Sigma 17-70 or Tammy 17-50?

[Vinni]

I've got a dilemma, should I go for lens A, the Tammy, or lens B, the Sigma?

I've decided to stick to a two lens setup, if I go with the Tammy I'll get the Sigma 55-200 and if I go with the Sigma 17-70 I'll get the Sigma 70-300 DO.

The problem is whether to go with the 17-70 f/2.8-4.5 or the 17-50 f/2.8. The reach doesn't really matter to me, since I'll get it one way or another. The shots I've seen from the Sigma blow the Tammy out of the water IQ wise but the Sigma doesn't have a constant 2.8, the Tammy does.

The Tammy has a constant 2.8 but the test shots I've seen really don't look all that vivid, color-wise.

Anyone have both lenses and want to give their input? I really would like a constant 2.8 but if the lens itself is a dud I'd rather go for the f/4.5 indoors.

[Big Hands]

I don't think that gap between 50mm to 70mm is of so much concern that you would need to base the purchase of your tele zoom on which wide zoom you get.

I have a hard time believing the Sigma 17-70 blows the Tamron 17-50 'out-of-the-water' because the one I tested was very sharp at f/2.8, but if you have found one that does, maybe you should get just grab it anyway.

[El Duderino]

To me, the IQ from the Tamron is slightly better. No way does the Sigma blow the Tamron out of the water.

[Linkzi]

research, research, research. Multiple samples on this forum. I went with f/2.8 all the way! Very helpful indoors.

[Vinni]

Well, judging by the samples on these forums, the Sigma photographs just bleed in color -- it's astounding really.

The Tamron may be sharp, but how does it handle color?

[MannP]

Why not try both in a store then decide? Like what linkzi said do a research beforehand. I don't think you'll go wrong with either lens

[Linkzi]

Originally Posted by Vinni

Well, judging by the samples on these forums, the Sigma photographs just bleed in color -- it's astounding really.

The Tamron may be sharp, but how does it handle color?

I have noticed my Sigma 10-20 has different contrast than the Tamron. The Sigma does have better contrast but the Tamron is sharper. PP will help both situations but again, f/2.8 indoors with a zoom is great! Don't forget to adjust the ISO. I always forget!

[El Duderino]

Originally Posted by Linkzi

Don't forget to adjust the ISO. I always forget!

I check my ISO settings like crazy after taking half of my San Diego pictures in ISO 1600 accidentally last summer.

[Tee Why]

Tamrons have had a colder color cast, similar to Canons in my view. Sigma's color cast tends to be a bit warmer, that is what you may be seeing. This is very simply corrected by adjusting the color, so I'd consider this a trivial difference.

If it was me, I'd go with a Tamron 17-50 for it's optics and speed and then a Sigma 70-300 APO DG Macro as a two lens combo.

Good luck

[Steve in bris]

Vinni

I have the Tamron and i really like it. I didn't get a chance to try the Sigma out but i thought long and hard about this lens. As a general lens i think it is really good and the colours and sharpness are both great.

The 20mm loss of reach does not bother me. i guess the final decision came down to the constant aperature that was what finally swung it i think.

Regards

Steve

[kennys350d]

either way, you wont be disappointed.

[DerekI]

Originally Posted by El Duderino

To me, the IQ from the Tamron is slightly better. No way does the Sigma blow the Tamron out of the water.

I agree the Tmaron has the edge in term of pure IQ but I think if you would like to get only one lens or your first lens , the Sigma is better and easier to use, with the lobger range and close-up.

I will have to get rid of one of them too, and I'll proabbly keep the Tamron with my Canon EF-S60(I love my EF-S60, which does not extend itself and produces great portrait, product-photos and flowers).

The Tamron is a very sharp and very very nice lens with vibrant color like the 17-40L, but the Sigma 18-50macro (not the 17-70) is also a very good lens.

If you are like me loving wheeee noisy of the Tamron, should get it , but make sure never bring it to a church , I made a big mistake once at my Church .

[DerekI]

Originally Posted by Linkzi

I have noticed my Sigma 10-20 has different contrast than the Tamron. The Sigma does have better contrast but the Tamron is sharper. PP will help both situations but again, f/2.8 indoors with a zoom is great! Don't forget to adjust the ISO. I always forget!

So Do you think which one Tamron or Sigma does have Canon-like color tone?

The Tamron has a bit warmer color in my opinion but what do you think?

[DerekI]

Originally Posted by Vinni

Well, judging by the samples on these forums, the Sigma photographs just bleed in color -- it's astounding really.

The Tamron may be sharp, but how does it handle color?

VEry interesting opinion and view .

[Linkzi]

Originally Posted by DerekI

So Do you think which one Tamron or Sigma does have Canon-like color tone?

The Tamron has a bit warmer color in my opinion but what do you think?

The Sigma seems to have the warmest color in my collection. More than the Canon. I'd say the Tamron is closest to the Canon in brightness and color out of the lens. With the Sigma being the warmest in colors, it is also darker in brightness than the other two. Its like the Sigma has a built in ND. A great outdoor lens. The best lens in my collection is the Canon. The "L" produces quite a bit of "pop" in color, brightness and focus. I enjoy processing those! It's all preference and you won't be disappointed in any of those. Again Post Processing will even out the playing field some.