens hood to be removed to install/remove the lens cap - this is a pain - Plan to buy the Tamron cap if you purchase the Sigma lens.
My pick? I'd go with the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II Lens over the Sigma."

That was not my review but found here http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Tamron-17-50mm-f-2.8-XR-Di-II-Lens-Review.aspx also check out this site for all of your other lens questions http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ I found it useful, hope you can as well.:D

[drew_viii]

ive tried the tammy one lately in the shop, and to be honest with you, i dont feel any difference between sigma and tamron on focus, and accuracy, both seems competitive in picture quality... one thing i do agree though is sigma seems to hunt more than the tamron one on low light conditions...

and put it into more accurate test, sigma shows better picture quality than the tamron one... i just dont understand why tamron seems to be more expensive than the sigma one with so much little difference or nothing at all...