Tamron 17-50mm 2.8 vs. Tamron 28-75mm 2.8

jan rinze · 01-16-2011, 08:16 AM

The Sigma 17-50/2.8 is twice the price of the Tamron 17-50/2.8 so if it is not the slightest bit better then it would be a bad choice of Sigma.

Have not tried the Sigma yet but do have the 28-75/2.8 from Tamron. That is a real sharp lens and has come in handy at many occasions. The 16-45/4 from Pentax may be a bit slower but using it at 16mm makes up for the higher aperture by being able to user longer exposure times.

Only if the Sigma 17-50/2.8 has stellar performance at 2.8 i would be considering buying it.

In short, Tamron 17-50/2.8 is a great replacement for the standard zoom within most people's budget.
The latest 18-135 from Pentax might be an even better replacement due to more zoom and having WR.

Frogfish · 01-16-2011, 08:27 AM

Originally posted by jan rinze

The Sigma 17-50/2.8 is twice the price of the Tamron 17-50/2.8 so if it is not the slightest bit better then it would be a bad choice of Sigma.

Have not tried the Sigma yet but do have the 28-75/2.8 from Tamron. That is a real sharp lens and has come in handy at many occasions. The 16-45/4 from Pentax may be a bit slower but using it at 16mm makes up for the higher aperture by being able to user longer exposure times.

Only if the Sigma 17-50/2.8 has stellar performance at 2.8 i would be considering buying it.

In short, Tamron 17-50/2.8 is a great replacement for the standard zoom within most people's budget.
The latest 18-135 from Pentax might be an even better replacement due to more zoom and having WR.

The Sigma is not twice the price of the Tamron - over here it is only $100 difference but in the USA I believe it's $200, still no-where near twice the price. Both are excellent lenses.

Sorry Jan but a variable zoom of 18-135 and 3.5 to 5.6 aperture is not a better lense than a fixed f2.8 unless the only thing you need is the zoom & WR and you don't have the cash for better lenses.

JHD · 01-16-2011, 09:32 AM

Originally posted by musicman9294

I'm reading in a lot of places now that the new Sigma 17-50 2.8 is better than the Tamron 17-50 2.8.. hm.

I was looking at that until I found out it is almost 2.5x more costly than the Tammy 17-50. In that range I already have a Sigma 17-70, a Sigma 30/1.4 and a DA40. So I'm wondering if it will be worthwhile getting another lens in that range?

JHD · 01-16-2011, 09:36 AM

Originally posted by Frogfish

The Sigma is not twice the price of the Tamron - over here it is only $100 difference...

Gasp! here in Canada it's $900 while the Tamron is $369. Sure wish I lived in Shanghai...

Looked at the Photozone review for the Sigma, it's MTF numbers are off the charts!

Frogfish · 01-16-2011, 12:28 PM

Originally posted by JHD

Gasp! here in Canada it's $900 while the Tamron is $369. Sure wish I lived in Shanghai...

Looked at the Photozone review for the Sigma, it's MTF numbers are off the charts!

Oops my RMB exchange calculations a little off but still not that huge a difference !

Tamron (I paid) ca. US$350
Sigma (not in stock) ca. US$510

JHD · 01-16-2011, 04:05 PM

Originally posted by Frogfish

Sigma (not in stock) ca. US$510

$510 is a far cry from $900. If I had the that option I think I'd take the Sigma over the Tamron.

liukaitc · 01-16-2011, 07:44 PM

There is a sigma 24-60 f2.8.. and the least expensive one among those zoom f2.8 lens I think. review is great. you check out online. but not so much avaliable on the market I think.

Jewelltrail · 01-16-2011, 08:34 PM

I own both lenses and have taken many, many thousands of shots, especially with the 17-50. The 2 lenses perform very similarly. Your choice depends solely upon the more valuable focal length for the situation.

Also, keep in mind you can crop a lot with the 17-50mm to get more tele, but you can not crop with the 28-75 to get wider, unless you stitch. Another consideration, due to the 28-75's intended application for Full-Frame, is it handles vignetting better than the 17-50--Wide Open.

MTF numbers for the 2 lenses are very close to one another. IMO, the 17-50 has a little better build quality than the 28-75, but the 28-75 will serve Full Frame properly.

winglik · 01-16-2011, 09:36 PM

I also own both, the 28-75mm is shaper at with open, but the 17-55mm is more useful.

jan rinze · 01-17-2011, 03:55 AM

Originally posted by Frogfish

The Sigma is not twice the price of the Tamron - over here it is only $100 difference but in the USA I believe it's $200, still no-where near twice the price. Both are excellent lenses.

Sorry Jan but a variable zoom of 18-135 and 3.5 to 5.6 aperture is not a better lense than a fixed f2.8 unless the only thing you need is the zoom & WR and you don't have the cash for better lenses.

Frogfish, i wish you were right. Just checked pricing for the Tamron (~300 euro) and the Sigma (~600 euro) here.
Also my recommendation of the 18-135 as a standard lens replacement needs some consideration. It will give a wide range plus WR. By no means the same thing as the 2.8 zooms but intended for a quite different use case.

Frogfish · 01-17-2011, 05:32 AM

Originally posted by jan rinze

Frogfish, i wish you were right. Just checked pricing for the Tamron (~300 euro) and the Sigma (~600 euro) here.
Also my recommendation of the 18-135 as a standard lens replacement needs some consideration. It will give a wide range plus WR. By no means the same thing as the 2.8 zooms but intended for a quite different use case.

I feel for you Jan ! I don't know how the variation in pricing is so much (see my post above). I realised after I posted that you were probably suggesting an alternative direction.

Jewelltrail · 01-17-2011, 09:16 AM

Quote:

winglik: I also own both, the 28-75mm is shaper at with open, but the 17-55mm is more useful.

The more useful lens depends simply upon this: does the user more value the 17-27mm range, or the 51-75mm--this is the bottom line in this thread.

My 17-50 is sharper wide oipen.

SALUKIS97 · 01-19-2011, 12:12 PM

I own the 28-75 tamron.

I use it almost exclusively as a semi professional for seniors, family portraits and whatnot. It is a great lens.

I wouldn't mind if it was a little wider, though.

yusuf · 01-20-2011, 12:49 AM

I own both and might sell 17-50 since I ended up using 28-75 a bit more. 28-75 is sharper wide open but 17-50 is no slouch either. Below are wide open pics from my 28-75 and 17-50

17-50@f2.8 - off course 28-75 would not have been able to capture this.

17-50@f2.8 - Sun was really harsh - washing away image but you can still see how sharp this lens is

28-75@f2.8 - Amazing for portraits

Frogfish · 01-20-2011, 02:11 AM

Originally posted by SALUKIS97

I own the 28-75 tamron.

I use it almost exclusively as a semi professional for seniors, family portraits and whatnot. It is a great lens.

I wouldn't mind if it was a little wider, though.

Yep - both great lenses, if they were combined in an 17-70/2.8 we'd all be ecstatic I imagine.

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
Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 not as fast (bright) as Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 on Pentax K-x, PICS	Edgar_in_Indy	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	38	01-10-2011 04:09 PM
lens comparison- fa50mm / tamron 17-50mm / tamron 28-75mm	bimjo	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	11	03-16-2010 01:10 AM
For Sale - Sold: Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di LD for Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 XR LD	deadwolfbones	Sold Items	5	11-03-2009 10:24 PM

01-16-2011, 08:16 AM	#16
jan rinze Forum Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Netherlands Photos: Gallery Posts: 61	The Sigma 17-50/2.8 is twice the price of the Tamron 17-50/2.8 so if it is not the slightest bit better then it would be a bad choice of Sigma. Have not tried the Sigma yet but do have the 28-75/2.8 from Tamron. That is a real sharp lens and has come in handy at many occasions. The 16-45/4 from Pentax may be a bit slower but using it at 16mm makes up for the higher aperture by being able to user longer exposure times. Only if the Sigma 17-50/2.8 has stellar performance at 2.8 i would be considering buying it. In short, Tamron 17-50/2.8 is a great replacement for the standard zoom within most people's budget. The latest 18-135 from Pentax might be an even better replacement due to more zoom and having WR.

01-16-2011, 08:27 AM	#17
Frogfish Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Shanghai Posts: 4,490	Originally posted by jan rinze The Sigma 17-50/2.8 is twice the price of the Tamron 17-50/2.8 so if it is not the slightest bit better then it would be a bad choice of Sigma. Have not tried the Sigma yet but do have the 28-75/2.8 from Tamron. That is a real sharp lens and has come in handy at many occasions. The 16-45/4 from Pentax may be a bit slower but using it at 16mm makes up for the higher aperture by being able to user longer exposure times. Only if the Sigma 17-50/2.8 has stellar performance at 2.8 i would be considering buying it. In short, Tamron 17-50/2.8 is a great replacement for the standard zoom within most people's budget. The latest 18-135 from Pentax might be an even better replacement due to more zoom and having WR. The Sigma is not twice the price of the Tamron - over here it is only $100 difference but in the USA I believe it's $200, still no-where near twice the price. Both are excellent lenses. Sorry Jan but a variable zoom of 18-135 and 3.5 to 5.6 aperture is not a better lense than a fixed f2.8 unless the only thing you need is the zoom & WR and you don't have the cash for better lenses.

01-16-2011, 09:32 AM	#18
JHD Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Photos: Albums Posts: 1,406	Originally posted by musicman9294 I'm reading in a lot of places now that the new Sigma 17-50 2.8 is better than the Tamron 17-50 2.8.. hm. I was looking at that until I found out it is almost 2.5x more costly than the Tammy 17-50. In that range I already have a Sigma 17-70, a Sigma 30/1.4 and a DA40. So I'm wondering if it will be worthwhile getting another lens in that range?

01-16-2011, 09:36 AM	#19
JHD Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Photos: Albums Posts: 1,406	Originally posted by Frogfish The Sigma is not twice the price of the Tamron - over here it is only $100 difference... Gasp! here in Canada it's $900 while the Tamron is $369. Sure wish I lived in Shanghai... Looked at the Photozone review for the Sigma, it's MTF numbers are off the charts!

01-16-2011, 12:28 PM	#20
Frogfish Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Shanghai Posts: 4,490	Originally posted by JHD Gasp! here in Canada it's $900 while the Tamron is $369. Sure wish I lived in Shanghai... Looked at the Photozone review for the Sigma, it's MTF numbers are off the charts! Oops my RMB exchange calculations a little off but still not that huge a difference ! Tamron (I paid) ca. US$350 Sigma (not in stock) ca. US$510

01-16-2011, 04:05 PM	#21
JHD Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Photos: Albums Posts: 1,406	Originally posted by Frogfish Sigma (not in stock) ca. US$510 $510 is a far cry from $900. If I had the that option I think I'd take the Sigma over the Tamron.

01-16-2011, 07:44 PM	#22
liukaitc Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: New York Photos: Albums Posts: 1,008	There is a sigma 24-60 f2.8.. and the least expensive one among those zoom f2.8 lens I think. review is great. you check out online. but not so much avaliable on the market I think.

01-16-2011, 08:34 PM	#23
Jewelltrail Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Rhode Island Photos: Albums Posts: 4,180	I own both lenses and have taken many, many thousands of shots, especially with the 17-50. The 2 lenses perform very similarly. Your choice depends solely upon the more valuable focal length for the situation. Also, keep in mind you can crop a lot with the 17-50mm to get more tele, but you can not crop with the 28-75 to get wider, unless you stitch. Another consideration, due to the 28-75's intended application for Full-Frame, is it handles vignetting better than the 17-50--Wide Open. MTF numbers for the 2 lenses are very close to one another. IMO, the 17-50 has a little better build quality than the 28-75, but the 28-75 will serve Full Frame properly.

01-16-2011, 09:36 PM	#24
winglik Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: NYC Posts: 258	I also own both, the 28-75mm is shaper at with open, but the 17-55mm is more useful.

01-17-2011, 03:55 AM	#25
jan rinze Forum Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Netherlands Photos: Gallery Posts: 61	Originally posted by Frogfish The Sigma is not twice the price of the Tamron - over here it is only $100 difference but in the USA I believe it's $200, still no-where near twice the price. Both are excellent lenses. Sorry Jan but a variable zoom of 18-135 and 3.5 to 5.6 aperture is not a better lense than a fixed f2.8 unless the only thing you need is the zoom & WR and you don't have the cash for better lenses. Frogfish, i wish you were right. Just checked pricing for the Tamron (~300 euro) and the Sigma (~600 euro) here. Also my recommendation of the 18-135 as a standard lens replacement needs some consideration. It will give a wide range plus WR. By no means the same thing as the 2.8 zooms but intended for a quite different use case.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-17-2011, 05:32 AM	#26
Frogfish Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Shanghai Posts: 4,490	Originally posted by jan rinze Frogfish, i wish you were right. Just checked pricing for the Tamron (~300 euro) and the Sigma (~600 euro) here. Also my recommendation of the 18-135 as a standard lens replacement needs some consideration. It will give a wide range plus WR. By no means the same thing as the 2.8 zooms but intended for a quite different use case. I feel for you Jan ! I don't know how the variation in pricing is so much (see my post above). I realised after I posted that you were probably suggesting an alternative direction.

01-17-2011, 09:16 AM	#27
Jewelltrail Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Rhode Island Photos: Albums Posts: 4,180	Quote: winglik: I also own both, the 28-75mm is shaper at with open, but the 17-55mm is more useful. The more useful lens depends simply upon this: does the user more value the 17-27mm range, or the 51-75mm--this is the bottom line in this thread. My 17-50 is sharper wide oipen.

01-19-2011, 12:12 PM	#28
SALUKIS97 Junior Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Dawg Country Posts: 41	I own the 28-75 tamron. I use it almost exclusively as a semi professional for seniors, family portraits and whatnot. It is a great lens. I wouldn't mind if it was a little wider, though.

01-20-2011, 12:49 AM	#29
yusuf Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Palo Alto, CA Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,497	I own both and might sell 17-50 since I ended up using 28-75 a bit more. 28-75 is sharper wide open but 17-50 is no slouch either. Below are wide open pics from my 28-75 and 17-50 17-50@f2.8 - off course 28-75 would not have been able to capture this. 17-50@f2.8 - Sun was really harsh - washing away image but you can still see how sharp this lens is 28-75@f2.8 - Amazing for portraits

01-20-2011, 02:11 AM	#30
Frogfish Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Shanghai Posts: 4,490	Originally posted by SALUKIS97 I own the 28-75 tamron. I use it almost exclusively as a semi professional for seniors, family portraits and whatnot. It is a great lens. I wouldn't mind if it was a little wider, though. Yep - both great lenses, if they were combined in an 17-70/2.8 we'd all be ecstatic I imagine.