Tamron 17-50 2.8 or Sigma 18-50 2.8 macro

I've heard great things about both of these. Opinions on which to go for? The Sigma is a bit cheaper (at sigma4less) but I heard great things about EX build from Sigma. (not too sure about their QC though)

Getting rid of my 17-40L and replacing it with either one of these. Why, do you ask? I love my 17-40 and it worked really well as a landscape/semi-walkaround for me but I'm replacing my 50 1.8 (with either a sigma 30 1.4 or canon 50 1.4) and need the money to fund it!

Of course, any other suggestions for a replacement for my 17-40 would be great as well.

Both the 1850 EX Macro and 1750 Di-II are very good optics. There isn't much between them in terms of sharpness and color. But if it were me, I'd give the nod to the Tamron here. The Tammy is a "wide 17mm" and the Sigma is a "long 18mm". That is, the Tamron is truly a 17mm lens while the Sigma is more like 18.8mm to 19mm in reality. So if you put both at their widest focal length, the Tamron will have a "meaningfully wider" FOV. The Tamron is also slightly lighter/smaller IIRC. But again, both very good optics.

If you want a long read, you could drill through all the comments on dpreview.

http://forums.dpreview​.com …rum=1029&messag​e=23237961

I liked my tammy when I had it. I'd go with Lightrules on the 17 vs 18 mm thing as well.
Having said that, if you plan on doing a lot of close focusing work, then maybe the Sigma.

Neither one of these have FTM right? :/

LightRules wrote in post #4851939
Both the 1850 EX Macro and 1750 Di-II are very good optics. There isn't much between them in terms of sharpness and color. But if it were me, I'd give the nod to the Tamron here. The Tammy is a "wide 17mm" and the Sigma is a "long 18mm". That is, the Tamron is truly a 17mm lens while the Sigma is more like 18.8mm to 19mm in reality. So if you put both at their widest focal length, the Tamron will have a "meaningfully wider" FOV. The Tamron is also slightly lighter/smaller IIRC. But again, both very good optics.

People said the same about the old Sigma 18-50/2.8, but that didn't tally with my own tests. Taking the same shot with the Tamron and the (old) Sigma at a distance of maybe 60 feet the difference in field of view was almost exactly in a ratio of 17:18. Less formal tests at longer distances seemed to agree, so it was enough to make me skeptical of the accepted view at the time.

Have you tried (or found!) a similar test with the Tamron and the new version of the Sigma? If the Sigma is a true 19mm, I wouldn't be surprised if the Tamron was closer to a true 18mm...

gcogger wrote in post #4854212
Have you tried (or found!) a similar test with the Tamron and the new version of the Sigma? If the Sigma is a true 19mm, I wouldn't be surprised if the Tamron was closer to a true 18mm...

Pop Photo found the Sigma 18-50 Macro to be 18.80-50.55mm and f2.99-3.03 http://www.popphoto.co​m …50mm-f28-ex-dc-macro.html

They found the Tamron 17-50 Di-II to be 17.36-50.37 and f2.74-2.93 http://www.popphoto.co​m …50mm-f28-xr-di-ii-af.html

This 1.5mm difference seems right on the money in my experience. This is what I meant in saying that the Tamron is a "wide 17mm" and the Sigma a "long 18mm". The Tamron is also wider than the Canon 17-55 F2.8 IS at 17mm and infinity focus. It's one reason I really appreciate the lens, apart from its optics. But I do own/use the Canon personally. And with all this said, I can also say that the Sigma 18-50 Macro is a fantastic optic as well, in addition to Pop Photo's finding that it actually reproduces a 1:2.5 image onto the sensor. Fantastic for a standard zoom lens.

LightRules wrote in post #4855580
Pop Photo found the Sigma 18-50 Macro to be 18.80-50.55mm and f2.99-3.03 http://www.popphoto.co​m …50mm-f28-ex-dc-macro.html

They found the Tamron 17-50 Di-II to be 17.36-50.37 and f2.74-2.93 http://www.popphoto.co​m …50mm-f28-xr-di-ii-af.html

This 1.5mm difference seems right on the money in my experience. This is what I meant in saying that the Tamron is a "wide 17mm" and the Sigma a "long 18mm". The Tamron is also wider than the Canon 17-55 F2.8 IS at 17mm and infinity focus. It's one reason I really appreciate the lens, apart from its optics. But I do own/use the Canon personally. And with all this said, I can also say that the Sigma 18-50 Macro is a fantastic optic as well, in addition to Pop Photo's finding that it actually reproduces a 1:2.5 image onto the sensor. Fantastic for a standard zoom lens.

I read your review of it and you didn't seem too happy about it because of AF issues?

The Tamron is wider, the Sigma focuses closer. I'm happy with my Tamron.

LightRules wrote in post #4855580
Pop Photo found the Sigma 18-50 Macro to be 18.80-50.55mm and f2.99-3.03 http://www.popphoto.co​m …50mm-f28-ex-dc-macro.html

They found the Tamron 17-50 Di-II to be 17.36-50.37 and f2.74-2.93 http://www.popphoto.co​m …50mm-f28-xr-di-ii-af.html

This 1.5mm difference seems right on the money in my experience. This is what I meant in saying that the Tamron is a "wide 17mm" and the Sigma a "long 18mm". The Tamron is also wider than the Canon 17-55 F2.8 IS at 17mm and infinity focus. It's one reason I really appreciate the lens, apart from its optics. But I do own/use the Canon personally. And with all this said, I can also say that the Sigma 18-50 Macro is a fantastic optic as well, in addition to Pop Photo's finding that it actually reproduces a 1:2.5 image onto the sensor. Fantastic for a standard zoom lens.

Interesting info. Thanks

sadatk wrote in post #4855806
I read your review of it and you didn't seem too happy about it because of AF issues?

I'm trying to recall (it was a while back), but IIRC, AF was spotty here and there even though most often it would be fine. Low light AF was certainly not as good as the Canon 17-55 IS, for example. But still a good lens.

I just recently upgraded from the Tamron to a Canon 24-70. I also had the older non macro version of the Sigma. The Tamron lens is very good for most things. The only thing that I did not like about it was the focus. It worked great on stationary objects but was VERY hit and miss once it was switched to a mode other than one shot. Image quality that I have observed was very close between the two. I would not have bought the Canon if it were not for the fact that I needed to use it for some indoor action shots.

10range wrote in post #4857040
I just recently upgraded from the Tamron to a Canon 24-70.

You need a signature edit.

shutterfiend wrote in post #4857313
You need a signature edit.

I know. I am not good about that

Is the Sigma 2.8 across the whole range like the Tamron?

Also, i'm most concerned about the AF noise...which one is the quietest?