17-50 Tamron or Sigma???

Thanks everyone for the suggestions!

I ended up with the Sigma and tried it out last night.. WOW! Excellent lens and super sharp!
Indoors I actually find it sharper with less noise then the 15-85 at the same settings.

Btw regarding the prime debate.. I have primes and love them.. But they are not as easy and convenient. E.g bday party indoors or wife using camera, etc..

The primes I have were bought for specific reasons.
- Sigma 30 general "normal" prime.. I love it!
- canon 40 great travel prime since really small.
- canon 50 don't use it.. Want to sell
- canon 100 used for fast indoor sports.

Regarding the Sigma 18-35 f1.8 ... It was definitely a thought! My friend just bought one and it is really nice! Feels solid and professional and super sharp.
Problem for me is, it's triple the price that I paid for the 17-50, it does not have OS, and it is very big and heavy for that type of lens... So all that taken in I went for the 17-50

Congratz!! I just got mine too but have not had a chance to use it yet.

Lexar wrote in post #16399346
Thanks everyone for the suggestions!

I ended up with the Sigma and tried it out last night.. WOW! Excellent lens and super sharp!
Indoors I actually find it sharper with less noise then the 15-85 at the same settings.

Btw regarding the prime debate.. I have primes and love them.. But they are not as easy and convenient. E.g bday party indoors or wife using camera, etc..

The primes I have were bought for specific reasons.
- Sigma 30 general "normal" prime.. I love it!
- canon 40 great travel prime since really small.
- canon 50 don't use it.. Want to sell
- canon 100 used for fast indoor sports.

Regarding the Sigma 18-35 f1.8 ... It was definitely a thought! My friend just bought one and it is really nice! Feels solid and professional and super sharp.
Problem for me is, it's triple the price that I paid for the 17-50, it does not have OS, and it is very big and heavy for that type of lens... So all that taken in I went for the 17-50

On second thought: if you have a 15-85 IS and all those primes (30 1.4, 40 2.8, 50 1.8 100 2.0) and a flash why would you want another crop zoom? getting an f2.8 zoom seems redundant, the wider focal lengths (15 - 30) usually involve group shots, landscape pics, etc. where a smaller aperture (larger f) is desired for greater depth of field.
G.A.S. alert !!

watt100 wrote in post #16401617
On second thought: if you have a 15-85 IS and all those primes (30 1.4, 40 2.8, 50 1.8 100 2.0) and a flash why would you want another crop zoom? getting an f2.8 zoom seems redundant, the wider focal lengths (15 - 30) usually involve group shots, landscape pics, etc. where a smaller aperture (larger f) is desired for greater depth of field.
G.A.S. alert !!

Good question

First is price I could not resist. Bought in Japan new for $300.

Second is convenience. Bday parties or other things indoors that I am not using a flash for but 15-85 can't handle. With primes its more difficult, especially if you give the camera to someone else.

Last is A f2.8 with 3 stop OS gives me better low light capability for static objects then a prime even a 1.4 (bigger DOF)

Lexar wrote in post #16402327
Good question

First is price I could not resist. Bought in Japan new for $300.

Second is convenience. Bday parties or other things indoors that I am not using a flash for but 15-85 can't handle. With primes its more difficult, especially if you give the camera to someone else.

Last is A f2.8 with 3 stop OS gives me better low light capability for static objects then a prime even a 1.4 (bigger DOF)

I find that I still need a flash when using my Sigma indoors, so I don't think it has a significant advantage over slower lenses in this regard.

I had Tamron, wasn't happy about AF speed, consistency and accuracy, Sigma is substantially better. But it is not perfect of course. E.g., I found the hard way that at 35mm the edges are pretty obviously soft, even when closed down to f/8 (bad for landscapes). See here:

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/syamastro/94920​31998/

pulsar123 wrote in post #16403477
I find that I still need a flash when using my Sigma indoors, so I don't think it has a significant advantage over slower lenses in this regard.
But it is not perfect of course. E.g., I found the hard way that at 35mm the edges are pretty obviously soft, even when closed down to f/8 (bad for landscapes). See here:

yeah, that's pretty soft even at f8, I wouldn't accept that soft Sigma ... ugh


leaping over tall buildings

XSi /450D
Tamron 17-50 2.8 non-vc
f4.5

pulsar123 wrote in post #16403477
I find that I still need a flash when using my Sigma indoors, so I don't think it has a significant advantage over slower lenses in this regard.

I had Tamron, wasn't happy about AF speed, consistency and accuracy, Sigma is substantially better. But it is not perfect of course. E.g., I found the hard way that at 35mm the edges are pretty obviously soft, even when closed down to f/8 (bad for landscapes). See here:

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/syamastro/94920​31998/
Blue hour by syamastro, on Flickr

It is quite soft on the edges and especially corners. I read on photozone that f5.6 is optimal.
http://www.photozone.d​e …31-sigma1750f28os?start=1

I will take some test landscape shots and post.

I have owned both and over a year ago upgraded to the Sigma which is much better in low light. I am very pleased with the Sigma.

I've used the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 nonVC for landscapes at f/8 and f/16 with no "softness" problems.

PH68 wrote in post #16404819
I've used the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 nonVC for landscapes at f/8 and f/16 with no "softness" problems.

Probably not. A kit lens produces amazing shots at F8-F16. It's wide open where good lenses shine and the Sigma has the edge.

Lexar wrote in post #16404418
It is quite soft on the edges and especially corners. I read on photozone that f5.6 is optimal.
http://www.photozone.d​e …31-sigma1750f28os?start=1

I will take some test landscape shots and post.

I took a range of photos that night, between f5.6 and f11, and f8 was the best overall (but still not good at the edges).