Sigma 17-50 F2.8 OS HSM vs. Tamron 17-50 Non VC

I'm tempted by the special price on the new Sigma 17-50 F2.8 at $569. Is this a better alternative than the Tamron which is $414?

It seems like there's not much excitement for this lens (judging by the number of posts and picture contributions). Is this still too new ?


I currently have the kit lens 18-55 IS, Sig 30 1.4, and Canon 70-200 F4/IS

mules wrote in post #11363756
I'm tempted by the special price on the new Sigma 17-50 F2.8 at $569. Is this a better alternative than the Tamron which is $414?

It seems like there's not much excitement for this lens (judging by the number of posts and picture contributions). Is this still too new ?


I currently have the kit lens 18-55 IS, Sig 30 1.4, and Canon 70-200 F4/IS

For one thing, AF is faster than the Tamron....

I have experience with both these lenses. Now that the Sigma is on sale...the decision is made much easier.

-Tamron may have a very slight edge in sharpness wide open but the Sigma is plenty sharp.
-Tamron lacks image stabilization versus Sigma. I hear differing opinions on how useful the OS is at this focal range, but no-one can deny it can be useful in certain situations. Obviously less important if you have "steady hands".
-Tamron's autofocus is apparently not as accurate as Sigma and many say it tends to hunt in low light. The Sigma is super fast autofocus.
- Tamron's autofocus is also noisy. A whirring motor controls the focus instead of near-slient HSM focusing on the Sigma.
- Tamron uses the Nikon-style zoom ring (meaning you turn the opposite way to Canon lenses to zoom). May be bothersome to Canon users.
- Tamron is a little lighter at 434g vs 565g for Sigma.
- I see slightly better reviews concerning build quality for Sigma vs Tamron.
- Sigma is one of their top-of-the-line "EX" lenses with FLD glass. Not sure if this means much by itself however. You get 4 year warranty with Sigma but 6 year with Tamron.

At the end of the day, both are very good lenses so you cannot really go wrong...but I personally feel the Sigma is a better lens. The question used to be "is it worth an extra $250"...but now it's only $150 difference.

I'm pretty happy with the T2i /18-55 is kit lens. I'm assuming this would be a major upgrade due to the focusing, build quality, and bokeh. The kit lens is pretty sharp to my eyes.

Kit lens (18-55 IS) is indeed sharp and a true bargain. But, the comparison is about 2 lenses that are f/2.8 - much faster. Something many seek after they have the 18-55 IS for a while.

Good point. I hate the variable aperture on the kit lens.

gasrocks wrote in post #11363851
Kit lens (18-55 IS) is indeed sharp and a true bargain. But, the comparison is about 2 lenses that are f/2.8 - much faster. Something many seek after they have the 18-55 IS for a while.

Yes, you buy these lenses for the f2.8. There are other benefits to the kit-lens (build quality, better colors, etc...) but it's really all about the speed, which allows for low light shooting plus nice blurry backgrounds on portraits, etc.

one thing to be aware of is that even though the HSM-AF is better than the tamron's, the HSM in this sigma-lens doesnt support FTM apparently.. the tamron obviously doesnt have FTM either, but many might expect an HSM-lens to have it at least..

Had the Tamron 17-50 VC last Christmas for a week before trading it in for a Canon 25-105L. The Tamron took nice sharp pictures but I didn't care for the auto focus on the lens. Do miss the f2.8, which is why I bought my wife the Sigma 17-50 f2.8 OS HSM for her birthday in two weeks. Before the ladies on the board start to beat me up, let me say that she wanted the lens and I may never see it on my camera. We were looking at the Canon 17-55L f2.8 but it is just too expensive for the amount of shooting we do right now. Hope we made a good choice on getting the Sigma 17-50 lens, time will tell.

Darn, this gets cheaper and I'm switching to FF. I love my Sigma 18-50 and I've been waiting for this but it was simply way too much so I didn't get one.

Joaaso wrote in post #11364353
one thing to be aware of is that even though the HSM-AF is better than the tamron's, the HSM in this sigma-lens doesnt support FTM apparently.. the tamron obviously doesnt have FTM either, but many might expect an HSM-lens to have it at least..

It's a cheaper version of their HSM , no it doesn't support FTM .

mules wrote in post #11363756
Is this a better alternative than the Tamron which is $414?

Depends on your needs. A lot of folks here on POTN swear by the non-VC version. It is sharp. So if it's limitations do not matter to you for your style of shooting, then it is not necessary to spend more.

I had the Tamron, but felt it was worth the upgrade without spending even more to go with the Canon 17-55. The factors that drove my upgrade were the OS and the HSM. I need OS because my hands are just not that steady. And for subjects like young children or any type of action, the quicker HSM focusing can make the difference between getting the shot or not.

So if your hands are steady and your subjects don't move, save your money and get the Tamron. Otherwise the Sigma 17-50 or the Canon 17-55 is what you want.

Thanks everyone! My hands are anything but steady! I've improved a bit with better technique, but in general I'm not cut out to be a surgeon... or a photographer... without the help of a tripod, monopod, or stabilization. Great points!

I just ordered with my friends at B&H. Hopefully this will work out well. I appreciate your help. I wound up making the decision based on my positive experience with my Sig 30 1.4 and the OS. I know the need for stabilization is often debated on this focal length, but as I mentioned, I need it. The $100 price drop made the decision easier also!

Thanks again everyone!

Wow, the price drop on the Sigma totally makes it worth it, in my opinion. I owned it for a little while but found the focal range "boring." Returned it, missed it, then ended up purchasing a 17-55. The Sigma was a great lens at $670 and at $570, I'd consider it a steal for what you're getting.