Replacing kit lens with these.....

Looking to replace my kit lens that no longer works with these two choices

Sigma 17-70mm F2.8-4 DC Macro OS HSM Lens. B&H is selling this for $299 right now

Or

Tamron 17- 50 non-vc. $75 rebate being offered right now as we'll

Just looking for input before my purchase

Thanks

Both are good lenses, if you need the close focusing, go with the Sigma. If it were me, i'd probably go with the Tamron. Constant 2.8 and it's a legendary lens.

I've used the tamron before and it was great.

Just looking for more input on the Sigma if its worth the deal from b&h

The Tamron 17- 50 non-vc has excellent IQ, second only to the Canon 17-55 IS. I would take that one any day.

I had the Sigma briefly and did not like it. It just never wow'd me.

If your budget allows, you might want to consider the Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 EX DC OS HSM. Nice upgrade from the kit lens....

I love my 17-50 non-VC. Great lens. My 17-55 Canon will be here tomorrow to compare but after getting the Tammy back and tweaked it is great. (letting it go, FYI)

I've got the Sigma 17-70. Great lens, especially for $299. It's not a "WOW" factor lens, but is a great general purpose lens. It's sharp, it focuses fast and quiet, and it's built well.

The sigma is a great all purpose lens. OS means you can use it in low light for still subjects, close MFD means you can take detail shots, and the wider range is useful in quite a range of scenarios.

My Tammy 17-50 NON VC is my go to Lens cant live without it .

David

Lenses tend to follow the paradigm of you get what you pay for.. Yes, there are exceptions to the rules, but generally the better lenses are the more expensive ones... Generally.. There are exceptions. ( and regular Canon lenses are priced higher than non-Canon ones are - usually )

As you've chosen the 17-50 non-vc, I'd take that research shows that this is the better of the two Tamron 17-50 offerings.. The only one I'd consider better-- and my opinion is biased-- the Sigma 17-50 OS.. When I looked and read reviews-- the thing that cropped up a lot was the number of Tamron owners that upgraded to the Sigma 17-50 OS.. In all honesty- I've never used the Tamron 17-50 non-VC or VC. This is why I say I am biased--- never used it.. Reality is there probably is not that much difference...

With your two choices listed-- I'd likely take the Tamron... I'd take the Sigma if I wanted the extra range-- but 20 mm is really not that much difference -- between 50 and 70... Yeah, the Tamron in this case- unless you did consider the Sigma 17-50 OS..

Tamron 17-50 all the way. Very sharp lens!

I'd go Tamron as well. Constant aperture for the win.

The Tamron 17-50 non-VC is on the camera more than anything. I got it for the value, but it's also a very nice lens to use.

Thanks for the input - I will be picking up the Tamron this weekend.

I have had both lenses. That price for a sigma is a great price, I paid around 450 for mine.

The sigma has better build, and image stab, and focus,is quick. I actually found it to be similar in iq to the kit lens.

The tamron was very sharp, and has constant f/2.8. Focus is noisey, slow, and tends to hunt in low light. I actually really liked it, but the range 50 mm at the long end was to short for me.

I ended up buying a canon 15-85, more expensive, but a great lens, iq, imag stab, range and build.

On the two choices you were asking, even though the sigma is a very tempting price, and many people love it, I would buy the tamron used, you can get em here all day for around $325.