You know, both the lenses look mighty fine in terms of pic quality and i'm really hooked to go get one of these but i'm a little in doubt here, If I already have the kit lens (18-135) issit still worth purchasing either one of them? (Maybe the tammy since it gives a slight wider advantage)
Tamron 17-50 vs Sigm 18-50
- Thread starter blurboiboi
- Start date
- Status
Daedalus Trent
Senior Member
i honestly don't think the '1mm' will make enough different to justify buying a new lens :bsmilie:
However, the f2.8 is a really strong pull factor ;p
pillarofautumn
New Member
I have the Sigma 18-50mm macro version but not the HSM one though. I think this is gonna be a bias answer but the Sigma works wonders! I got to agree that it produces warmer pictures but i think it depends on the individual whether it affects your shots in any way.
It's incredibly sharp considering the price you'll have to pay and the focus distance was also a pulling factor besides the f2.8 aperture.
The day i bought it, i was actually prepared to the buy the Tamron 17-50mm already.. but when i tried the Sigma before the purchase, i changed my mind cos it felt good on my hands and IMO the build was much better than the Tamron.
Just my 2 cents.
It's incredibly sharp considering the price you'll have to pay and the focus distance was also a pulling factor besides the f2.8 aperture.
The day i bought it, i was actually prepared to the buy the Tamron 17-50mm already.. but when i tried the Sigma before the purchase, i changed my mind cos it felt good on my hands and IMO the build was much better than the Tamron.
Just my 2 cents.
I have the Sigma 18-50mm macro version but not the HSM one though. I think this is gonna be a bias answer but the Sigma works wonders! I got to agree that it produces warmer pictures but i think it depends on the individual whether it affects your shots in any way.
It's incredibly sharp considering the price you'll have to pay and the focus distance was also a pulling factor besides the f2.8 aperture.
The day i bought it, i was actually prepared to the buy the Tamron 17-50mm already.. but when i tried the Sigma before the purchase, i changed my mind cos it felt good on my hands and IMO the build was much better than the Tamron.
Just my 2 cents.
Another thing to add, there're also different quality of lenses produced even within the same production line.
Yes it is.
takeshi.lum
Senior Member
just got to try the tamron 17-50 one today. rented this lens for my D40.
used it on a portrait shoot and it is really nice and sharp!
used it on a portrait shoot and it is really nice and sharp!
Here's a test report of the 2 lens head to head. Not very thorough but interesting read.
http://www.dcfever.com/news/readnews.php?id=2478
P.S. It's in Chinese.
http://www.dcfever.com/news/readnews.php?id=2478
P.S. It's in Chinese.
Andrew Ng
New Member
I also debated between the 2.
Build wise - Sigma, Tamron feels plastic... and if I zoom too hard, I think I might break the Tamron.
Colour wise, I like the Sigma better. The Pink + Nikon (I use D300/ D80), some how improve the skin tone.
Sigma has ELD glass built in it. I feel that it is the next closest thing to Nikkor's ED glass.
Sharpness... can't comment for Tamron... but for Sigma.. f4 above should give reasonable sharpness.
1 more thing. You can see slight vignetting at 18mm. Not a big problem for me.
A picture speaks a 1000 words. Check out my site, the HANA Album. Mostly done with Sigma 18~50mm HSM Macro.
http://nghofei.multiply.com/
Hope this helps.
Andrew Ng
Build wise - Sigma, Tamron feels plastic... and if I zoom too hard, I think I might break the Tamron.
Colour wise, I like the Sigma better. The Pink + Nikon (I use D300/ D80), some how improve the skin tone.
Sigma has ELD glass built in it. I feel that it is the next closest thing to Nikkor's ED glass.
Sharpness... can't comment for Tamron... but for Sigma.. f4 above should give reasonable sharpness.
1 more thing. You can see slight vignetting at 18mm. Not a big problem for me.
A picture speaks a 1000 words. Check out my site, the HANA Album. Mostly done with Sigma 18~50mm HSM Macro.
http://nghofei.multiply.com/
Hope this helps.
Andrew Ng
You'll have to be a pretty hard user to 'zoom until it breaks'. That's just exaggeration. It's not that badly made.
And all companies will have their "special optics". At the end of the day, people still get great results from both the Sigma and the Tamron, ELD glass or whatnot.
xtemujin
Senior Member
I'm using the Tamron 17-50mm for all my indoor shoots.
Some photos in my Flickr album.
Deepavali Open House @ the National Museum
http://www.flickr.com/photos/xtemujin/sets/72157608414317645/
Peranakan Museum
http://www.flickr.com/photos/xtemujin/sets/72157608407933226/
HTH.
Some photos in my Flickr album.
Deepavali Open House @ the National Museum
http://www.flickr.com/photos/xtemujin/sets/72157608414317645/
Peranakan Museum
http://www.flickr.com/photos/xtemujin/sets/72157608407933226/
HTH.
see this gallery shot using sigma 18-50 F2.8 HSM macro with nikon D300. Customed curve in-camera, unprocessed except resized and converted to sRGB for web posting.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/augustfoto/sets/72157608166613140/
Tamron is sharper (sigma when stopped down can produce very sharp pics) but very very whiny. Felt like breaking when i was contemplating whether to get tamron or sigma for standard zoom. sigma gives a slightly lower contrast and slight warm color which suits me very well.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/augustfoto/sets/72157608166613140/
Tamron is sharper (sigma when stopped down can produce very sharp pics) but very very whiny. Felt like breaking when i was contemplating whether to get tamron or sigma for standard zoom. sigma gives a slightly lower contrast and slight warm color which suits me very well.
Last edited:
Andrew Ng
New Member
Hi all,
Just comparing and reading from lots of people... I noticed that most have different understanding for sharpness.
Some 2 cents worth of what I have experienced since my sea gull, contax and FM2 days... till now my D300
If a lens has max f/2.8. ... Images are soft
Tune it 1 ~2 stops, you get sharper image (Not nec sharpest)
f/8 is the SHARPEST point for most lens. Check out studio pictures or for a matter of fact.. look at the fashion studio pictures or studio portraits... majority shoot at f/8
Having worked in a studio and doing some test on some borrowed lens... You want sharp.. Shoot f/5.6 above.
F/1.2~f/2.8... is good for speed.
The 'Ang Mohs' from many well established magazines always say.. You want a fast lens... get f/2.8 and below.
I own a Nikkor f/1.4 and I still shoot it at f/2, where I consider it to be the next 'sharpest' point. It is my fastest lens at low light. :-}
Lets not mislead ourself thinking that at largest aperture, lens is sharpest. Go and try on tripod for the Tamron and Sigma.
When people buy a f/2.8... they want a FAST lens... MOST LENS ARE SHARP at certain DOF.
Cheers.
Just comparing and reading from lots of people... I noticed that most have different understanding for sharpness.
Some 2 cents worth of what I have experienced since my sea gull, contax and FM2 days... till now my D300
If a lens has max f/2.8. ... Images are soft
Tune it 1 ~2 stops, you get sharper image (Not nec sharpest)
f/8 is the SHARPEST point for most lens. Check out studio pictures or for a matter of fact.. look at the fashion studio pictures or studio portraits... majority shoot at f/8
Having worked in a studio and doing some test on some borrowed lens... You want sharp.. Shoot f/5.6 above.
F/1.2~f/2.8... is good for speed.
The 'Ang Mohs' from many well established magazines always say.. You want a fast lens... get f/2.8 and below.
I own a Nikkor f/1.4 and I still shoot it at f/2, where I consider it to be the next 'sharpest' point. It is my fastest lens at low light. :-}
Lets not mislead ourself thinking that at largest aperture, lens is sharpest. Go and try on tripod for the Tamron and Sigma.
When people buy a f/2.8... they want a FAST lens... MOST LENS ARE SHARP at certain DOF.
Cheers.
I would like to clarify one thing. Sharpness should not be confused with DOF.
The reason why most lenses appear sharper at f/8 is due to the provision of more DOF with stopping down. This will also definitely increase your level of perceived sharpness.
On the flipside, why lenses are generally soft wide open is because they are also not using the "sweet spot" of the optical circle of the lens, but rather the full optical circle. This also comes into play when using a lens for crop sensors, versus one for a full-frame sensor/film, but I digress. Stopping down uses the "sweet spot" of the optical circle, thus also giving rise to increased levels of sharpness.
So it is actually inaccurate to say "most lenses are sharp at certain DOF", because sharpness and DOF are really two separate measures. To look at DOF, one would look at focus charts, and the assumption is that with focus charts, the distance that is said to be in focus is really in focus, regardless of how shallow or deep DOF is at the aperture setting. But when you take a lens' optical performance in terms of the sweet spot in its optical circle, then stopping down will affect its sharpness, not so much directly due to the DOF rendered.
- Status
Similar threads
