Tamron 17-50 2.8 vs. Sigma 24-70 2.8

met

I'm looking to pick up either the Tamron 17-50 or Sigma 24-70, but I'm having a hard time deciding which one to get. (I currently already have the 50mm 1.8, Nikkor 18-200 and 10.5 Fisheye.) Can someone please share with me their experiences in shooting or comparing the two of them? Price is definitely a consideration. Any other thoughts about what I should be considering between these two before I make my decision would be appreciated.

divamum

I'm a big fan of the Tam - it's a very, very fine lens for the money. I picked mine up in like-new condition for $300 and it was one of the best photographic purchases I've ever made - I don't know about the Nikon version, on a Canon it's been wonwderful.

ziggy53

met wrote: »

I'm looking to pick up either the Tamron 17-50 or Sigma 24-70, but I'm having a hard time deciding which one to get. (I currently already have the 50mm 1.8, Nikkor 18-200 and 10.5 Fisheye.) Can someone please share with me their experiences in shooting or comparing the two of them? Price is definitely a consideration. Any other thoughts about what I should be considering between these two before I make my decision would be appreciated.

I'm assuming that you have a Nikon DX camera body, because you have the Nikkor 18-200mm DX zoom lens as well as your DX fisheye lens. It would be helpful if we knew:

What camera format you wish to use the lens on? DX, FX?

What is your application for the lens? (Portraiture, landscape, nature, wildlife, weddings, events, theatrical, bar/club, etc.) Please be as specific to your needs as you can be.

Any other photographically related information that relates to your needs and could affect your decision?

met

Yep, sorry I have a D80. I am planning on upgrading my camera within the next year or so (yaa for tax return money) but haven't decided if it would be to a D300 or D700. I'm planning on keeping the D80 as well though. I would use the lens for travel, friends and family gatherings, general portraiture, and possibly the occasional event and wedding. I'm just an enthusiast - but I'm having more and more people ask me to do portraits and things for them (mainly outdoor natural light) and would possibly think about transitioning into second shooting for weddings.

ziggy53

I suggest that a fast aperture, standard zoom would give you the best return on investment for now. For the Nikon D80 and the choices you offer that would be the Tamron SP 17-50mm, f2.8 Di II LD Aspherical (IF). The Sigma 24-70mm is an OK lens but might not be wide enough for many indoor opportunities in event shooting or weddings.

For full-length and 3/4 length portraits the Tamron would be fine, and it will do OK for a head-and-shoulders. For a head-shot portrait I do prefer a little more focal length on a crop 1.5x/1.6x body. For group portraits the Tamron is a very sweet range.

You can try your Nikkor 50mm, f1.8 now to see if you like head shots at 50mm.

If 50mm is not long enough then also consider the Nikkor 85mm, f1.8 AF-D in addition to the Tamron. You should be able to find a nice used one for $350 or maybe a little less.

Appropriate lighting and light modifiers are an important consideration so be sure to fund for that as well. Lighting can make more of a difference than either camera or lens.

met

Thanks for the ideas. The Sigma I was looking at is also a constant 2.8, so I'm in a bit of a quandary. I do love my 50 1.8, which I use pretty exclusively for portraits right now, but I wanted a little more flexibility for groups and stuff without having to use the 18-200 which is why I was considering one of those lenses. Do you think the 85 1.8 would be better than the 50 1.4?

ziggy53

met wrote: »

Thanks for the ideas. The Sigma I was looking at is also a constant 2.8, so I'm in a bit of a quandary. I do love my 50 1.8, which I use pretty exclusively for portraits right now, but I wanted a little more flexibility for groups and stuff without having to use the 18-200 which is why I was considering one of those lenses. Do you think the 85 1.8 would be better than the 50 1.4?

The Nikkor 50mm, f1.8 is a good performer and there is not that much difference between it and the Nikkor 50mm, f1.4 regarding ultimate image quality or light efficiency or bokeh. The f1.4 is better but it is a fairly small improvement.

The Nikkor 85mm, f1.8 AF-D will give you a different perspective of the subject and I think the facial proportions are more pleasing for a head shot portrait. It is also a more intimate lens for wedding use, but the 50mm is also a good focal length for some weddings.

The Sigma 24-70mm would not be wide enough for many group settings. If you work in a church with narrow aisles or with little space between the front pews and the chancel you would appreciate the 17-50mm range much better for group images.

You are right in that the Nikkor 18-200mm, f3.5-5.6G AF-S ED VR is pretty for many interior uses and you are right that constant aperture zooms of f2.8 are a tremendous asset for many social situations.

ImageX Photography

I just purchased the Nikon 17-55 2.8 a few days ago.... and then ordered the new Tamron 17-50 2.8 with Vibration Control... just 15 minutes ago. I will return the Nikon and go with the bigger bang per buck.... plus have image stabilization. $500 VS $1400. I'll let you know how I like the Tamron when it shows up shortly.

ziggy53

ziggy53 wrote: »

... You are right in that the Nikkor 18-200mm, f3.5-5.6G AF-S ED VR is pretty for many interior uses and you are right that constant aperture zooms of f2.8 are a tremendous asset for many social situations.

I meant to say, "You are right in that the Nikkor 18-200mm, f3.5-5.6G AF-S ED VR is pretty slow for many interior uses and you are right that constant aperture zooms of f2.8 are a tremendous asset for many social situations."

Chrissiebeez_NL

If you can live with the lack of wide angle, the tamron 28-75 f 2.8 is well regarded as well. I still love mine