I am in need of a better lens for my t2i .

davidc502 wrote in post #14097911
What?? The Sigma doesn't beat the Tamron in either IQ or Value.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=0

David

I think it does. The Sigma offers image stabilization, fantastic build quality, exceptional IQ, a free soft case, and a 4 year warranty. All at half the price of the Canon 17-55, and reasonably more expensive than the non-image stabilized Tamron.

ktownhero wrote in post #14098027
I think it does. The Sigma offers image stabilization, fantastic build quality, exceptional IQ, a free soft case, and a 4 year warranty. All at half the price of the Canon 17-55, and reasonably more expensive than the non-image stabilized Tamron.

I think compared to the Canon, you're absolutely correct. Compared to the Tamron, not so much. Tamron is superior, in I.Q., at almost every focal lenght (50mm they are pretty even). As for build quality, they are both built well. As for Image stabilization most would agree that it isn't as helpful as putting OS on a longer focal lenght. Also, Tamron has a 6 year warranty.

The Sigma is still a highly regarded, great lens that's a really good competitor to both Canon and Tamron, but Tamron still holds a good edge when it comes to I.Q. If you want to compare the Sigma to the Tamron VC, then I'd say you have a better case, but the non VC, not so much.

Oh yeah... don't forget about the "Sigma Lottery" cause you just don't know what you're going to get.. lol

David

I upgraded to a sigma 17-70 f2.8-4 os hsm macro for my t2i. I am very satisfied with it, the os works great, the AF is fast and quiet, Build quality is great. It's worth taking a look at.

The rings go the right direction and Sigma's focus motor is faster and quieter. In practice the optics don't make such a huge difference. They are both above the point of diminishing returns imo.

Get the 24 L or the 35 L, stick with a prime, you will love it when you see the images.

I had bad experince with Tamron non-VC - strong back and front focus at different FL (so it cannot be fixed with focus MA). Tamron service center refused to fix it. Then I got Sigma 17-50, which was perfect. So it is not just Sigma lottery, but also Tamron, Canon etc.

I love the 17-55. I think it was worth every penny. I'm just a novice but it certainly is sharp, fast, and the IS is amazing.

davidc502 wrote in post #14097911
What?? The Sigma doesn't beat the Tamron in either IQ or Value.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=0

David

In real life shooting, there's probably indistinguishable differences. I actually got both (check my sig), and the 24-70L to boot. The value proposition is respect to the Canon 17-55mm (for which I have little experience with). Note that the OP was comparing Canon vs. Sigma. The sigma (and tamron) are probably very, very close IQ wise, but cost $500 less. That's value.

davidc502 wrote in post #14098082
I think compared to the Canon, you're absolutely correct. Compared to the Tamron, not so much. Tamron is superior, in I.Q., at almost every focal lenght (50mm they are pretty even). As for build quality, they are both built well. As for Image stabilization most would agree that it isn't as helpful as putting OS on a longer focal lenght. Also, Tamron has a 6 year warranty.

The Sigma is still a highly regarded, great lens that's a really good competitor to both Canon and Tamron, but Tamron still holds a good edge when it comes to I.Q. If you want to compare the Sigma to the Tamron VC, then I'd say you have a better case, but the non VC, not so much.

Oh yeah... don't forget about the "Sigma Lottery" cause you just don't know what you're going to get.. lol

David

TBH, I trust Lightrules' opinion more than TDP. And AFAIK Lightrules think the Sigma is the best choice in that range for crop.

get the sigma... i will have one this week too

Well now after reading a few other posts.. Thinking I might stay with the 24-105L lens. and possibly get me an UWA lens and then get some primes.

I'm liking the 8-15 L fisheye, looks like alot of fun could be had with that lens.

My advice to you is to get a standard rectilinear wide angle before a fisheye... either Canon 10-22, Sigma 10-20 or Tokina 11-16

Good call on staying with the 24-105, it's plenty of lens. Maybe get a fast prime to supplement it like the 50mm 1.8/1.4 or a 28mm 1.8.