Tamron 17-50 2.8 VC or Sigma 17-50 2.8 OS

Tamron SP B005 17-50 mm F/2.8 Di-II XR VC IF AF or
Sigma EX DC OS HSM 17-50 mm F/2.8 OS HSM DC Lens

These are your 2 choices. Canon is out. I have decided on these two. I don't want to hear about other lenses or camera bodies (I know how ya'll like to go off on tangents).

I am trying to spend the least amount of money but can't decide between the two! I only spend money my camera earns on camera gear and right now I am down to $350 (had to spend camera $$ on house stuff).

Right now I can get the Tamron for $250 but it has some scratches on the outside of it. It supposedly works fine.
I can get the Sigma for $350 and it is mint.

I have read reviews both ways on this. Both very similar Image Quality but weaknesses at different ends of the zoom. I'm sure I would be happy with either.

The main difference I see is that the Sigma is HSM which is much quieter. The Tamron is $100 cheaper but is not mint.

I was just curious if any of you have experience with either or both. Any opinion as to which is better?

Thanks in advance!

I lean strongly toward Tamron for overall sharpness and build quality. The Sigma has advanced the art with their ART series and the ability to tweek via the USB dock but my experience with Tamron is no tweeking is needed. I left Sigma after seeing the Tamron 70-200 was sharper and after seeing my Sigma 12-24 soft throughout the FL. Just one 0.02 to consider

BlakeC wrote in post #17069859
Tamron SP B005 17-50 mm F/2.8 Di-II XR VC IF AF or
Sigma EX DC OS HSM 17-50 mm F/2.8 OS HSM DC Lens

These are your 2 choices. Canon is out. I have decided on these two. I don't want to hear about other lenses or camera bodies (I know how ya'll like to go off on tangents).

I am trying to spend the least amount of money but can't decide between the two! I only spend money my camera earns on camera gear and right now I am down to $350 (had to spend camera $$ on house stuff).

Right now I can get the Tamron for $250 but it has some scratches on the outside of it. It supposedly works fine.
I can get the Sigma for $350 and it is mint.

I have read reviews both ways on this. Both very similar Image Quality but weaknesses at different ends of the zoom. I'm sure I would be happy with either.

The main difference I see is that the Sigma is HSM which is much quieter. The Tamron is $100 cheaper but is not mint.

I was just curious if any of you have experience with either or both. Any opinion as to which is better?

Thanks in advance!

I use the Tamron 17-50 2.8 non-vc which is supposedly sharper than the VC model (the one you've listed). The non-vc Tamron is sharp and relatively inexpensive ($200 used), haven't used the VC model

There may be better alternatives for what you shoot but then you don't want to hear about them

60D
Tamron 17-50 2.8 non-vc
f2.8
ISO 3200

watt100 wrote in post #17069886
There may be better alternatives for what you shoot but then you don't want to hear about them

Lol. I know I know. If I dont get specific then we will here about everyones favorite lens and Ill never get a straight answer.

SO that's 2 for Tamron. I did hear that about the non VC model. But I have heard arguments for both "IS" and Non. That's another thread tho...lol

BUt for these 2 particular deals...is the scratched up $250 Tamron VC worth gambling on over the Sigma OS MINT condition? Also is the HSM on the Sigma worth noting?

MedicineMan4040 wrote in post #17069868
I lean strongly toward Tamron for overall sharpness and build quality. The Sigma has advanced the art with their ART series and the ability to tweek via the USB dock but my experience with Tamron is no tweeking is needed. I left Sigma after seeing the Tamron 70-200 was sharper and after seeing my Sigma 12-24 soft throughout the FL. Just one 0.02 to consider

I also heard something similar. Between these two, I heard that the Tamron is rather soft at the long end but the Sigma is soft at the short end. This is the Sigma EX which is supposedly supposed to represent Sigma's "premium" build quality lenses.

Not trying to defend Sigma, just playing devil's advocate trying to make sure I get an unbiased opinion.

I also like the Tamron prices and this one is $250 but scratched on the side.

Here is a photo.

http://www.youtube.com​/watch?v=T3UfbsdfUu8
Watch this review. I have the Sigma 17-50 and have been very happy with it.

AJS wrote in post #17070058
http://www.youtube.com​/watch?v=T3UfbsdfUu8
Watch this review. I have the Sigma 17-50 and have been very happy with it.

Wow...awesome review! Assuming his photos are accurate, I am def leaning towards the Sigma now!

Thank for the post!

I'm pretty sure anyone saying the Tamron is sharper is referring to the non VC model that you are not asking about. The Non VC is sharper in the corners, the Sigma is sharper in the center.

However once you start talking about the VC version, the Sigma is just better.

I'd pay $250 for a non VC Tamron before I would pay the same amount for the VC one.

My vote is for the Sigma here.

FEChariot wrote in post #17070295
I'm pretty sure anyone saying the Tamron is sharper is referring to the non VC model that you are not asking about. The Non VC is sharper in the corners, the Sigma is sharper in the center.

However once you start talking about the VC version, the Sigma is just better.

I'd pay $250 for a non VC Tamron before I would pay the same amount for the VC one.

My vote is for the Sigma here.

I hear ya. I just like the idea of having IS. I will most likely go with the Sigma in this case. Thanks!

I had the sigma twice and was very happy with it. One thing I don't think I saw mentioned: the sigma will be very likely to focus much faster than the tamron. Their HSM motor is pretty close to canon's USM.

I've got the Sigma, and it's been absolutely fantastic. Colors and sharpness are good, and it's very quick to focus. It easily spends the most time on my 7D out of any of my lenses. My personal experience with this lens has been nothing but positive overall.

BlakeC wrote in post #17069859
Tamron SP B005 17-50 mm F/2.8 Di-II XR VC IF AF or
Sigma EX DC OS HSM 17-50 mm F/2.8 OS HSM DC Lens

These are your 2 choices. Canon is out. I have decided on these two. I don't want to hear about other lenses or camera bodies (I know how ya'll like to go off on tangents).

I am trying to spend the least amount of money but can't decide between the two! I only spend money my camera earns on camera gear and right now I am down to $350 (had to spend camera $$ on house stuff).

Right now I can get the Tamron for $250 but it has some scratches on the outside of it. It supposedly works fine.
I can get the Sigma for $350 and it is mint.

I have read reviews both ways on this. Both very similar Image Quality but weaknesses at different ends of the zoom. I'm sure I would be happy with either.

The main difference I see is that the Sigma is HSM which is much quieter. The Tamron is $100 cheaper but is not mint.

I was just curious if any of you have experience with either or both. Any opinion as to which is better?

Thanks in advance!

The Tamron non-VC is excellent. It was my go lens until I went FF and I sold it.

I've read the Tamron has really bad sunflare.

I'm a Tamron fan-boy of sorts, but in this case, I'd go with the Sigma. The VC version of that lens has poor reviews across the board, whereas the Sigma seems to pretty much shine. Here's a side by side of IQ: http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=4​&APIComp=0

$350 for a mint sigma seems like a really good deal to me...there are many instances where the sigma looks to have better sharpness than the canon 17-55mm...which if you had allowed, most people would've recommended