# Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 VS Sigma 18-50 f2.8



## mikie2084

Im deciding between these two lenses, and like to hear opinions. I had my mind made up on the Tamron til I saw a post from Jerry. Which is better? If you have any photos from each lense please post up.

Thanks

Mike


----------



## Big Mike

From what I can tell, they are very close so don't knock yourself out over the choice.

I think the newest version of the Sigma tests a little better than the Tamron, but not the older version from Sigma.  I have the Tamron and I love it.


----------



## mikie2084

Thanks mike! 

I have a d40, hopefully a d90 by mid year. Im still pretty set on the Tamron, I just dont like buying things twice. (d40 to d90)


----------



## Tiberius47

I use the Tammy, and I love it.


----------



## jlykins

Love the Tamron.... Love it love it love it.... I would go with it for sure.  Here's one from a session last week.


----------



## jlykins

click the bar to expand the image, I don't like the compressed version, it looks pixelated.


----------



## mikie2084

Think im going with the Tamron, thanks everybody!


----------



## jlykins

glad you chose the Tamron, you won't be unhappy.


----------



## samal

Sigma here - newer macro version - It's amazing lens, here are some pics - last 2 - pretty much no processing






full res:   http://images47.fotki.com/v1398/file08yc/844bc/7/787792/6727609/NavyPier.jpg






This one shows a nice bokeh:


----------



## mikie2084

The Sigma looks very good too! What to do, what to do!?


----------



## Samriel

It's a "win-win" situation, so better don't think to much about it. I have the Tamron and have shot many good photos with it, but I've seen many people happy with their Sigmas.


----------



## anubis404

Sigma: Better Image Quality, Better AF, Macro capabilities
Tamron: Less sample variation, smaller filter size (I think).

I have the Sigma and love it. I don't even use my 50mm F1.8 anymore. You can't go wrong either way, but I'd recommend the Sigma. The Sigma's Bokeh is absolutely amazing also. Just make sure you get the HSM version.


----------



## potownrob

I have the Tamron and I definitely notice that extra millimeter at the wide end.  The AF isn't too bad for my usage (at least not on the versions with the built-in motor), mainly just noisy, but I like its sound and performance better than those of a screwdrive lens, like my 50mm AF-D on my Nikon N70.  I guess you could say it whines a little (though even that is making it sound worse than it is).


----------



## anubis404

From what I've heard, the Tamron hunts for focus like Elmer Fudd.


----------



## JerryPH

Looking at pics on the internet of either is not going to help too much, but if you need a basically SOOC pic from the Sigma:







What will help is that in a shootout last year (as I said before), between Tamron, Sigma and Nikon, Sigma kicked butt in 3 independent tests done by 3 different magazines.  On top of that, the Sigma has a 3:1 macro that none of the others have.  It also has a slightly better numbers concerning CA, distortion, flare and is sharper.


----------



## Samriel

JerryPH said:


> Looking at pics on the internet of either is not going to help too much, but if you need a basically SOOC pic from the Sigma:



Is that a 100% crop?



JerryPH said:


> What will help is that in a shootout last year (as I said before), between Tamron, Sigma and Nikon, Sigma kicked butt in 3 independent tests done by 3 different magazines.  On top of that, the Sigma has a 3:1 macro that none of the others have.  It also has a slightly better numbers concerning CA, distortion, flare and is sharper.



Jerry, I've seen you mention the three magazines a couple of times, but before you said that the Sigma came out best in a very close match. Now you say it kicked butt - was it just slightly better, or did it really excel extremely in certain areas compared to the other two lenses? Not that I'm considering an update, but I'd like to know it before I start giving some bad advice to people around here.


----------



## bhop

I just bought a used copy of the Tamron this past Monday.  I haven't had a chance to "really" use it yet, but just playing around with it, I think it'll be a good lens.  Better than the d70 18-70 af-s kit lens I was using as far as the constant 2.8 aperture anyway, but it is slower focusing, with a louder focus motor.  I only paid $250 for mine so it was really a no-brainer since I haven't found any Sigmas for a similar price.  

One thing I do like about it is it's the same filter size as my Nikon lens (67), so I didn't have to buy any new filters, while the Sigma is a 72mm i think


----------



## bdavis

anubis404 said:


> From what I've heard, the Tamron hunts for focus like Elmer Fudd.



LMAO I love that


----------



## ksmattfish

I've got the Sigma for my APS-C format cameras.  It rocks.  It's got that slight yellow cast thing going on that many Sigma lenses seem to have, but it's easy to fix with a minor wb adjustment, and hey, it just makes the golden hour last all day long!  

I've made 20"x30" prints from the Sigma on my 20D.  They look fantastic.  I have no doubt though that the Tamron is just as good.  I know many professionals and enthusiasts who are very happy with it.


----------



## bdavis

I was so sure I was getting the tamron, but now I'm torn between the two....not sure which is best.


----------



## ksmattfish

bdavis said:


> I was so sure I was getting the tamron, but now I'm torn between the two....not sure which is best.



Advice from the 1880s:

"The lens is always considered the most important of all the tools the photographer employs. So it is, but I should like to say boldly that, within limits, I do not care what make of lens I use. It is as well to have the best your means will allow, but there has always been too much made of particular variations in the make of lenses. *It has been the fashion to think too much of the tools and too little of the use made of them.* 

I have one friend who did nothing last year because he had made up his mind to buy a new lens, and could not determine whose make it should be, and he was tired of his old apparatus. His was of the order of particular and minute minds that *try to whittle nothing to a point.* I have another friend who takes delight in preparing for photography, and spends a small fortune in doing so, but never takes a picture." -H.P.Robinson

Stop whittling and start shooting.    It doesn't matter which you choose; they are all better quality lenses than you are a photographer (no insult intended, it's that way for almost everyone including me).

Check the warranties.  Last time I looked Tamron's was 6 years.


----------



## bdavis

I know its mostly the photographer but the lens has a little play in how in how the photo turns out in the areas of sharpness, CA, distortion, etc. I think the Tamron controls these a little better, at least from the reviews I've read.


----------



## anubis404

Let me add that the upside of the Tamron is that its a lot cheaper. Unless you're going to be doing shots which require a little bit of closer focusing, I'd go with the Tamron (if you can find it used and good for <$300). If not, go with the Sigma. It is no doubt better.


----------



## potownrob

anubis404 said:


> From what I've heard, the Tamron hunts for focus like Elmer Fudd.


The AF seems no worse than my kit lens and 55-200 VR to me; you can hear it focusing though, down to the chirpity fine tuning just before it locks focus.  What's worth noting is that it is not at all a macro lens, so trying to focus on things nearby can cause it trouble.  I've also noticed that, on my D40, it seems to block the AF assist beam a little (even though it's not that big a lens, though bigger than the Nikon DX lenses I have), which may be (at least partially) what's causing some troubles in low light situations.


----------



## AtlPikMan

Another Vote For The Tamron...


----------



## Tolyk

AtlPikMan said:


> Another Vote For The Tamron...


 Thank you for not using a Star Filter there!!!!


----------



## AtlPikMan

What do you mean? Star Filter?


----------



## Tolyk

AtlPikMan said:


> What do you mean? Star Filter?


It's a cheesy filter that creates star-like effects.. often used on car shots years ago. Horrible filter!  (I liked your photo) (example)


----------



## TUX424

I wonder if the tokina 16-50 f/2.8 would be worth looking at, ive never tried but i like tokina's lens, good quality.


----------



## Aggressor

Is there a difference in IQ between the HSM version and non-HSM of the Sigma 18-50?

What about AF speed?  I have the Sigma 24-70 right now and its loud, but focus is fairly quick.  Can I expect the same out of the 18-50?


----------



## shivaswrath

sigma is the cheapest of the bunch, btw. . .$369 is a steal compared to $500-600 for Tamron or Tokina. . .


----------



## AtlPikMan

This thread is kinda old. Did the OP make a decision? Which lens did he get?


----------



## shivaswrath

have no clue, I borught it back to "life" simply because I was doing a cursory comparison, and price is a huge factor when setting up your photo biz initially, so the Sigma makes a lot of sense compared to the others. . .


----------



## JerryPH

This is a no brainer... lol
3 magazines chose the Sigma over the Tamron... and the Sigma has a macro (no its not a 1:1 macro) to boot.  Yes, they are close, and you could be happy with either one, but clearly the better one is the Sigma.














You cannot get this close with the Tamron:





Or get macro results like this:




Click on the picture above, even that is still not a 100% crop, but you can see it is sharp.

If you cannot make a decision, rent them both out or test them both out and make the choice that is right for you.


----------



## JerryPH

Aggressor said:


> Is there a difference in IQ between the HSM version and non-HSM of the Sigma 18-50?



Be careful.

There were *3* iterations of the 18-50 that Sigma put out.  The first ones were absolutely terrible.  The second ones were a little better... but only a little (read: "still crap").

The one that you want is the Sigma 18-50 F/2.8 *DC EX HSM MACRO*.  Don't waste money on the other ones.  They've been discontinued now for a touch over 2 years.

As good as the HSM MACRO is... the other versions are *not* worth the money.  BTW, the focus speed on the latest 18-50 from Sigma is very good... accurate and fast.  Yes it is a touch louder but thats not something that affects performance.


----------



## JerryPH

potownrob said:


> What's worth noting is that it is not at all a macro lens, so trying to focus on things nearby can cause it trouble.



See my pic above.  
You may have a previous version of this lens (gen 1 or gen 2?).  Even Sigma refers to the latest iteration as a macro lens on their website.


----------



## Ejazzle

wow jerry that lens is absolutely massive!


----------



## bhop

I've had my Tamron for a while now.  I think i'm going to save for the Sigma HSM as I can't stand how slowly the Tamron focuses and hunts in low light.  If the HSM system in the 18-50 focuses nearly as fast as my 70-200 hsm, then i'll be much happier i'm sure.


----------



## JerryPH

Test or rent before spending the bucks, thats all that I can suggest, bhop. That way expectations are 100% accurate.


----------



## AtlPikMan

I dont think you can go wrong either way. If you save a few bucks with the Sigma go for it. I still have my Tamron, its still razor sharp and i still love it..

AJC Autoshow


----------



## NateS

I have the Tamron and it is crazy sharp even at f2.8.  I may have just gotten an excellent copy, but I almost wouldn't want it any sharper.

I almost went with the Sigma, but I am not prepared to deal with the huge sample variation that comes with the Sigma.  Basically, it's a gamble as to whether you'll get a good copy first try (without front or back focusing).

I've not really noticed any problems with focus hunting on my Tamron.  I can garuntee that if I bought the Sigma I would either buy a used one so I could see samples proving it was a good copy...or buy from an actual store where I could walk it back in to return it if it was a bad copy.


----------



## Charles89

Im pretty much in the same situation, I cant decide if I go for the tamron or the sigma....

As to getting the sigma with HSM, im rolling on a Canon mount, and there are only a HSM version for Nikon mounts....

HELP !!!

The sigma is $370 ($450 CAD) and tamron $420 ($520) on BH and over the internet. Im buying on the internet cause here in Canada its like $650 + 15% taxes for those lens retail...

I would go for the Sigma, but after reading Jerry's post I am in the lost once more.


----------



## Shealyn

Charles89 said:


> Im pretty much in the same situation, I cant decide if I go for the tamron or the sigma....
> 
> As to getting the sigma with HSM, im rolling on a Canon mount, and there are only a HSM version for Nikon mounts....
> 
> HELP !!!
> 
> The sigma is $370 ($450 CAD) and tamron $420 ($520) on BH and over the internet. Im buying on the internet cause here in Canada its like $650 + 15% taxes for those lens retail...
> 
> I would go for the Sigma, but after reading Jerry's post I am in the lost once more.



Just a heads up you can buy the Tamron from Lens and Shutter for $499 CDN. I almost bought one from them but then found a 6 month old used one for $275 CDN. It's my fav lens right now


----------



## wh1ppet

> The one that you want is the *Sigma* *18-50* F/2.8 *DC EX HSM MACRO*. Don't waste money on the other ones. They've been discontinued now for a touch over 2 years.


 
Is this true for Nikon only???

I'm looking to buy this lens for a Canon 50D, but can't find an HSM. What gives?


----------



## delizo23

ive been deciding which one to get to. Either the Sigma, Tamron, or Tokina.

but what about the Sigma AF 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 DC HSM Macro Autofocus Lens???
20 more mm of zoom than the 50. is this just as sharp? it sells at BH for $370 also.
Sigma Zoom Super Wide Angle AF 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 DC HSM Macro Autofocus Lens

from all the reviews and comments on this thread i think i would pick the sigma. because....
quick focus
quiet
macro
super sharp
nice bokeh

just my opinion. but the 17-70

someone let me know whats goin on with that lens.


----------



## dhilberg

Don't know anything about the Sigma 17-70.

For only $50 more, you get high quality optics in a fast lens with a fixed aperture (f/2.8). Yes, you have a slightly more limited zoom range, but 20mm is really nothing to be concerned about. Just zoom with your feet. 

Forget the 17-70 and just get the 18-50 f/2.8 HSM Macro.


----------



## delizo23

ok cool cool. thanks man. i was about to buy the 17-70. i didnt think about the fixed aperature.


----------



## Mr. Murmeli

Decided to bring this thread back to life...


I was almost certain to buy the Tamron... until I came up with this thread. This is pretty much the only place I've seen the Sigma come up as a winner and was genuinely surprised.

I understand that the Macro version is rather new so reputation pretty much comes from the old generations but I couldn't find any decent comparison made between the newer Sigma (Macro) and Tamron. Anyone better and less lazy at using google? :er:

Also the final recommendation on this thread went to the HSM version, which doesn't exist for Canon (WHY NOT?). So how does the non HSM EF mount Sigma fare here?

Any advice would be appreciated!


----------



## Mr. Murmeli

Ok, sorry about the previous post... 

I eventually found a bunch of convenient threads on the Canon digital photography forums.


----------



## dhoun

Quoting from The Digital-Picture.com

'The Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II Lens is very, very similar to the Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 EX DC Lens. These lenses are more similar than different. They are very similarly sized and shaped. They function very similarly. 

The differences? The Sigma flares more easily. The Sigma shows more CA. The Tamron is noticeably wider (17mm vs. 18mm). The Tamron focuses faster but the Sigma focuses more quietly. The Tamron focuses much more accurately - My keeper rate is far higher with the Tamron. My Sigma has a weak left side - For sharpness, the Tamron beats the Sigma easily on the left side, but the Sigma is slightly better on the right. The Sigma rings rotate the Canon direction, the Tamron rings rotate the opposite direction but with less effort. The Sigma is less expensive (but not by much). The Sigma's requires its lens hood to be removed to install/remove the lens cap. My choice would definitely be the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II Lens over the Sigma'.


----------

