17-50 Tamron or Sigma???

I have a chance to buy these for a super prices and can't resist!

So which one should I get either a Tamron 17-50 nonVC or for $100 more a Sigma 17-50 OS.

This lens will be intended mainly for lower light indoor shots, since I already have a Canon 15-85 and love it for outdoor use.

Sigma. For $100, you get HSM (micro HSM, but still better than the one in the Tamron) and OS.

Low light indoors? Sigma!

I have the Tamron, great studio or daytime lens where there is plenty of light and I don't need IS. But in low light the AF will hunt and not be as snappy as it is in good light.

BrickR wrote in post #16397042
Low light indoors? Sigma!

I have the Tamron, great studio or daytime lens where there is plenty of light and I don't need IS. But in low light the AF will hunt and not be as snappy as it is in good light.

Yea, I mainly use the Tamron for landscapes, and it's all right for that, but I'm sure the alternatives are better in more demanding, low light situations.

Sigma hands down.

I used a Tamron 17-50 nonVC as the main lens on a recent holiday.
Very good sharp lens.

sigma, I love mine.

Sigma. You get what you pay for.

Lexar wrote in post #16396382
I have a chance to buy these for a super prices and can't resist!

So which one should I get either a Tamron 17-50 nonVC or for $100 more a Sigma 17-50 OS.

This lens will be intended mainly for lower light indoor shots, since I already have a Canon 15-85 and love it for outdoor use.

if you can get the Sigma for $100 more get it, otherwise the Tamron 17-50 non-vc is pretty nice

XSi /450D
Tamron 17-50 2.8 non-vc
f2.8

Sigma. I was amazed at the difference.

Frankly, if I were using the 15-85 as my main walkaround and wanted some low light/shallow DOF alternatives, I'd get one or two primes instead of another zoom. Primes tend to be smaller, can be cheaper, and might have up to two stops larger apertures than any zoom offers. Some fairly affordable possibilities: 28/1.8, 30/1.4, 35/2, 50/1.8, 50/1.4, 85/1.8, 85/1.4.

Just a thought.

amfoto1 wrote in post #16398248
Frankly, if I were using the 15-85 as my main walkaround and wanted some low light/shallow DOF alternatives, I'd get one or two primes instead of another zoom. Primes tend to be smaller, cheaper, and offer up to two stops larger apertures than any zoom offers. Some fairly affordable possibilities: 28/1.8, 30/1.4, 35/2, 50/1.8, 50/1.4, 85/1.8, 85/1.4.

I see where you are going with that but the OP already has primes at 30, 40, 50 and 100mm. The Sigma 18-35/1.8 would be the next good thing. But it's over the cost of the 17-50 options. Maybe sell the 30/1.4 to help bridge the gap. Or maybe look into a used 580ex2 to get more lighting options and more off camera options.

Just between the 17-50s I would want the Sigma.

Sigma is crazy sharp. I did use tamron for a while instead of springing for the canon. Was good but needed a bit more light imo.

Go with Tamron 17-50 NON VC.
At 50 mm focal length OS,VC or IS is not much required .Bump your ISO and increase your shutter speed for sharp picture.

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …sandeepsaman/10​052165345/

But why bump ISO when you don't always have to. If you're shooting subjects that move around stabilization is not important, anytime else it is better than not having it.

I had a Tamron 17-50 non VC, a Sigma 18-50 2.8 (old one), and the Sigma 17-50 2.8 OS. Clearly the 17-50 OS Sigma was the best. I only sold it because I bought a 6D.