Sigma 17-70 2.8-4.5 or Tamron 17-50 2.8 advice please...

[lextalionis]

Hello,

I've spent some time the past couple of weeks reading reviews on wide zoom lenses. I currently own a 30D with a Canon EF 100mm 2.8 macro lens and an EF 50mm 1.8 lens, and a 430EX Flash. I love to take macro shots...almost exclusively lately as the wife is saying a lot. I need to complement my gear with a more versatile lens. Cub scouting is ramping up and the fall hikes and campouts are around the corner. I don't want to be weighted down too much or pre-occupied too much switching lenses.

I'm looking for a lens that can do landscape and group/portrait shots it relatively low light i.e. fast low aperture. My budget for now is $500. Since I also like Macro the Sigma I mention below looks attractive.

Any comments regarding my narrowed down two selections or any additional recommendations?

Sigma 17-70mm F2.8-4.5 DC MACRO ~ $390

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/s...&cat=37&page=1
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc..._DC_Macro.html
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/len...2845/index.htm

Tamron AF 17-50mm f/2.8 SP XR Di II LD Aspherical [IF] EF-S Mount Only ~ $420

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...ns-Review.aspx
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...#goto_itemInfo
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/len...ikon/index.htm

Thanks,
Roy

[crazeazn]

havent heard much about the sigma, but ive seen alot of approval on the tamron over at fredmiranda.

[barP]

i had the sigma and felt it was a very competent lens. very versatile and has near-pro quality sharpness.

wp.

[mmcmurr]

I own the sigma and can tell you that I am very proud of that lens. I've thought about getting the tamron, but only for the speed. I haven't had any problems with my sigma and it is extremely sharp.

You can see the shots produced with this lens on my website and flickr photostream.

Again, the only downside of the lens is that 2.8 goes away rather quickly. However, speed is what my nifty 50 is for =)

[lextalionis]

Guys, thanks for the input. I guess it would help for me to explain what I see as major differences between these two and have comments around whether or not these concerns in reality mean anything.

1. The Tamron is an EF-S mount whereas the Sigma is not. I own and use a 30D, but the way I understand it, it I upgrade to a 5D or other larger sensor, then the Tamron won't work, correct?

2. It seems the CA is less with the Sigma than the Tamron. The Sigma is 1.3 avg pixel width at 17mm 2.8 vs. the Tamron at 1.7 Is this significant enough?

Sigma


Tamron


3. Now what catches my eye most is the MTF (resolution) is far less border to center for the Sigma over the Tamron. Check out the graph comparisons below:

Sigma



Tamron


My Conclusion thus farfrom this data is that it looks like the Tamron is sharper with a hight MTF. If the Tamron is truly a sharper lens, the I may opt to use it and just use my EF 100mm 2.8 macro exclusively for macro.

Thanks,
Roy

[mmcmurr]

The sigma actually is an ef-s mount. any of the sigma lenses with the "DC" moniker are "crop" lenses.

[MattMoore]

If you get the Tamron, be sure to get the "Made in Japan" version (the only ones I've heard had issues were the "Made in China" variant).

Just another victim of poor "Made in China" QC that seems to be afflicting everything from dog food to toys nowadays.

I love mine Tammy 17-50 (wish it had IS), I got a pretty sharp copy.

[Steve O Chap]

I have the SIgma on my XTi and it rarely comes off... great lens!

[Mike G]

The Tamron will physically work on a 1D, 1Ds, or 5D but you will get vignetting, I've used mine on my MKIII. Its a very sharp lense and I haven't had any problems with CA.

[lextalionis]

So the Sigma is EF-S mount too, must have missed that?

Man, I'd really like to try both of these. The more and more I think about it, I don't want to take too much into account the Sigma's macro ability since it's a mediocore 1:2.3 Macro esp. since I have a wonderful EF 100mm 2.8 that I'm very used to using.

So for me I feel it comes down to build quality, sharpness, and speed and the scale is tipping towards the Tamron now.

Hummmm...

Thanks guys for the good advice.

[byarger]

I have had the Sigma for a few months now and it is the primary lens on the camera most of the time now. Great lens. Very sharp. No complaints at all. I rarely use my Tamron 28-75 or my Canon 28-135IS now after getting the Sigma.

[Moses on the Street]

I also have the Sigma. It hardly ever comes off my 30d.

Really amazingly sharp. In my opinion, the sharpest zoom Sigma has made.

[lextalionis]

I'm starting to lean towards the Sigma now as well. Thanks for all the great advice and experiences!

Roy

[MattMoore]

Also, you can score the Tamron for $390 also (mine was $389 + shipping).

I got mine from Adorama (I ordered grey market, and got a "Made in Japan" copy).

You can sometimes call the place you're ordering from and request a "Made in Japan" copy.

Mine has yet to come off my camera since I got it (except for when I had the focusing screen swapped out).

[lextalionis]

Oh geeeezzzzz...I'm leaning the other way now towards the Tamron...uggg.

This is a very new site to my eyes: http://www.slrgear.com So if you pull up both of these lenses here I notice two things right off the bat...they guys must be geeks!

Pull both of these blurr indexes up at the same time and play with the data sliders and compare!

Sigma Blurr Index: http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/zprod...45/tloader.htm

Tamron Blurr Index: http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/zprod...28/tloader.htm

Overall it seems there's more area of the FOV that's sharper than the Sigma.

Reading the reveiws at the bottom of each review page I saw only 12 reviews for the Sigma and 3 reviews said "NO" for recommending the Sigma on one page. As for the Tamron, there are 72 reviews and not a one "NO" on the first page of reviews.

Sigma Review: http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showp...uct/349/cat/31

Tamron Review: http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showp...uct/355/cat/23

I'm thinking the Tamron is the way to go now.

Roy