Tamron 17-50 2.8 or Sigma 17-70 2.8-4?

I've read other posts about this two lenses but the problem is that most of those who needed advice shoot indoors. I'm really excited about upgrading my kit lens since i'm also getting a Canon 7d.

I shoot almost anything: outdoors, portrait, urban, concerts, food, macro, actually, almost anything that looks good. I also thought of having another prime but sometimes, i cant move around too much to get a good shot. Basically, I need an everyday lens and the price of these two are the only ones that fit my budget.

Thanks for your thoughts!

You should also consider the Sigma 17-50 2.8. I just upgraded to it after selling my 18-135 kit lens and have been very happy with the results. Having the constant 2.8 aperture is nice as well.

flynnstone wrote in post #13932983
You should also consider the Sigma 17-50 2.8. I just upgraded to it after selling my 18-135 kit lens and have been very happy with the results. Having the constant 2.8 aperture is nice as well.

Agreed, and while I don't get much use out of the OS for stills at this focal length range, it is great for video.

Laizen31 wrote in post #13932671
I shoot almost anything: outdoors, portrait, urban, concerts, food, macro, actually, almost anything that looks good. I also thought of having another prime but sometimes, i cant move around too much to get a good shot. Basically, I need an everyday lens and the price of these two are the only ones that fit my budget.

Thanks for your thoughts!

From what you listed I'd go with the 17-70 OS as long as you know you don't need the constant f2.8.

The 17-70 has more reach, will focus closer (by about 2"), has a little better magnification (0.37x vs 0.22x), better Maximum Reproduction Ratio (1:2.7 vs 1:4.5), and has OS.

The 17-50 has a constant f2.8.

So what do you need more?

For the things you described above, I'd go for the sigma, its much more versatile, which is what you need. The only thing the tamron has is an extra stop on the long end, the sigma has better focus, OS, an additional 20mm, better MFD.

I recommend the tamron for those who want a constant aperture lens, whereas the sigma suits pretty much everyone else wanting an upgrade who doesn't necessarily want constant 2.8.

Laizen31 wrote in post #13932671
I've read other posts about this two lenses but the problem is that most of those who needed advice shoot indoors. I'm really excited about upgrading my kit lens since i'm also getting a Canon 7d.

I shoot almost anything: outdoors, portrait, urban, concerts, food, macro, actually, almost anything that looks good. I also thought of having another prime but sometimes, i cant move around too much to get a good shot. Basically, I need an everyday lens and the price of these two are the only ones that fit my budget.

Thanks for your thoughts!

The Tamron is sharper and has a constant f2.8 but the Sigma has OS and longer focal length - depends on what you want !

watt100 wrote in post #13934580
The Tamron is sharper

not by much at all according to this (though I'm not sure how accurate it is):
http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=3​&APIComp=0

Sirrith wrote in post #13934595
not by much at all according to this (though I'm not sure how accurate it is):
http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=3​&APIComp=0

that link is at the wrong apertures!

hint: try this
http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=3​&APIComp=2

or look at this site:
http://www.photozone.d​e

They advise you to avoid shooting with the Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4 DC HSM OS at f2.8 because it is so soft at f2.8!

watt100 wrote in post #13934616
that link is at the wrong apertures!

I was comparing them wide open, not one wide open one stopped down.

Sirrith wrote in post #13934765
I was comparing them wide open, not one wide open one stopped down.

you were comparing one lens at f2.8 with another lens at f4.0
try comparing lens at the same settings with the same aperture and focal length

watt100 wrote in post #13934789
you were comparing one lens at f2.8 with another lens at f4.0
try comparing lens at the same settings with the same aperture and focal length

As I said, I was comparing them both wide open (or as close to wide open as I could). I merely changed focal lengths starting from 17mm both at 2.8 without touching the aperture. It just so happened that when I linked the page, it was at 50mm where the 17-70 is not 2.8 and TDP doesn't have anything wider than f4 for that focal length.

Comparing them both at the same aperture is not what I like to do. All lenses get better when stopped down, so they should be compared wide open to keep the relative difference in IQ the same and not stopped down to give one of them an advantage.
For example, what is the point of comparing, say a 1.4 prime to the 2.8 zoom if you're going to stop the prime down to 2.8? Everyone knows the prime will be sharper, so the comparison is pointless. Better to compare them both wide open and show their weaknesses at that particular aperture, be it 1.4 or 2.8.

Besides, I'm sure people who use this forum are smart enough to change a few options to check different focal lengths/apertures themselves.

Sirrith wrote in post #13934826
As I said, I was comparing them both wide open (or as close to wide open as I could). I merely changed focal lengths starting from 17mm both at 2.8 without touching the aperture. It just so happened that when I linked the page, it was at 50mm where the 17-70 is not 2.8 and TDP doesn't have anything wider than f4 for that focal length.

Comparing them both at the same aperture is not what I like to do. All lenses get better when stopped down, so they should be compared wide open to keep the relative difference in IQ the same and not stopped down to give one of them an advantage.
For example, what is the point of comparing, say a 1.4 prime to the 2.8 zoom if you're going to stop the prime down to 2.8? Everyone knows the prime will be sharper, so the comparison is pointless. Better to compare them both wide open and show their weaknesses at that particular aperture, be it 1.4 or 2.8.

Besides, I'm sure people who use this forum are smart enough to change a few options to check different focal lengths/apertures themselves.

I'm not sure I'm getting your point other than it was an inadvertent comparison of f4 and f2.8 because the Sigma is not constant aperture lens. Any valid comparison of lens has to be at the same settings with the same camera otherwise (of course) it will look different.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=2​&APIComp=2