Sigma vs Tamron 17-35mm f/2.8-4

let me apologize if this thread was asked before but i looked around and found the thread with sigma/tamron 17-50mm ... i prefer to ask about the 17-35mm relatives.

i am planning to buy a Canon EF 28-135mm IS USM for my walkaround lens. and i plan to buy EITHER the Tamron or Sigma 17-35mm ... i am just wondering, anyone who has experience or used either of the lenses?

which lens has better optics? or has better technology with it?
did the both lens get out the same year?

just a few questions, in my mind.

hope you guys could help me.

PS. Both lens are in the range of 400USD.

THanks in Advance.

Can I ask why this focal lengh range? It would appear that you're only gaining 11mm. Why wouldnt you look into going for an UW zoom, maybe something from 12-24 or 10-22 ?

both lens 2.8-4

sando wrote in post #2634977
Can I ask why this focal lengh range? It would appear that you're only gaining 11mm. Why wouldnt you look into going for an UW zoom, maybe something from 12-24 or 10-22 ?

its kinda expensive. 400++

Sigma10-20 anybody? .

JaGWiRE wrote in post #2635029
Sigma10-20 anybody? .

hi. what is your preference? the sigma or tamron??

anybody. when did those lens get out? 2005?

pinoy1979m wrote in post #2635042
hi. what is your preference? the sigma or tamron??

I think he's saying that the Sigma 10-20 is about the same cost as the other two lenses you suggested, and will give you a wider focal lengh range.

There's no point in getting another lens which will cover the same focal range as you already have... even if you're on a budget, because it is effectively a waste of money. You'd be much better off spending another $100 to get a lens which will not 'over-lap'... even if it takes you another 3 months to save the cash for it.

sando wrote in post #2635123
I think he's saying that the Sigma 10-20 is about the same cost as the other two lenses you suggested, and will give you a wider focal lengh range.

There's no point in getting another lens which will cover the same focal range as you already have... even if you're on a budget, because it is effectively a waste of money. You'd be much better off spending another $100 to get a lens which will not 'over-lap'... even if it takes you another 3 months to save the cash for it.

Yes, exactly.

JaGWiRE wrote in post #2635219
Yes, exactly.

you mean i should get the 10-20mm sigma over the 17-35mm sigma?

i was looking at the site. i saw the sigma 10-20mm; but its for digital camera type of camera. i prefer to invest a lens that eventually be able to use in full frame camera in the couple of years.

pinoy1979m wrote in post #2634969
let me apologize if this thread was asked before but i looked around and found the thread with sigma/tamron 17-50mm ... i prefer to ask about the 17-35mm relatives.

i am planning to buy a Canon EF 28-135mm IS USM for my walkaround lens....

I have the hood for the EF 28-135mm IS USM still in the box. It's practically brand new. Message me if you want it.

A few people here LOVE the Tamron, which I had for a bit... but people that prefer the Sigma over the Tamron (including myself) do so because of the robust build, the HSM (quick and silent focus), and less distortion on the wide end... it also comes with a case. In terms of optics, I don't think you'll be able to tell the difference... and from my experience, the Sigma performs better in lower light... 17th Street Photo has the US version for $420.

I think the general consensus is the Tamron has better optics in general, while the Sigma is better built and has better focus speed with HSM.