Tamron 17-50 or Sigma 17-50?

Joined
May 15, 2013
Messages
347
Location
Edinburgh, Scotland
Folks how do the Tamron and Sigma 17-50 lenses compare?

I've read that the non-vc Tamron is sharper than either of the VC enabled lenses.

I've been swithering a wider prime but after a couple of Nikon 20mm lenses which have been very poor it would appear that without going for MF and the Voightlander 20mm that I'm going to need to go for a zoom lens.

Ideally I'd prefer as light as possible and I believe the non-VC Tamron is lighter than the 2 VC enabled lenses, its also cheaper but I just wondered how the IQ compared?
 
Joined
Feb 19, 2006
Messages
8,403
Location
LA (Lower Arkansas)
I've owned three copies of the Tamron, and all were great. No complaints at all, and the small size and 67mm filters were definite selling points. I've never owned the Sigma, so I can't comment.

One of the places that I like to look for lens reviews is on the FM site. Here's the thread for the Tamron (187 reviews; 8.7/10 overall rating), and here's the corresponding thread for the Sigma (18 reviews; 8.3 overall rating). I don't typically buy lenses based on compiled rating threads such as these, but they do offer a starting point from which to investigate.
 
Joined
Oct 15, 2008
Messages
2,555
Location
GA
Owned the non-VC/non-BIM Tamron and it was my most used lens and my favorite lens before I went FX. A buddy of mine had the sigma 17-70 and was very pleased with it as well. Don't know specifically about the 17-50.
 
Joined
May 7, 2011
Messages
5,004
Location
New England
I had a Tamron 17-50--for years, my most used lens. When I moved to Fx I sold it--just a great lens.

standalone
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


From what I've seen of the Sigma it is excellent too.
 
Joined
Jan 13, 2006
Messages
546
Location
northern NJ
I have the Sigma 17-50 and it is quite sharp with good dynamic range. It has some excellent reviews (even on Amazon) and rivals some of Nikon's best zooms.
 
Joined
Feb 27, 2009
Messages
5,868
Location
Payson AZ
The Tamron is dead sharp and fast accurate focus. I had the Sigma and "my copy" wasn't very good but I read a lot of good things about them. I still have and use the Tamron.
 
Joined
May 7, 2007
Messages
1,818
Location
Canadian Prairies
The Tamron is dead sharp and fast accurate focus. I had the Sigma and "my copy" wasn't very good but I read a lot of good things about them. I still have and use the Tamron.
+1. I regret selling mine too soon after switching to FX. I have to repeat that mine was also "prime sharp" and dead on focus, which is probably why the price for the lens went up (in Canada) soon after the initial release.
 
Joined
May 15, 2013
Messages
347
Location
Edinburgh, Scotland
I appreciate its a slightly different lens in that its not a constant f2.8 but how does the Nikon 16-85 compare quality wise to the SIGMA/Tamron?
 

Latest threads

Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Nikon Cafe is a fan site and not associated with Nikon Corporation.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Forum GIFs powered by GIPHY: https://giphy.com/
Copyright © Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom