Sigma 17-70 vs Tamron 28-75

JonathanM · 01-10-2011, 12:21 PM

I need some advice as I prepare to purchase a good solid walk-around lens. I'm new to Pentax and DSLR, having only recently purchased a k20d with an older kit (Samsung-label) 18-55 lens. I also purchased a M 50 1.7 and am slowly learning about manual focusing. I am moving up from a Panasonic FZ50 ultrazoom (35-420mm equivalent) and analyzing my pictures, I took a lot wide open at 35mm and many of my best "portraits" and people shots were taken around 100mm. I did use the long end some, and I plan to get a DA (L or not) 55-300 at some point to cover longer telephoto.

I think I've read every review here on the following lenses:

Tamron 28-75 2.8
Tamron 17-50 2.8
Sigma 17-70 2.8-4
Sigma 24-60 2.8
as well as the Pentax 16-50 and 18-135
As I do take a lot of indoor shots, I think I need the 2.8 aperture with my k20 to keep in reasonable ISO range. The Sigma 17-70 range seems ideal, but I worry that the long end won't be fast enough for indoor portraits, etc. On the flipside, everyone loves the Tamron 28-75 and the upper end would be fine, but is 42mm equivalent too wide? Is the Sigma 24-60 the middle-ground?

Seems like absolute IQ-wise, everyone would choose the Tamron 28-75 of this group, how much of a dropoff are we talking about to the Sigma 17-70? Undoubtedly I am over-analyzing this purchase, but I know I am on the beginning crest of LBA and want to make the right decision. After these two zoom purchases, I can see some primes coming my way (as $$ allow), perhaps the FA77, 35mm macro, 21mm, or 15mm - so I'd like to be "covered" in FL via zooms for the future. All opinions and recommendations appreciated, and thanks for all the great info here!

lavascript · 01-10-2011, 12:40 PM

A few things... Yes, you are overanalyzing things, but don't feel bad, we all do it. It's part of being a forum member.

Also, it's interesting to see how many of us (myself included) jumped into a Pentax DSLR straight from a Panasonic FZ.

I've had the older Sigma 17-70 for a little over a year. The 70 end is a little slow. I'm looking at trading it for a Tamron 17-50 as you may have read in another thread.

For indoor portraits, the FA50/1.4 is great. It's a good portrait length, but I personally would prefer something a bit wider.

I'm a bit confused about your question of the 28mm of the Tamron being too wide? Too wide for what?

Ubuntu_user · 01-10-2011, 12:42 PM

I know what I suggest... Tamron 28-75mm. The Sigma 17-70mm wouldn't be fast enough for me.

**NaClH2O** · 01-10-2011, 01:03 PM

I own both the Sigma 17-70 and the Tamron 28-75. For my money the 28-75 is a much superior lens. The Tammy is sharper, faster for most of it's range, and has better bokeh. I primarily use the Sigma when traveling or when making lens changes would be a particular pain. I also own the Tamron 17-50 and lately that lens has developed softness wide open to about f/4.0 or so. Don't know why. It will be going back soon. However b4 it's latest problems, I ranked it higher than the Sigma 17-70 also and for the same reasons mentioned above. I think either the Tamron 17-50 or the 28-75 is a better lens than the sigma. I personally would go with the 28-75 because I think those focal lengths are more versitile, but your preferences may vary.
For a good indoor prime I cannot recommend the new DA 35mm f2.4 more highly. It is a beautiful lens and is actually closer to f/2.2 in reality. It is both fast enough and wide enough for good indoor shots.

NaCl(hope that helps)H2O

JonathanM · 01-10-2011, 01:26 PM

Thanks for the quick help... I guess those of us former Panasonic FZ-ers just always have to be a little different, and can see beyond the name on the front of the camera.

Sorry, lavascript, I meant is the Tamron 28-75 wide enough for me? 42mm vs the 35mm I am used to.

I think I'm leaning to the Tamron 28-75 at this point, I'll always have the kit 18-55 for the wide end if needed, and a wide prime may be first. Speaking of primes, having held a 12x zoom for so long, will I ever come around to using my feet for framing pics? I keep reaching for the zoom on the 50mm to get in tight on a portrait. Maybe I'm just not used to being as close to the subjects... With a main Pentax allure being the primes, I've got to figure it out.

Perhaps if I had a k5 and could easily go to 1600 or 3200 ISO I could live with the 17-70 on the long end, but I think it's off the list now. Thanks again for the input!

kenyee · 01-10-2011, 01:50 PM

if you can find a good copy of the Tamron, it should work well, but indoors, you'll find 28mm isn't wide enough. If they made a 24, it'd be a lot better.

Just MHO. Went through 3 copies of the Tamron and they had BF/FF/ghosting issues. Went through 3 copies of the Sigma and 2 of the 3 had decentering issues.

01-10-2011, 12:21 PM	#1
JonathanM New Member Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 9	Sigma 17-70 vs Tamron 28-75 I need some advice as I prepare to purchase a good solid walk-around lens. I'm new to Pentax and DSLR, having only recently purchased a k20d with an older kit (Samsung-label) 18-55 lens. I also purchased a M 50 1.7 and am slowly learning about manual focusing. I am moving up from a Panasonic FZ50 ultrazoom (35-420mm equivalent) and analyzing my pictures, I took a lot wide open at 35mm and many of my best "portraits" and people shots were taken around 100mm. I did use the long end some, and I plan to get a DA (L or not) 55-300 at some point to cover longer telephoto. I think I've read every review here on the following lenses: Tamron 28-75 2.8 Tamron 17-50 2.8 Sigma 17-70 2.8-4 Sigma 24-60 2.8 as well as the Pentax 16-50 and 18-135 As I do take a lot of indoor shots, I think I need the 2.8 aperture with my k20 to keep in reasonable ISO range. The Sigma 17-70 range seems ideal, but I worry that the long end won't be fast enough for indoor portraits, etc. On the flipside, everyone loves the Tamron 28-75 and the upper end would be fine, but is 42mm equivalent too wide? Is the Sigma 24-60 the middle-ground? Seems like absolute IQ-wise, everyone would choose the Tamron 28-75 of this group, how much of a dropoff are we talking about to the Sigma 17-70? Undoubtedly I am over-analyzing this purchase, but I know I am on the beginning crest of LBA and want to make the right decision. After these two zoom purchases, I can see some primes coming my way (as $$ allow), perhaps the FA77, 35mm macro, 21mm, or 15mm - so I'd like to be "covered" in FL via zooms for the future. All opinions and recommendations appreciated, and thanks for all the great info here!

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Tamron 17-50mm, Tamron 28-75mm, Sigma 17-70mm, which lens for my trip to Greece?	macky112	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	15	11-20-2011 03:08 PM
For Sale - Sold: Sigma 24-60mm F2.8 (K mount) and Tamron Adaptall 24mm F2.5 with Tamron P/K ada	pxpaulx	Sold Items	4	08-27-2010 08:47 PM
Tamron 18-250 vs Sigma/Tamron 70-300 ?	simonkit	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	8	09-04-2007 07:12 PM

01-10-2011, 12:40 PM	#2
lavascript Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Baton Rouge Posts: 395	A few things... Yes, you are overanalyzing things, but don't feel bad, we all do it. It's part of being a forum member. Also, it's interesting to see how many of us (myself included) jumped into a Pentax DSLR straight from a Panasonic FZ. I've had the older Sigma 17-70 for a little over a year. The 70 end is a little slow. I'm looking at trading it for a Tamron 17-50 as you may have read in another thread. For indoor portraits, the FA50/1.4 is great. It's a good portrait length, but I personally would prefer something a bit wider. I'm a bit confused about your question of the 28mm of the Tamron being too wide? Too wide for what?

01-10-2011, 12:42 PM	#3
Ubuntu_user Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2010 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,545	I know what I suggest... Tamron 28-75mm. The Sigma 17-70mm wouldn't be fast enough for me.

01-10-2011, 01:03 PM	#4
NaClH2O Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Bronx NY Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,631	I own both the Sigma 17-70 and the Tamron 28-75. For my money the 28-75 is a much superior lens. The Tammy is sharper, faster for most of it's range, and has better bokeh. I primarily use the Sigma when traveling or when making lens changes would be a particular pain. I also own the Tamron 17-50 and lately that lens has developed softness wide open to about f/4.0 or so. Don't know why. It will be going back soon. However b4 it's latest problems, I ranked it higher than the Sigma 17-70 also and for the same reasons mentioned above. I think either the Tamron 17-50 or the 28-75 is a better lens than the sigma. I personally would go with the 28-75 because I think those focal lengths are more versitile, but your preferences may vary. For a good indoor prime I cannot recommend the new DA 35mm f2.4 more highly. It is a beautiful lens and is actually closer to f/2.2 in reality. It is both fast enough and wide enough for good indoor shots. NaCl(hope that helps)H2O

01-10-2011, 01:26 PM	#5
JonathanM New Member Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 9 Original Poster	Thanks for the quick help... I guess those of us former Panasonic FZ-ers just always have to be a little different, and can see beyond the name on the front of the camera. Sorry, lavascript, I meant is the Tamron 28-75 wide enough for me? 42mm vs the 35mm I am used to. I think I'm leaning to the Tamron 28-75 at this point, I'll always have the kit 18-55 for the wide end if needed, and a wide prime may be first. Speaking of primes, having held a 12x zoom for so long, will I ever come around to using my feet for framing pics? I keep reaching for the zoom on the 50mm to get in tight on a portrait. Maybe I'm just not used to being as close to the subjects... With a main Pentax allure being the primes, I've got to figure it out. Perhaps if I had a k5 and could easily go to 1600 or 3200 ISO I could live with the 17-70 on the long end, but I think it's off the list now. Thanks again for the input!

01-10-2011, 01:50 PM	#6
kenyee Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Boston, PRofMA Photos: Albums Posts: 3,026	if you can find a good copy of the Tamron, it should work well, but indoors, you'll find 28mm isn't wide enough. If they made a 24, it'd be a lot better. Just MHO. Went through 3 copies of the Tamron and they had BF/FF/ghosting issues. Went through 3 copies of the Sigma and 2 of the 3 had decentering issues.