Tamron or Sigma 17mm - 50mm 2.8 on a Canon 7DmkII ?
Jan 7, 2017 22:35:26 #
Okay I am going to buy a fast wide-angle lens For landscapes, indoors and low light/after dark shots that will also be fast enough should I get a chance for some astro /milky way shots The Tamron and Sigma were both suggested by my local camera store and are both with in budget I can't find a comparison here on the hog of the 2 lenses, I really did try a search ! I've seen the tech comparisons and they are extremely close anyone who has used these lenses please comment.
The Pic was shot with the Tamron 16-300 of the SC Johnson Headquarters here in Racine , I'm thinking the 17 - 50 would be much better/sharper for these types of shooting
The Pic was shot with the Tamron 16-300 of the SC Johnson Headquarters here in Racine , I'm thinking the 17 - 50 would be much better/sharper for these types of shooting
Jan 8, 2017 00:57:34 #
Jan 8, 2017 04:51:25 #
I have the Sigma 17-50mm f2.8. It is an excellent lens--very sharp, even wide open. Haven't used the Tamron, so can't comment. However, I believe that the Tamron is also an excellent lens, so you probably wouldn't go wrong with either. JMO. Earl.
Jan 8, 2017 06:39:09 #
I have the sigma 17-50 f2.8 and am very satisfied with it. It is just as sharp as any of my nikkors and only cost 1/3 of nikon's version(which doesn't have stabilization. It seems very well made(in Japan) but only time will tell if its as durable as nikon lenses.
Jan 8, 2017 06:54:17 #
Yackers
Loc: Norfolk, UK
Both Sigma and Tamron lenses are as good as each other, however the Canon 17-55 f2.8 IS is sharper. I have bought third party lenses in the past and instantly wish I spent the extra on the Canon, wich is what I did in the end. "Buy cheap, buy twice" and you waste money in the long run. I have been called a "lens snob" but this was from a fellow camera club member who simply refused to buy Canon branded lenses (for his expensive 5d) because the third party lenses were cheaper.
Jan 8, 2017 06:57:54 #
I have the Sigma 10-20 and it is tack sharp. Based on that I just got the 17-50. It is looking to be as good. It is replacing a Tamron 35-70 as my all around lens. My Tamron 70-300 gives very out of focus pictures outdoors. donn't like it so much.
But, I am not a pro either. Yesterday I did a same setting comparison between the Tamron, Sigma and Cannon kit lens, all at 50mm and the results were very nearly the same. The differences were very subtle though I thought the Sigma was the best. One of those pictures is posted in the Critique section now.
Just my thoughts,
Ken
But, I am not a pro either. Yesterday I did a same setting comparison between the Tamron, Sigma and Cannon kit lens, all at 50mm and the results were very nearly the same. The differences were very subtle though I thought the Sigma was the best. One of those pictures is posted in the Critique section now.
Just my thoughts,
Ken
Jan 8, 2017 07:02:42 #
Yackers wrote:
Both Sigma and Tamron lenses are as good as each o... (show quote)
Yes but if I went with the Canon, I would have to delay the purchase of a 100 - 400 Gen 2 or 150 - 600 by more than a year (unless the Trump economy takes off and we get back to 40 rather than 30 hrs weeks
Jan 8, 2017 08:55:37 #
I suggest that you get all three lenses and test them very carefully. I start by shooting a black and white lens target with the camera on a tripod and plenty of light. Either use LiveView or keep the mirror up to rule out any motion. Look for chromatic aberration. Then, turn to shooting a bookshelf so you can read the titles. Print is the easiest thing to judge because we know how letters should look. Finally, shoot outsides for the most real-world testing.
Do not be surprised that no one lens stands out optically, mechanically and ease of use. You will probably have to compromise.
I do like the Dock for the newer Sigma's so you can adjust the focus.
Do not be surprised that no one lens stands out optically, mechanically and ease of use. You will probably have to compromise.
I do like the Dock for the newer Sigma's so you can adjust the focus.
Jan 8, 2017 09:11:14 #
I have no experience with the Tamron, but I can tell you that the Sigma is the best kept 'secret' in fast wide angle lenses. I sold my Nikon 17-55 f2.8 after trying the Sigma. It is at least as sharp, it is much smaller and lighter, and is stabilized. It is reasonably sharp even wide open and is my go to lens for my D7200 when I need a faster lensthan the 18-300 that is usually on the camera. And Sigma often has this lens on sale for about one fourth the cost of it's Nikon or Canon counterpart.
Jan 8, 2017 12:01:28 #
Greetings all, I too am interested in the Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 which seems like it would be an excellent all-around lens for my Canon 70D. Like the original poster I would like to use it for astro photography on occasion, I usually attach my camera to my telescope tracking mount. As stars are a pin point light source comatic and chromatic aberration as will as astigmatism come into play, the kit lens I got with my camera doesn't handle these aberrations very well. Has anyone out there used the Sigma for astro photography? I would be interested in your opinion. Thanks
Jan 8, 2017 12:15:48 #
amfoto1
Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA
NormanTheGr8 wrote:
Okay I am going to buy a fast wide-angle lens For ... (show quote)
I wouldn't buy either the Sigma or the Tamron...
If it were me I'd buy the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f2.8 IS USM. It's an excellent lens, so I see no reason to buy third party.
But I also wouldn't call any of these particularly "wide angle". On an APS-C 7DII 17-50/55mm is only modestly wide to normal to short telephoto. These are more of a "walk-around", mid-range type zoom.
10-18mm, 10-20mm, 10-22mm, 10-24mm, 11-20mm and 12-24mm are wide angle lenses. (The Tokina 11-20mm is an f2.8 and the fastest lens in the category. Most of the others are f3.5 or slower, at best.)
Jan 8, 2017 12:46:40 #
billnikon
Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont
NormanTheGr8 wrote:
Okay I am going to buy a fast wide-angle lens For ... (show quote)
The sharper choice would be the Canon 11-24 f4 lens, ideal for landscapes. I shoot a Nikon 16-35 F4 full frame on my Nikon D810. My buddy shoots the Canon EF 11-24mm f/4L USM Lens on his Canon 7DmkII which becomes like a 17.5-37mm f4 on his camera. We both like this range for landscapes and interiors. At 17mm your Sigma is only 27 mm at the wide end on your camera, you might find this not quite wide enough for what you want to shoot. And the Canon 11-24 is only one stop off the 2.8 Sigma speed which can easily be made up for with the Canon ISO range. Besides, you buy the Canon once, seven years from now you can still get that Canon serviced at most repair shops, not the same for Sigma, repair parts dry up after several years, and they will tell you so. With the Canon, you hold onto the lens and get the next body upgrade, and you still have a GREAT lens to put on that new upgrade.
Jan 8, 2017 15:50:56 #
amfoto1 wrote:
I wouldn't buy either the Sigma or the Tamron... ... (show quote)
No reason to buy third party? Sigma is sharper, has OS and focus is just as fast, and it's at least half the price! I have one on a 60D, sharp and fast, I'd say there is noe reason to spend big bucks on Canon!
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.