Sigma 17-70 vs Tamron 17-50

I'm going to be getting one of these soon. Which has the sharpest images. I'm addicted to sharp images.

Its depends on your budget. Sigma 17-70 is cheaper but quality-wise I am more than happy with Tamron, never tested Sigma though

Is the Sigma F/2.8 throughout

the sigma is 2.8 to 4.5

I voted for the Tamron, F/2.8 throughout

(thanks for the info ezza)

imranr wrote in post #2953843
Its depends on your budget. Sigma 17-70 is cheaper but quality-wise I am more than happy with Tamron, never tested Sigma though

Both are within my budget.

I wonder how many have tested/owned both? I would specifically ask people otherwise the resulkts will be 'forum talk' only.

Actually, the Canon 17-55 would be my choice, but I feel the Tamron's constant f/2.8 throughout the focal length would better meet my needs.

condyk wrote in post #2954102
I wonder how many have tested/owned both? I would specifically ask people otherwise the resulkts will be 'forum talk' only.

Good point. I would be very interested in hearing from anyone who has tested both of these lenses. Without that, it looks like it is a matter of deciding whether the additional range of the Sigma is worth giving up the constant f/2.8 of the Tamron.

all depends on how much you want to spend..

I've had the 17-70 sold it and just bought the tammy 17-50. To me both are capable of producing very sharp pictures. I feel the tammy is built better than the 17-70. I think It comes down to what sVjack said. You really wouldn't go wrong with either one. Flip a coin.

Tamron for sure because of sharpness and 2.8

tamron

I know this may sound silly but I ended up with both the Tamron 17-50 and Sigma 17-70, even though I was intending to get rid of one. I love em both for different reasons. I favor the 17-50 for indoors, low light, landscape, nightscapes, events, where I know I'll largely use the wide end. To me, its a near perfect lens with little flaws. But I keep the Sigma even though it hunts a little more when the light is low, and needs to be stopped down on the wide end, because its simply a super fun lens to use. I can't put a finger on why that is. Versatile, macro, longer range, great IQ for an all day walk around. Bottom line is that it depends what you favor most. You can't go wrong with either lens. As an aside, I also had a used Canon 17-85 IS for a week before I returned it. That particular one was a little more worn than I had wanted, plus wasn't as impressed with the build quality or IQ. It was a little better in the AF department, however.

mdm wrote in post #2954478
I've had the 17-70 sold it and just bought the tammy 17-50. To me both are capable of producing very sharp pictures. I feel the tammy is built better than the 17-70. I think It comes down to what sVjack said. You really wouldn't go wrong with either one. Flip a coin.

Would you pls talk about why you switched from sigma to tamron since you have found both are quite good in term of resolution?