Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Canon Lenses

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Dec 22, 2009, 2:24 PM   #11
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 54
Default

so what do you guys say i get as my "walk-around" and primary lens: Tamron 17-50 F2.8 or the new Sigma 17-70 F2.8-4.0 HSM OS.... both the same price brand new.

i assume the Sigma will have a faster and quieter AF over the Tamron while the Taron has a constant aperture at F2.8 which is nice.

Confused! Help!
JayStar86 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 22, 2009, 3:15 PM   #12
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,543
Default

It depends. The 17-70 range and the 1:2.7 macro are nice, but so is the constant f/2.8 aperture.

What are you going to be shooting? If you'll be outside or in good light, the f/2.8 aperture isn't as useful as the longer range. But for indoor available light shooting, the constant large aperture would be awfully handy.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 22, 2009, 4:41 PM   #13
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 54
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TCav View Post
It depends. The 17-70 range and the 1:2.7 macro are nice, but so is the constant f/2.8 aperture.

What are you going to be shooting? If you'll be outside or in good light, the f/2.8 aperture isn't as useful as the longer range. But for indoor available light shooting, the constant large aperture would be awfully handy.
ill be doing both with this lens to be honest. dang. im confused! The biggest thing that turns me off about the Tamron is the noisy and slow AF that people say hunts in low light.... the F2.8 obviously is the most attractive point of that lens.
JayStar86 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 22, 2009, 4:52 PM   #14
Super Moderator
 
Hards80's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cleveland, OH
Posts: 9,046
Default

the sigma is still fairly fast at 4.0 and it does have image stability, so at least for static subjects it should perform quite well in available light.

plus for a walkaround lens, having the extra 20mm at the tele end is nice.

could go for the 17-70 for the walkabout, and if you need something with a fast aperture, then pick up a nice prime at a later time. 30 1.4, 50 1.4, 85 1.8 etc.
Hards80 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 22, 2009, 5:08 PM   #15
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 54
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hards80 View Post
the sigma is still fairly fast at 4.0 and it does have image stability, so at least for static subjects it should perform quite well in available light.

plus for a walkaround lens, having the extra 20mm at the tele end is nice.

could go for the 17-70 for the walkabout, and if you need something with a fast aperture, then pick up a nice prime at a later time. 30 1.4, 50 1.4, 85 1.8 etc.
thats exactly what my train of thought with the 17-70 was.... that i would eventually just get some really fast primes. But honestly, after going through some images on flikr and various other places.... the sharpness and "pop" of the images from the Tamron are so much better than the Sigma 17-70.... albeit the images are not of the new one so its not 100% fair comparison. I just dont think the Sigma has the same IQ as the Tamron..... would agree or disagree with this?
JayStar86 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 22, 2009, 5:51 PM   #16
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,543
Default

I think the jury is still out on all these lenses. The Tamron 17-50/2.8 VC was announce in February, but it didn't hit dealer shelves until months later. The Sigma 18-50/2.8-4.5 OS showed up without much fanfare, and doesn't appear to be too bad, especially considering it's half the price of the others. The 17-70/2.8-4.0 OS is the most recent of the three, and while the original, unstabilized versions of these lenses are all very good, I'm going to wait a while before I commit to any of them.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 22, 2009, 7:00 PM   #17
Super Moderator
 
Hards80's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cleveland, OH
Posts: 9,046
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TCav View Post
I think the jury is still out on all these lenses. The Tamron 17-50/2.8 VC was announce in February, but it didn't hit dealer shelves until months later. The Sigma 18-50/2.8-4.5 OS showed up without much fanfare, and doesn't appear to be too bad, especially considering it's half the price of the others. The 17-70/2.8-4.0 OS is the most recent of the three, and while the original, unstabilized versions of these lenses are all very good, I'm going to wait a while before I commit to any of them.
same here.
Hards80 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 22, 2009, 7:01 PM   #18
Super Moderator
 
Hards80's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cleveland, OH
Posts: 9,046
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JayStar86 View Post
thats exactly what my train of thought with the 17-70 was.... that i would eventually just get some really fast primes. But honestly, after going through some images on flikr and various other places.... the sharpness and "pop" of the images from the Tamron are so much better than the Sigma 17-70.... albeit the images are not of the new one so its not 100% fair comparison. I just dont think the Sigma has the same IQ as the Tamron..... would agree or disagree with this?
be careful of what you see on flickr, you don't really have any idea what post-processing went into it, etc.
Hards80 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 22, 2009, 7:10 PM   #19
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 54
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hards80 View Post
be careful of what you see on flickr, you don't really have any idea what post-processing went into it, etc.
agreed. but even on the unedited shots all over the web the Tamron seems to have better IQ. The Sigma will probably be a pretty good lens i have no doubt... its just that i hope its "sharp"
JayStar86 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 22, 2009, 7:21 PM   #20
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,543
Default

If you can tollerate the extra f-stop, the extra reach and the "Macro" capability are nice, and if it's anywhere near as sharp as the unstabilized one, it will be a gem.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 8:13 PM.