Member of the Month

je_t.aime_canard
January, 2025

Online

Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post. Register to become a member today!

Sigma 17-50 vs Tamron 17-50

profile picture
N.A.R
Posts: 181 - Karma: 357
I am looking into a new lens for filming. I was planning on the Tamron 17-50 F/2.8 lens, but I ran into the Sigma 17-50mm F/2.8 lens. Everyone her on NS loves the Tamron, and I haven't heard anything about the Sigma. Reading a comparison, I found the Sigmas auto focus is twice as fast, and more accurate, I do take stills, so that may be beneficial, also this comparison said:

"With its quieter and faster operation and, especially, its markedly superior performance at 50mm f/2.8 (the setting you will most often use for portrait shots) the Sigma is the one I prefer. It is also a much (much!) better choice for video. Unfortunately on my camera its AF proved somewhat unreliable at wide angle – even when using live view."

Any thoughts? I use a Canon 60d, and I only have a 18-200mm F/3.5 lens.


Help is appreciated.
Apr 4 2013 1:18PM
6 0
profile picture
eheath
Posts: 61780 - Karma: 124,904
get the tamron 17-50 non-vc the sigma is garbage.
Apr 4 2013 1:44PM
2 0
profile picture
N.A.R
Posts: 181 - Karma: 357
Alright thanks, you know what you are talking about, so I trust this.
Apr 4 2013 1:49PM
0 0
profile picture
Mag
Posts: 8155 - Karma: 14,804
No.


The sigma not only has ring usm, but also OS(I'd just consider this a small perk, doesn't matter if you're shooting sports but for indoor static shots it's good).

The tamron autofocus is fucking useless, didn't find it very accurate(although having not had a chance to use the sigma I can't comment on this) and it's the slowest thing I've ever used, not to mention being noiser than a fucking jet.



Given what I've read on the internet the sigma is "nearly as sharp as the 17-55" but I'd want to see real tests to make sure. Also not sure how it handles in other respects.


If you were JUST shooting video, sure I'd say get the tamron, it's dirt cheap and you don't need autofocus, but you did say photos, you need to ask yourself, how much do I need a good autofocus system and OS? is it worth the extra couple hundred? or can you live with a poor autofocus/manual focus and save yourself a lot of money if you're not shooting many photos?


Apr 4 2013 2:48PM
0 0
profile picture
.qzyxya
Posts: 1479 - Karma: -26
Wasn't there also a thread on this a few days ago? Not to be a dick but searchbar it.
Apr 4 2013 3:36PM
0 0
profile picture
eheath
Posts: 61780 - Karma: 124,904
I'm sure this OP isn't that serious about his photo work, if someone actually cares about a nice lens for photo they should spend the extra money for the 24-70 or 17-55
Apr 4 2013 4:13PM
1 0
profile picture
Mag
Posts: 8155 - Karma: 14,804
There's a happy medium that is the sigma though, it's half the cost of the 17-55, don't even get me started on the 24-70
Apr 4 2013 4:17PM
0 0
profile picture
N.A.R
Posts: 181 - Karma: 357
Well it doesn't matter for me at this point, I bought the Tamron, and I am satisfied.
Apr 4 2013 6:37PM
1 0
profile picture
Swaggermager
Posts: 2576 - Karma: 950
This might be a dumb question but what is the difference between VC and non-VC and why does it matter while shooting video?
Apr 5 2013 11:10AM
0 0
profile picture
.qzyxya
Posts: 1479 - Karma: -26
Doesn't really matter. It is vibration control so it is supposed to stabilize it but it doesn't really work well.
Apr 5 2013 11:14AM
0 0
profile picture
Swaggermager
Posts: 2576 - Karma: 950
Is it the same as image stabilization? I did a little looking on eBay and couldn't find any non-vc but there were some without image stabilization.
Apr 5 2013 3:45PM
0 0
profile picture
.qzyxya
Posts: 1479 - Karma: -26
yes it is.

Apr 5 2013 5:39PM
1 0
profile picture
Swaggermager
Posts: 2576 - Karma: 950
Thanks for the help +k
Apr 5 2013 11:06PM
0 0
All times are Eastern (-5)