Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 22 Dec 2013 (Sunday) 08:15
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Sigma 17-70 vs Tamron 17-50

 
BrickR
Cream of the Crop
5,935 posts
Likes: 114
Joined Mar 2011
Location: Dallas TX
     
Dec 23, 2013 15:53 |  #31

I have the Tamron nonVC. Low light focusing is a weakness. All of the non USM motors they use have that hindrance. My 28-75 is the same way.
Personally I find the 17-50 range too limited for general use and would rather have the 17-70 for that little extra reach.


My junk
The grass isn't greener on the other side, it's green where you water it.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
watt100
Cream of the Crop
14,021 posts
Likes: 29
Joined Jun 2008
     
Dec 23, 2013 16:06 |  #32

DaveKosiba wrote in post #16549589 (external link)
My Tamron 17-50 non-VC would hunt focus a bit in low light, not one of its strengths. However, if the light is that low, I needed to be using a flash with AF assist anyway. I don't have experience with the Sigma, but again, I would expect the Canon to again be the leader in low light AF, that lens focuses much better in low light than my Tamron ever did.

I you are looking at either the Tamron or Sigma, and I know the Tamron is a good lens, with a 6 year warranty. You should be able to pick one up used for $300 or so, but if you can afford a used Canon 17-55 at around $650, it is a superior lens. As it should be for twice the price.

same here, if the light is that low I use a flash.
sites like www.photozone.de (external link) have comparisons, the Tamron 17-50 is rated significantly higher than the Sigma 17-70

XSi /450D
Tamron 17-50 2.8 non-vc

IMAGE: http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8007/7278934374_0ed3970e6e_c.jpg



  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
PH68
Senior Member
599 posts
Joined Jun 2013
Location: England
     
Dec 23, 2013 16:11 |  #33

I have used the Tamron 17-50 nonVC.
Bought it to take on holiday earlier this year and sold it (for more-or-less what I paid for it) when I got back... it was cheaper than renting.

Ask yourself this... what is it you don't like about the 18-55.
Unless you really need (and I mean really need) f/2.8 then there is no point in replacing the 18-55.
Yes you can get the Canon 17-55 f/2.8 but the cost compared to the 18-55 does not produce that much difference in IQ.

Most of my shooting is around the 25-30 range, so I just invested in a decent prime instead... I use the EF28 IS USM virtually all the time, and IQ is stunning. It's also quite light weight compared to an f/2.8 zoom.
If I need anything other than 28mm I use the 18-55 IS or 55-250 IS zooms. To be honest they're pretty good.

Lots of folks seem to think that because they're bundled as "kit" lenses they must be rubbish.Strange that if you bought a 5Diii or 6D you'll get a 24-105L lens bundled as a "kit" lens. It might well be an L lens... but technically it's still a "kit" lens.

There are lots of post by folks that think "if I spend more money on a more expensive lens I'll get better pictures".
Most poor shots are simply down to user error and not use of a bad/cheap lens or camera body.


The only reason to change your lens is:
(a) you want more range - wider or tele
(b) you want a faster lens - lower f-stop.
That's it.


Fuji XE1 ~ XF18 ~ XF27 ~ XF60 ~ XC50-230

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Frodge
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Avatar
3,075 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 145
Joined Nov 2012
     
Dec 23, 2013 16:33 |  #34

I think I'm going to actually stick wih my 18-55 IS for now and invest in a flash. Is it wise to get the off camera cord for the flash? B&h bundles that for 289$ or you get just the flash for $249. Make sense?


_______________
“It's kind of fun to do the impossible.” - Walt Disney.
Equipment: Tokina 12-24mm, Canon 40mm 2.8, Tamron 17-50 2.8 XR Di, Canon 18-55mm, Canon 50mm 1.8, Tamron 70-300VC / T3I and 60D

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kfreels
Goldmember
Avatar
4,297 posts
Likes: 6
Joined Aug 2010
Location: Princeton, IN
     
Dec 23, 2013 17:07 as a reply to  @ Frodge's post |  #35

Yes. Having a cable is very wise. But you may want to look at the Yongnuo. This one is $86 and will do basically all that the one you plan to buy will. http://www.amazon.com …s=yongnuo+flash​+canon+ttl (external link)


I am serious....and don't call me Shirley.
Canon 7D and a bunch of other stuff

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Frodge
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Avatar
3,075 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 145
Joined Nov 2012
     
Dec 23, 2013 17:26 |  #36

How is the quality of the yongnuo compared to the canon? Is the fit between the hot shoe and flash the same? (Slop or overtightness?)


_______________
“It's kind of fun to do the impossible.” - Walt Disney.
Equipment: Tokina 12-24mm, Canon 40mm 2.8, Tamron 17-50 2.8 XR Di, Canon 18-55mm, Canon 50mm 1.8, Tamron 70-300VC / T3I and 60D

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DaveKosiba
Senior Member
Avatar
597 posts
Gallery: 4 photos
Likes: 48
Joined Jan 2011
Location: Atlanta
     
Dec 23, 2013 18:19 |  #37

Frodge wrote in post #16549675 (external link)
I think I'm going to actually stick wih my 18-55 IS for now and invest in a flash. Is it wise to get the off camera cord for the flash? B&h bundles that for 289$ or you get just the flash for $249. Make sense?

I agree with your decision as I didn't know you did not have a flash. An external flash is probably the first thing anyone should get after buying their camera.


EOS 6D MkII, Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC, 85 1.8, 70-200L f/4 IS, 16-35 f/4L IS, 430 EXII, Luma Cinch Strap

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Trique ­ Daddi
Goldmember
Avatar
1,082 posts
Gallery: 3 photos
Likes: 43
Joined Feb 2007
Location: East coast of Florida
     
Dec 23, 2013 19:25 |  #38

So it sounds like you are recommending the sigma...

Either lens will serve you well but the Sigma is a better lens.


Canon 7DMKII,7D 40D, 20D, CANON 100-400mm IS 4.5/5.6L, Canon 70-200mm 2.8L, Canon 50mm 1.8, Canon 100mm 2.8 macro, Kenko Extension Tubes, Sigma 17-50mm F2.8 EX DC OS, 580EX II Flash,Gittos MH 5580 monopod, Thinktank Airport Takeoff.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Frodge
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Avatar
3,075 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 145
Joined Nov 2012
     
Dec 23, 2013 19:42 |  #39

Trique Daddi wrote in post #16550056 (external link)
Either lens will serve you well but the Sigma is a better lens.

17-70 or 17-50?


_______________
“It's kind of fun to do the impossible.” - Walt Disney.
Equipment: Tokina 12-24mm, Canon 40mm 2.8, Tamron 17-50 2.8 XR Di, Canon 18-55mm, Canon 50mm 1.8, Tamron 70-300VC / T3I and 60D

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Trique ­ Daddi
Goldmember
Avatar
1,082 posts
Gallery: 3 photos
Likes: 43
Joined Feb 2007
Location: East coast of Florida
     
Dec 23, 2013 21:55 |  #40

he Tamron is a great lens. I shot with it for three years until I upgraded it to the Sigma 17-50mm OS. Love the Sigma! The focus in low light is much more reliable!
_______________]


My original post is above.
The Sigma 17-50mm OS is a better lens than the Tamron 17-50mm nonVC. The Sigma focuses faster in low light. I also pwned the ealry version of the Sigma 17-70mm but didn't like the varible aperture on that short of a lens so I bought the Tamron the a couple of years later I upgraded the Tamron to the Sigma 17-50mm OS


Canon 7DMKII,7D 40D, 20D, CANON 100-400mm IS 4.5/5.6L, Canon 70-200mm 2.8L, Canon 50mm 1.8, Canon 100mm 2.8 macro, Kenko Extension Tubes, Sigma 17-50mm F2.8 EX DC OS, 580EX II Flash,Gittos MH 5580 monopod, Thinktank Airport Takeoff.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kfreels
Goldmember
Avatar
4,297 posts
Likes: 6
Joined Aug 2010
Location: Princeton, IN
     
Dec 24, 2013 14:05 |  #41

I think you can only say something is "better" when it's a proper comparison. You can't look at the 17-70 and 17-50 and say one is inherently "better". Each has things that it does better and the real question is which one would suit your specific needs better.

The 17-70 works better for me than the 17-50. Having an extra 20mm to work with means less cropping which mean sharper images when I need the narrower field of view. The sharpness difference isn't really noticeable to me since I rarely view images any larger than 2500 pixels wide. My larges monitor is 96ppi and about 20 inches wide which is even smaller than that so even a 2500 pixel wide image at full screen isn't noticeable unless it is a seriously cropped image. I lose at most 1 stop of light at the long end which is a fair trade to me. And that's before you add in the close-focusing capabilities that really allow you to do some stuff you just can't do with the 17-50.

To answer the question about the flash - yes, it is just fine in the hot-shoe. It has a screwdown ring to lock it down that works just fine just like just about every decent flash out there. it also has a metal foot for the hotshoe if I recall correctly. I don't have one myself. A friend has one and I like it better than my Sigma and he paid less for his. lol


I am serious....and don't call me Shirley.
Canon 7D and a bunch of other stuff

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jbrackjr
Senior Member
481 posts
Likes: 35
Joined Dec 2011
Location: Georgia, USA
     
Dec 24, 2013 14:39 |  #42

Another vote for Yongnuo. I have the ETTL version 565EX. Works great. Also, works wirelessly with my 60D indoors. Don't need a cord. However, I do use a cord when using a flash bracket mounting the flash high over top of my 100-400.


Jim
Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Lexar
Senior Member
297 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Aug 2012
     
Dec 24, 2013 14:48 |  #43

The two lenses serve different purposes. One is a walk around all purpose and the other one is better for lower light and more DOF.

I have the Canon 15-85 for all purpose and I think its much better rated then the Sigma 17-70. It has a longer range, better build and faster focus speed.

For the indoors and low light I got a Sigma 17-50 OS f2.8 and its better build and focus in low light then the tamron. Also it has 3 stop IS. Therefore for static object in low light its the equivalent as f1 :)


Canon 70D | 15-85IS | Σ17-50/2.8 | Σ30/1.4 | 40/2.8 Pancake | 100/2.0 | 55-250STM | 430EXII

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kfreels
Goldmember
Avatar
4,297 posts
Likes: 6
Joined Aug 2010
Location: Princeton, IN
     
Dec 24, 2013 15:02 |  #44

Lexar wrote in post #16551751 (external link)
The two lenses serve different purposes. One is a walk around all purpose and the other one is better for lower light and more DOF.

I have the Canon 15-85 for all purpose and I think its much better rated then the Sigma 17-70. It has a longer range, better build and faster focus speed.

For the indoors and low light I got a Sigma 17-50 OS f2.8 and its better build and focus in low light then the tamron. Also it has 3 stop IS. Therefore for static object in low light its the equivalent as f1 :)

Yeah. I have both the 15-85 and the 17-70. Funny how I came to own both but I can't seem to give up either because they both have some fantastic attributes. The Canon is a full stop slower on the long end and doesn't have the close focusing attributes but the thing is quick on AF and sharp as a tack. It was also twice as expensive as the 17-70. I actually owned the Canon first and bought the Sigma for my daughter and ended up swapping lenses with her so often that I now use the Sigma more and she has my Canon). If I had the cash I might add a 17-50 f2.8 to the arsenal, but that 18-35 f1.8 looks awfully appealing. I seriously doubt I would use the 17-50 more than the 17-70 because I like to use the close-focusing characteristics. But an 18-35 with an f1.8 would really be useful. I could sell the Canon and almost cover it, but it's just such a fantastic lens overall and I like to use it on a second body for candids at weddings with my 70-200 f2.8 on the other body.

So many lenses and so few dollars!


I am serious....and don't call me Shirley.
Canon 7D and a bunch of other stuff

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
JVthePT
Goldmember
Avatar
1,468 posts
Gallery: 130 photos
Likes: 739
Joined May 2012
Location: SE Iowa
     
Dec 25, 2013 06:25 |  #45

I'm right there with kfreels, the Sigma 17-70mm is a superb lens. I used it on my 60d and have produced some terrific images with it. I have a friend with the Tamron and I have used it side by side with my Sigma and I prefer the sigma.
I sold my 60d and will upgrade to a 70d, you see the Siggy is still in my siggy below.. I won't get rid of it any time soon. Love the ability to focus up close and personal to a subject. Add a TC and you get even better "macro" ability.


6D & 7D mark II - Canon 16-35 f/4 IS L, Canon 24-70 f/2.8 L, Canon 24-105 f/4 L IS, Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS II L, Canon 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 L IS II, Canon 50mm f/1.8 STM, Canon 85 f/1.8, Canon 100 f/2.8 USM macro, Canon EF 1.4x III
flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

8,988 views & 0 likes for this thread
Sigma 17-70 vs Tamron 17-50
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is Fireman
1624 guests, 297 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.