Sigma Vs Tamron 17-50mm f2.8

nukuEX2

I'm looking at their 17-50 f2.8. I want 24-70 f2.8 However, I'd have to settle for 17-50mm with D7200 (For now). DX is 1.5 crop and as I calculate the #s 17-50mm is basically 25.5mm-75mm on FF What I want to know is has any of you guys ever owned either of those two lens? As I was shooting for Tamron but after viewing many mix reviews on Youtube (albeit on Canon mount ) I'm leaning towards Sigma. Any suggestions?

mcammer

I have the sigma, and it is a very nice lens. Probably my most frequently used lens (on a D7000). Don't know about the Tamron. My suggestion is to look for groups dedicated to each lens on Flickr or whatever. That'll give you an idea about sharpness and general image quality. Reliability and ease of use, maybe people can chime in here.

I've had no issues with the Sigma. I think it zooms backwards compared to Nikon standard, but honestly that has never gotten engrained in me. It also doesn't have manual focus override, so if you have it in autofocus and try to fine tune manually, you will grind gears. Hasn't hurt my lens yet for all the times I've done that.

heartyfisher

I would look at the sigma 18-35 F1.8 -- may not have the range or VR but very sharp and wide aperture...

Its as good as getting 3 f1.8 primes.. plus its a zoom...

Of the 2 17-50, I think the Sigma reviews better.. its sharper and its very sharp in the center which is great news for the 1.3 crop mode.

tcole1983

I looked at both back when I was in the market. I personally liked the sigma more. Focus was fast and quiet compared to the tamron. I also felt like build quality was better on the sigma. Test pictures I took with the sigma were very sharp. I was impressed. I took my sigma back the day after buying because of an unexpected cost that came up. I eventually found a used in excellent shape Nikon 17-55 which I got instead. I was always a little weary of quality control issues that seemed prevalent with sigma back not long ago. The Nikon at the time was only a couple hundred more so I went that way.

Anyway I think either are going to be about the same. Personally the whiny tamron focus motor was a real put off for me unless they have a newer version that isn't that way.

mustangdaren

I used a Tamron 17-50 VC on my D90 and D7000. It was an excellent lens, well worth the money. I use the Nikon 24-70 on my D610 and to be honest I don't see that much difference in sharpness if any other than extreme corners wide open and definitely not worth the price difference on DX. I was told the non VC model is slightly sharper but you trade off the VC. To be honest I usually switched the VC off since I used a tripod for a lot of landscape stuff. I felt I got sharper photos with it off handheld even due to there was a slight delay in the VC operation. If you snapped before it settled you would get a less sharp photo but with it off I did not have to wait on that delay. With f/2.8 on a lens of that focal length you really do not need it anyway.

Photobug

I'm looking at their 17-50 f2.8. I want 24-70 f2.8 However, I'd have to settle for 17-50mm with D7200 (For now). DX is 1.5 crop and as I calculate the #s 17-50mm is basically 25.5mm-75mm on FF What I want to know is has any of you guys ever owned either of those two lens? As I was shooting for Tamron but after viewing many mix reviews on Youtube (albeit on Canon mount ) I'm leaning towards Sigma. Any suggestions?

Go to your local dealer and rent the lens for a weekend. That way you get a feel for them and can shoot the same subject. Then really go over the images on a computer screen.

There are good used Nikon 17-55mm F2.8 lens out there too.

Hiker

Surprised there is not much talk on here about this. I just sold my Sigma 17-70mm f2.8-4 for a Sigma 17-50mm f2.8. New lens to go with the new D7200 I just bought recommended on Nikonians by many. Plus I watched Christopher Frost's video on the Sigma. He compared the Sigma, Tamron, Canon and Nikon and the Sigma came in 2nd behind the Canon L lens, but not by much.

heartyfisher

I like the Christopher Frost reviews.. I have been looking at many reviews of various 17-50 lenses over the years.. and the best value for nikon seems to be the 17-50 Sigma. It was one of the first Sigma lenses that was developed with their new methodology of testing sharpness with their Foveon sensor test rig. so It is unusually sharp!

BTW What did you think of the 17-70 sigma F2.8-4 ? Its the main alternative to the Nikkor 16-80 F2.8-4... and I have been considering it for a bit. Still I will probably be saving up for the Nikkor...

Hiker

heartyfisher, It was ok. nice stopped down but very soft at 70mm. The 17-50 is much sharper of course. And the 17-70 had lens creep that drove me nuts when hiking and when I was in South America for 3 weeks. At least the 17-50 has a lock on it!

starralazn

one of the big things i didn't like about the sigma 17-50mm was that the focus ring would move for auto focus. other than that, yeah it was sharp.... but i think if i had a choice between a prime and a general purpose zoom, i'd always choose the prime.

CaMeRaQuEsT

Can you believe that the lowly AF-P 18-55 VR kit lens is much sharper and contrasty than either the Sigma or the Tamron VC 17-50s when set at the same aperture and focal length? And that its VR is orders of magnitude more stable than either's OS or VC when shooting videos hand held? That's what my tests have shown with my copies of these 3 lenses. I've come to the conclusion that these 24Mp sensors are only really properly served by the newest optics, and both 17-50s are already very long in the tooth. Yeap, I'm currently trying to unload them both...

Hiker

Oh, and Chris Frost is trying to go to a Monistary. So I suspect he won't be doing reviews any more. And my photos with the D7200 and Sigma 17-50 are so much better than with the 17-70. I don't think I improved that much in a month! LOL

heartyfisher

@CaMeRaQuEsT ... But F5.6 vs F2.8 is quite a big difference..

CaMeRaQuEsT

heartyfisher said:

@CaMeRaQuEsT ... But F5.6 vs F2.8 is quite a big difference..

Thing is, bumping up ISO 2 stops yields an image that's still sharper on the [email protected] than either of the 17-50s wide open. Of course, you might say bokeh is [email protected], but if it is bokeh what you want, you should really be shooting with a prime, as the 17-50s do not excell in bokeh, either, plus they have high levels of color fringing. And then you have to deal with 3rd party AF issues, which is a whole lottery on itself. So, for the price of either of those 17-50s I'll rather buy me a 35, a 50 or an 85 1.8 and use those for portraiture or any other instance when I want some nice bokeh in the shot.

BVS

CaMeRaQuEsT said:

heartyfisher said:

@CaMeRaQuEsT ... But F5.6 vs F2.8 is quite a big difference..

Thing is, bumping up ISO 2 stops yields an image that's still sharper on the [email protected] than either of the 17-50s wide open. Of course, you might say bokeh is [email protected], but if it is bokeh what you want, you should really be shooting with a prime, as the 17-50s do not excell in bokeh, either, plus they have high levels of color fringing. And then you have to deal with 3rd party AF issues, which is a whole lottery on itself. So, for the price of either of those 17-50s I'll rather buy me a 35, a 50 or an 85 1.8 and use those for portraiture or any other instance when I want some nice bokeh in the shot.

True, but I think it would depend on the use case. If you're shooting indoors you might already be at 3200 or 6400 ISO, and bumping 2 stops beyond that could really kill your DR, etc.

Hiker

My Sigma 17-50 is on my D7200 as my walk around lens. If the Nikon 16-80, the preferred focal length, was 1/2 the price I would have bought that. And the Sigma/D7200 is an amazing combo. No focus issues, etc.

spraynpray

Funny that, we want 1.5 crop lenses that are fast and sharp, then when we get them we complain they aren't 2/3rds the price...

I just had to bite the bullet and buy the 16-80. It's good.

heartyfisher

spraynpray said:

Funny that, we want 1.5 crop lenses that are fast and sharp, then when we get them we complain they aren't 2/3rds the price...

I just had to bite the bullet and buy the 16-80. It's good.

Yeah, i am saving for it.. :-) no big hurry, I have the 18-140, which is decent. dunno if I will ever get it though... other lenses seem to vie for the top of my list. eg the new 100-400 sigma. or the new fisheye zoom.. and that good-ol' 10-100 Nikon1 or the sigma 50-100 f1.8 or the 18-35 f1.8 etc ...

nukuEX2

I've bought a nikkor 50mmf/1.8g AKA "nifty fifty". 50mm on DX is about 75mm and I've read and saw the good revuews.

Hiker

heartyfisher said:

spraynpray said:

Funny that, we want 1.5 crop lenses that are fast and sharp, then when we get them we complain they aren't 2/3rds the price...

I just had to bite the bullet and buy the 16-80. It's good.

Yeah, i am saving for it.. :-) no big hurry, I have the 18-140, which is decent. dunno if I will ever get it though... other lenses seem to vie for the top of my list. eg the new 100-400 sigma. or the new fisheye zoom.. and that good-ol' 10-100 Nikon1 or the sigma 50-100 f1.8 or the 18-35 f1.8 etc ...

GAS is fun...the photography one of course! I saw where Sigma did a firmware update on the 100-400 already?! Looks like it was for Canon and Sigma cameras. It was to fix AF and OS. The 50-100 looks pretty awesome.

Hiker

i was asked to shoot my good friends wedding this Saturday. So, the Sigma 17-50 will be my go to lens. Shooting it with the D7200 as well. Nothing fancy, they just want it documented. My first real test with the lens and camera.

spraynpray

Be sure to chimp your low light shots with your OK button set to 100% zoom to avoid disappointment later due to missed focus. You have nothing to lose by doing that.

heartyfisher

spraynpray said:

Be sure to chimp your low light shots with your OK button set to 100% zoom to avoid disappointment later due to missed focus. You have nothing to lose by doing that.

do that.

Hiker

Hey!! All my shots are perfectly focused....said no photographer ever!! Thanks I'm always checking my Histogram's and focusing!

Hiker

Well the wedding shoot went well. One camera, D7200, and one lens the Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 Took 262 shots, some bursts. Another, a family member shot about the same amount. Maybe 2-3 were not in focus. My fault!! Just had a good time and glad to be of service to good friends! The family member shot a Canon 5d Mk3. A Canon 70-200 f2.8 L lens and a Canon 24-70.

CaMeRaQuEsT

Just got me a brand spanking new Tamron 17-50 of the earlier, non VC type, of later mfg. with internal focusing motor and "Made in Vietnam". Got it really cheap in the gray market from HK, marked down some more because of a slightly blemished box, but still for a couple dozen bucks more than what I paid for my used VC model.

This old (design) lens feels much better built than the much newer (design) VC: focus and zoom rings twist smoother and with just the right amount of damping (the VC has loose focus and tight, non linear zoom rings), although the zoom ring still has friction of the kind that shows up in videos when zooming. The extending front barrel is tight with no play, unlike the VC which I can wiggle just a bit; focusing motor sounds a tiny bit quieter but is still way louder than any other lens I've ever owned that wasn't a screw type. It did came a bit dirty inside, with a small smudge and what seems to be the start of a fungal infection on the inside lens surface of the rearmost elements, plus some small, black particles strewn around on the inside barrel that seem to be leftovers from cleaning the plastic parts. These might be due to either QC issues at Tamron's Vietnam factory or to the way the reseller had stocked and handled it, as this lens could be a re-stocked return, but I couldn't find any signs of previous usage.

This lens is very sharp wide open from corner to corner when at 17mm, getting progressively softer toward the corners when zoomed in, with 50mm being quite soft in the corners, but still pretty sharp at center. The corners sharpen up very well throughout the range when stopped down, being sharpest at f11, still it's safe to say that at the 35-50mm range you'll be better served by the Nikkor 35mm and 50mm 1.8G primes, which are sharper wide open than any of my 17-50s stopped down to f4. But in the 17-35mm range, this Tamron is hard to beat, being even sharper than the already outstanding AF-P and VRII 18-55mm retractable kit lenses at those same ranges, and it is usefully wider at its widest FOV (it's amazing how much difference 1mm makes with wide angle, DX lenses). There is plenty of CA and comma wide open, but it's fixable in LR to a degree where it's imperceptible. There is also heavy distortion, too, but, again, totally fixable in LR, as it already comes with this lens' profile.

One caveat, though: this lens has very unreliable LV AF, at least on my D5500, just like my copy of the Sigma 17-50, but unlike the VC which is very resolute in LV AF, being almost as good as all my other Nikkors in this regard. LV MF is a bit of a handful because of the very short focus ring travel, but is still serviceable and it's the only way to get the sharpest results out of this lens. I'll reserve judgment on the viewfinder AF until I get a D7200 as my D5500 is not focusing well even with my Nikkors, just as my previous D5200 and D5500 did. Yes, I've totally lost faith in the Multi-CAM 4800 AF module.

In summary, this lens is so good at its widest settings it's pretty much the cheap, wide angle DX primes in the 16 to 24mm range that we have all been asking and waiting for Nikon to deliver, and it's small, light and fast enough to act as one, too. I guess that the Sigma 18-35mm f1.8 should be even sharper, but at less than 1/3 its cost and at about 1/2 its weight and size, this Tamron 17-50 is really unbeatable.