03-14-2011, 03:10 PM
(This post was last modified: 03-14-2011, 03:30 PM by Brightcolours.)
[quote name='thxbb12' timestamp='1300106686' post='6747']
I'd definitely go for the Tamron.
Sharpness-wise it's by far the best lens among the two. Even wide-open it performs very well. The Sigma doesn't impress in terms of IQ.
A good compromise, from what you wrote, would be the new Sigma 17-50 f/2.8. However, it's much more pricey.
Have you also considered the old Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4.5? It's an extremely versatile lens, with longer range and pseudo macro ability (you can focus on stuff touching the front element!).
It's my walk-abound lens of choice and I also own a DA* 16-50. My Sigma copy is better optically.
What most people don't know is that the Sigma is f/2.8 from 17 to 21mm which is nice for interior shots.
Anyway, just my 2 cents.
[/quote]
That is not really true, what you say. People who actually tried both lenses side by side always are more impressed with the IQ from the Sigma.
Try one yourself, if that is possible?
Sharpness wise... Funny enough on Pentax:
The Tamron is the worst performing here by far, a bit extreme. This Tamron clearly is not focussing correctly.
But it does match what people say who tried both (IQ of the Sigma better, and noticeacbly more contrasty). And it does show the Sigma to be plenty sharp!
http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/penta...crops.html
Here a comparison that shows the exact same building scene, shot at the widest setting and wide open. The Sigma beats that Tamron sample by a big margin too.
http://www.dcfever.com/lens/readreview.php?id=2478
I don't own either lens myself, not a case of "my lens is better than yours".
I'd definitely go for the Tamron.
Sharpness-wise it's by far the best lens among the two. Even wide-open it performs very well. The Sigma doesn't impress in terms of IQ.
A good compromise, from what you wrote, would be the new Sigma 17-50 f/2.8. However, it's much more pricey.
Have you also considered the old Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4.5? It's an extremely versatile lens, with longer range and pseudo macro ability (you can focus on stuff touching the front element!).
It's my walk-abound lens of choice and I also own a DA* 16-50. My Sigma copy is better optically.
What most people don't know is that the Sigma is f/2.8 from 17 to 21mm which is nice for interior shots.
Anyway, just my 2 cents.
[/quote]
That is not really true, what you say. People who actually tried both lenses side by side always are more impressed with the IQ from the Sigma.
Try one yourself, if that is possible?
Sharpness wise... Funny enough on Pentax:
The Tamron is the worst performing here by far, a bit extreme. This Tamron clearly is not focussing correctly.
But it does match what people say who tried both (IQ of the Sigma better, and noticeacbly more contrasty). And it does show the Sigma to be plenty sharp!
http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/penta...crops.html
Here a comparison that shows the exact same building scene, shot at the widest setting and wide open. The Sigma beats that Tamron sample by a big margin too.
http://www.dcfever.com/lens/readreview.php?id=2478
I don't own either lens myself, not a case of "my lens is better than yours".