Tamron 17-50 f2.8 vs Sigma 17-50 f2.8

Simple, vote on which one you think would do best when compared to each other. (Both are the image stabilization versions)

The Tamron has 145 reviews on Amazon while the Sigma has only 11. So in popularity the Tamron seems to win

(I remember a site that displayed sharpness tests with almost every single lens in the market, anyone remember that?)

Swift wrote in post #11516422
Simple, vote on which one you think would do best when compared to each other. (Both are the image stabilization versions)

The Tamron has 145 reviews on Amazon while the Sigma has only 11. So in popularity the Tamron seems to win

(I remember a site that displayed sharpness tests with almost every single lens in the market, anyone remember that?)

Tamron has been around for longer, so number of reviews is not a good popularity indicator. If I were to look for a lens in that range now I'd either get the Tamron non-VC or the Sigma. The price difference between Tamron VC & Sigma and the user comments about the Tamron VC being noticeably less sharp than the non-VC version would push me towards the Sigma if I had to choose between the two lenses you're looking at.

The Sigma has not been out nearly as long, so that explains the difference in online reviews. I have the non-VC Tammy, and I really like it. I think conventional wisdom is the Tammy over the Sigma for non-VC/IS/OS and the Sigma over the Tammy for VC/IS/OS.

never used sigma, so I vote tamron. Nice sharp pictures with it.

From my reading here,

low budget: Tamron non-VC
mid budget: Sigma OS
no budget: Canon 17-55

I was debating these two lenses myself, but I've decided on the 17-40L because of its color rendering (See the image sample threads), build quality, and autofocus. Not that this helps you

i think if you had included VC, and OS in your poll listing the results would be different...

i know those are the lenses you were talking about, but i think sometimes folks don't like to read the posts much here

mds2004 wrote in post #11517404
From my reading here,

low budget: Tamron non-VC
mid budget: Sigma OS
no budget: Canon 17-55

I agree 100% with this....

Swift wrote in post #11516422
Simple, vote on which one you think would do best when compared to each other. (Both are the image stabilization versions)

The Tamron has 145 reviews on Amazon while the Sigma has only 11. So in popularity the Tamron seems to win

You should have put OS and VC in the poll options. Most people are probably thinking OS versus non-VC. Also there is no way that the VC Tamron has 145 reviews on Amazon; it must be the non-VC version. Lastly popularity is not a reliable indicator of how good a lens is. A lot of people own the old Tamron non-VC, and they will simply put their vote for it regardless if the Sigma is better.

DiMAn0684 wrote in post #11516490
Tamron has been around for longer, so number of reviews is not a good popularity indicator. If I were to look for a lens in that range now I'd either get the Tamron non-VC or the Sigma. The price difference between Tamron VC & Sigma and the user comments about the Tamron VC being noticeably less sharp than the non-VC version would push me towards the Sigma if I had to choose between the two lenses you're looking at.

I have used several copies of the non-VC and the VC and did not find the non-VC sharper. The VC is an excellent optic, but it's AF is slower and noisier than the Sigma HSM lenses.

mazdaspeed wrote in post #11518112
I was debating these two lenses myself, but I've decided on the 17-40L because of its color rendering (See the image sample threads), build quality, and autofocus. Not that this helps you

"Color rendering" is overrated. BQ and AF, yes the L is quite nice in that regard.

FWIW, having owned/tested over 30 copies of the 17-55 IS (since its release in 2006) and 4 copies of the 17-50 OS (recently), below are center crops of the best of 3 Canon's I recently had and the best of 4 Sigma's I recently had. As of note, 2 of the 4 Sigma's had decentering issues, but the other 2 copies are amazing optically, as shown below. Edge performance is very close (not shown). These were shot on a 40D:

17mm F2.8 Canon

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif'

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif'

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif'

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif'

LightRules wrote in post #11518251
FWIW, having owned/tested over 30 copies of the 17-55 IS (since its release in 2006) and 4 copies of the 17-50 OS (recently), below are center crops of the best of 3 Canon's I recently had and the best of 4 Sigma's I recently had. As of note, 2 of the 4 Sigma's had decentering issues, but the other 2 copies are amazing optically, as shown below. Edge performance is very close (not shown). These were shot on a 40D:

17mm F2.8 Canon


17mm F2.8 Sigma


55mm F2.8 Canon


50mm F2.8 Sigma

Is that the Canon 17-55 2.8 IS ($1grand)? I can't believe the Sigma appears better in sharpness Interesting, because I'm going to jump the gun on the Canon pretty soon.

The sigma does look impressive.

LightRules wrote in post #11518251
FWIW, having owned/tested over 30 copies of the 17-55 IS (since its release in 2006)

amazing, you actually bought thirty (30) copies of the Canon 17-55IS ?
a small fortune in 17-55IS lens !

I vote for the Tamron the only sigma I've ever used that didn't have problems is the one in my sig the 8-16, not to be a smart ass but was that 30 copies just to find a good one or did you just buy use then sell

Swift wrote in post #11518275
Is that the Canon 17-55 2.8 IS ($1grand)? I can't believe the Sigma appears better in sharpness Interesting, because I'm going to jump the gun on the Canon pretty soon.

There's only one Canon 17-55 IS.

watt100 wrote in post #11518327
amazing, you actually bought thirty (30) copies of the Canon 17-55IS ?
a small fortune in 17-55IS lens !

See answer below.

kigai wrote in post #11518354
not to be a smart ass but was that 30 copies just to find a good one or did you just buy use then sell

Let's just say I have contacts at Canon Irvine, as well as "resources" with other lens makers. But yes I've bought and sold many as well, including owning 2 copies over a 2 year span. Great lens in many ways, but the new Sigma has optics with FLD glass that is tremendous.