Sigma 17 50 Oder 17 70
Interestingly the price departure in The Netherlands (where I live) used to be reversed, although recently the Tamron got more expensive and the Sigma much cheaper, then that they currently retail for €419 and €389 respectively (28 December 2013).
In addition to their similar specifications, these ii have very similar size and weight, and compete in the same toll range. Direct competitors, therefore. But which 1 is best?
I got my hands on both of them (Nikon mount), and put them to the test.
Why do you desire a 17-50mm f/2.8 ?
If you go to photograph an important upshot (such equally a wedding) and had to take only one lens, a fast normal zoom would probably be it. It's the professional'south workhorse.
In "total frame" terminology this typically means a 24-70mm F2.viii. Such lenses are optimized for quality and speed. The 3x focal range covers the useful range of moderate wide-bending to moderate telephoto. The relatively fast F2.eight maximum aperture is available at all focal lengths. Expensive actress-low dispersion glass and professional person materials complete the quality packet.
But many people can't afford full-frame. And lets face information technology – today's APS-C cameras take very good sensors, so all you lot need is to put a fittingly good lens in front of them. The closest thing for people similar me with a 1.5x/i.6x crop gene cameras (east.g. Nikon DX, Sony NEX, Catechism EF-S) are 16/17-50/55mm F2.viii lenses. To be precise on a 1.5x crop sensor camera a 17-50mm lens has similar optical characteristics as a 25-75mm F4.0 lens would take on 35mm "full frame" (read hither for a short caption on how this works). You would actually demand something like a 16-50mm F2.0 lens to really give you the same performance, just since they don't exist we have to settle for the F2.8'southward.
So the bottom line is that a 17-50mm F2.8 is the best quality all-rounder you can stick in your cheap DSLR'due south lens hole.
Mechanical Pattern
Despite their plastic exteriors, both lenses feel solid and well put together. Not indestructible, but solid enough. They're well-nigh exactly the same size, and weight (568g vs 569g, as tested).
At the back both accept metallic mounts (as you would await). Neither has a safety gasket against moisture or dust.
The Tamron has a 72mm filter thread and the Sigma a larger 77mm thread. Smaller filters are cheaper, only 77mm filters are something of a standard for pro lenses and therefore more versatile.
As with most consumer zooms, both lenses characteristic inner tubes that extend when zooming from 17mm to 50mm. Luckily neither lens has a rotating front chemical element meaning polarizing filters can be used without any annoyance. Both feature similarly sized, rubberized zoom and focus rings. The Tamron's zoom ring was a fleck too stiff for my liking.
The Sigma ships with Sigma's signature "EX" style zipped lens case that is peachy for travelling, while the Tamron comes without any protective pouch at all. Both lenses come with petal-shaped lens hoods.
Sharpness and dissimilarity
Belittling sharpness vs aperture charts for these lenses tin can be institute on several websites then I decided to test them on a real scene, side by side. These shots were all taken with my Nikon D7000 mounted on a tripod, using v second self-timer and delayed shutter (to eliminate whatever blurring due to vibrations). The lenses had their stabilization systems switched off since they were tripod mounted. Phase-detect AF was used. Photos were taken in RAW and converted to JPG using Adoble Lightroom 4.1. I used identical processing settings for all photographs and didn't apply any lens correction profiles.
The called scene was a parking lot next to the beach at Monster, The netherlands.
Below you encounter 1:one crops from the original images, grouped past focal length and aperture.
At 17mm f/2.8 the Tamron was a chip sharper.
Now allow's see if and how the situation changes at 50mm
At f/five.six the performance of the 2 lenses is over again quite like (just as at 17mm) simply the Sigma maintains better sharpness in the centre and in the image's edges.
Conclusion (sharpness):
Both lenses have good sharpness and dissimilarity when you finish them downward to F4.0, and perform excellently at F5.vi+. This is true for all focal lengths. Barring focus issues or camera milk shake you can be confident that your epitome will be decently abrupt from corner to corner if you stick to these apertures – dramatically so at F5.6.
But how practise these two perform at their maximum aperture? Later on all, y'all don't buy an f/2.8 lens simply to use it at f/v.6+ practise y'all? Here the Tamron performs well at the wide terminate (17mm), only things get a flake fuzzy at the the telephoto end (50mm) of the zoom range.The Sigma showed almost exactly the opposite performance every bit the Tamron. At the wide end (17mm) the Sigma's focussing was intermittently unreliable (more about this later), and even when AF worked correctly the effect it was softer than the Tamron. At 50mm f/2.8 the Sigma came into its own and delivered meliorate sharpness and dissimilarity.
Lens flare, vignetting, and chromatic aberration
Vignetting and lateral chromatic aberration (color fringes) are no longer such a big worry, since cameras are getting increasingly good at correcting this automatically / in software. Even if your (older) DSLR camera doesn't take this characteristic, Adobe Photoshop and Lightroom do a great job at fixing your photos after you download them (especially if you shoot RAW). With both these lenses chromatic aberrations were well controlled, and not something to worry virtually in real-world utilize.
More important is how well these lenses handle bright light (like the dominicus) striking the lens from the front. This is something you sometimes can't (or don't want to) avert, and if the lens screws upwards desperately information technology's almost impossible to prepare the ruined result.
Flare: shooting into the sun @ 17mm (click for detail). Notation the bright "contrary vignetting"-similar outcome that both the Sigma, and to a bottom extent the Tamron, display at 17mm F2.8.
The two lenses perform similarly – at 17mm and F2.8 they handle contra sun reasonably well – the Tamron faring better hither. At F2.eight the Sigma and the Tamron both show a "reverse vignetting" ghosting event where the paradigm corners are much brighter than the centre. This effect is more pronounced with the Sigma. In the above test shot I didn't discover it exceptionally distracting, but in subsequent use information technology turned out to exist a trouble in a some specific situations (run into photo below).
A "real-world" instance where the Sigma'due south "inverse vignetting" ghosting effect surprised me. Every bit in the top-left test shot earlier, this happened at 17mm F2.8. Luckily this was the worst photo with virtually shots being ameliorate behaved (the event is usually not visible, and can be anticipated through the viewfinder).
Except for the reverse vignetting effect of the Sigma which disappears, the contra-light behaviour of both lenses get worse when stopping downward, showing potent flare artefacts at F11. Again the Tamron fares somwhat better although the difference isn't all that great.
Flare: shooting into the sun @ 50mm (click for detail)
At 50mm the relative performances of the ii lenses were more or less equal – the Tamron showing smaller only more intense lens flare.
I was surprised to detect that, at 17mm F2.8, the Sigma seemed generally "brighter" – even in the centre of the frame. I can't say whether this is because of differences in lens coatings or whether the Tamron's F2.viii specification is a bit over-optimistic. This difference diminished at smaller apertures and longer focal lengths
Regular vignetting (dark corners) was well controlled for both lenses at around 1stop falloff at F2.8, decreasing to 0.v stops at F4.0.
Bokeh
With a constant f/2.8 aperture these lenses can be used for limited depth-of-field portrait-type shots. The results are not equally impressive every bit on total-frame – every bit mentioned earlier these lenses have similar optical characteristics equally a 25-75mm F4.0 on 35mm "full frame" (short explanation hither). Good "bokeh" (out of focus rendering) is still still an important and desirable feature of this type of lens.
Bokeh of highlights – uncropped. Christmas lights in background, 50mm f/2.8, focus at minimum. (click for detail)
Hither I happily report that both lenses perform quite well, and very similarly. The Sigma shows slight undesirable "onion ring" artefacts within the point spread disk, whereas the Tamron is smoother just exhibits more pronounced outlining and asymmetry. I'd phone call them equal.
In real-world utilize both lenses render backgrounds pleasantly. Overall the Sigma seems to accept a chip of a warmer colour rendition which I prefer. The following shots were taken at F2.8 to accentuate background blur:
In this real-world example the Sigma produced a slightly warmer image and softer (I found it more than attractive) background rendition. (click for detail)
Focus and Autofocus (AF)
Both lenses feature built-in focus motors and therefore AF works on all DSLRs. Unfortunately neither lens offers full time transmission override – you have to move the lens-mounted focus switch from "AF" to "MF" to decouple the focus motor. Failing to do this risks damaging the focus mechanism. Furthermore the focus paths of The Sigma and Tamron are both very brusque (~30° vs ~xl°) – meaning that even if you lot determine to employ it, manual focussing would be rather coarse. With both lenses the focus ring turns while machine-focussing. Personally this doesn't bother me – I'm happy to rely on AF and keep my hands off the focus band.
The Tamron uses a traditional micro-motor which is not especially fast, only accurate. Covering the focal range from 0.29m to ∞ takes most 0.6 seconds. Unfortunately it'due south rather noisy and tin easily be heard several meters away in a tranquility surround, or during video recording. Luckily this noise is unremarkably of short duration unless the lens has to cover the whole focus range (e.g. when focus hunting in dim lite).
The Sigma sports a silent "ultrasonic" type motor. Sigma calls this "HSM" and it is both fast and well-nigh completely quiet. Covering the focal range from 0.28m to ∞ takes nearly 0.3 seconds. By and large it is besides accurate, just hither I tin't exist equally positive equally with the Tamron: The commencement lens I tested (in the store) had a slight but noticeable front focus problem. I exchanged it for a second sample that tested fine on a focus chart. However I was disappointed to run across that at wide angle and especially longer distances (> 10m) the AF was intermittently unreliable, randomly alternate betwixt hitting and miss. Furthermore this lens, unlike the Tamron, ofttimes missed focus using my Nikon D7000's live view! This is very strange and unexpected since "live view" focussing unremarkably succeeds regardless of a lens' focus calibration. It seems as if the AF crosses the in-focus point likewise quickly for the camera to realise it, and then incorrectly settles on the wrong focus. Even worse than refusing to focus, the camera reported a focus lock but this was at the wrong focus distance. It could be that my copy was a dud – I am currently considering returning it to the dealer.
Another annoyance with the Sigma is that the lens' zoom management is anti-clockwise – independent of photographic camera mount. Catechism and Nikon employ opposite clockwise/anti-clockwise conventions for zooming and focussing, and in this instance Sigma'due south choice matches the Catechism convention. This means that yous have to turn the lens in the "wrong" direction when focussing manually. While a seemingly small badgerer this causes frustration and missed shots if you lot're used to all your other lenses working in the opposite way.
Optical Stabilisation
The Sigma and the Tamron both have constructive optical stabilisation, competitive with Canon and Nikon's own IS / VR systems.
Again we had a noise issue. The Tamron lens' "VC" stabilisation was noticeably noisier than the Sigma. While not "loud", it is clearly audible to the person holding the camera, and unfortunately also audible in movie clips. This makes the Tamron poorly suited to video capture unless you take a skilful tripod. To Tamron'south credit the VC performed well… slightly better than the Sigma, especially at the wide terminate. At 17mm I measured 3 stops improvement, while at 50mm it was equivalent to the Sigma, at 3.v stops.
The Sigma's optical stabilisation (OS in Sigma-speak) is well-nigh completely silent and performed well. Sigma claims four stops of stabilisation, but like with most manufacturers this seems to be a bit optimistic. At 17mm I measured it equally simply about ane.5 to two stops, while its effectiveness was noticeably better at 50mm where it gave me 3.v stops reward.
To provide some perspective I also compared these lenses' performance to Nikon's eighteen-200mm VR – by now a classic, and a useful benchmark for VR performance. The Nikon rated like to these ii lenses – providing 2.v stops at 18mm and 3.5 stops at 50mm.
Alternatives
In add-on to the Sigma and the Tamron, each of the large DSLR manufacturers have their ain f/2.8 standard zoom offering. Canonites go the Canon 17-55mm F2.8 IS, Nikonians the Nikkor 17-55mm F2.8., Sony users the Sony 16-50mm F2.8, and Pentax users the Pentax sixteen-50mm F2.8.
While these "brand-name" lenses all get good reviews, they are besides all more expensive than the Tamron and Sigma. The Nikkor stands out as being the most expensive and bulkiest of the lot, while compensating with atmospheric condition sealing and pro metallic construction. The $k+ Canon is the only ane that also offers optical stabilization. On newspaper then, none of these combine the same value-for-money and specifications as the Tamron and the Sigma.
I have personally used three copies of the expensive Nikkor. While it blew me away with its tank-like mechanical quality and focussing speed, it proved to be less impressive from an optical perspective. Two of the iii copies suffered from pronounced field curvature (or corner softness) at 17mm. In terms of general contrast the Nikkor performed similarly to the Sigma and Tamron, while at its sharpness was similar or below that of the Sigma (especially at telephoto) and the Tamron (at f/4 and above). Just goes to show that a high price does not guarantee optical perfection.
Summary
A stabilized 17-50mm F2.8 lens is a versatile and valuable addition to an APS-C type DSLR like the Nikon D7000, Canon 650D or 7D, Sony SLT-α650, Pentax Grand-five etc. Both of the lenses reviewed in this article fit the bill.
In the photograph above y'all run into that both these lenses pair up nicely (in terms of design and size) to a mid-range DSLR – my Nikon D7000, in this case.
The Tamron performs better for broad angle (e.g. landscape) shots. And it is (slightly) cheaper. Consider, still, that you normally don't buy a 17-50mm F2.viii lens merely for landscapes, and you don't buy it because it is inexpensive. If those are your chief considerations you can meliorate invest in a quality broad angle or a upkeep 18-55mm kit lens.
With its quieter and faster operation and, especially, its markedly superior performance at 50mm f/two.8 (the setting you volition near often use for portrait shots) the Sigma is the one I prefer. Information technology is also a much (much!) better choice for video. Unfortunately on my camera its AF proved somewhat unreliable at broad angle – even when using live view.
Stabilisation is essential for mitt-held video, and here the Tamron's VC stabilisation is just also noisy (unless you have an external microphone). The Sigma's AF motor is inaudible, but the Tamron'south is so loud that you cannot apply information technology stealthily in tranquility environments, and not at all during video (unless you use an off-camera microphone).
Ultimately I establish both the Tamron and the Sigma to exist quite practiced, just neither convinced me in all respects. They correspond ii of the best third-party offerings and have all the features you look, but each had weaknesses that made me doubt whether I would "become the shot" every fourth dimension. In the end the Sigma ended up as my general purpose workhorse and I'm quite happy to report that information technology serves me well in everyday use. Just sentry out for the odd focus error or ghosting artefacts against bright lights.
Pros/Cons of the Sigma 17-50mm F2.8 EX DC Os HSM:
- Fast and tranquility AF (but… run across below)
- Efficient and serenity "Os" image stabilisation
- Sharp all the way from F2.eight – especially at 50mm
- First-class at F ≥ 4.0 (all focal lengths)
- Overnice carry-case included
- Occasional AF bug at 17mm (quality control?)
- Occasional "opposite vignetting" ghosting at 17mm F2.viii against strong light
- "Reversed" zoom & focus directions (on Nikon, Sony and Pentax)
- Rotating AF focus ring + no manual override
Pros/Cons of the Tamron 17-50mm f2.viii SP XR Di II LD [IF] VC:
- Reliable AF (just… see beneath)
- Efficient "VC" paradigm stabilisation (but… meet below)
- Excellent at F ≥ iv.0 (all focal lengths)
- Abrupt at 17mm (all apertures)
- Good value for money in the EU (but less so in USA)
- Long (5 twelvemonth) warranty
- Low image quality (soft) at 50mm F2.eight
- Noisy AF motor
- Audible "VC" image stabilization
- (a bit) dimmer than the indicated F2.8 at wide bending
- Rotating AF focus ring + no transmission override
Conclusion
My choice between these two is the Sigma 17-50mm F2.8 EX DC Bone HSM.
Be aware of its limitations though. A lens in this category should exist all about quality. Especially at 17mm it has some issues that can interfere with crucial shots. That said I've personally used this lens for assignment work and mostly have been very happy with the results.
Source: https://francoismalan.com/2012/04/fast-sigma-vs-tamron-stabilised-17-50/
Posted by: waltersforefe.blogspot.com
0 Response to "Sigma 17 50 Oder 17 70"
Post a Comment