sigma 17-70 vs Tamron 17-50 vs Pentax 17-70

dr_romix · 10-27-2011, 09:17 PM

Hello there,

I'm debating between either of these lenses for general purpose. IQ is very important. Extra 20mm on Sigma and Penatx would also be helpful in some situations. I have K-5 so not having fixed 2.8 is not a big issue..

which one do you recommend? again sharpness is important.

thanks,

hcc · 10-27-2011, 10:27 PM

Off course you read the comparative review:
DA* 16-50mm vs. Sigma and Tamron 17-50mm Comparison - Introduction

where the tammy 17-50mm figured well.

dr_romix · 10-28-2011, 05:10 AM

Originally posted by hcc

Off course you read the comparative review:
DA* 16-50mm vs. Sigma and Tamron 17-50mm Comparison - Introduction

where the tammy 17-50mm figured well.

I read that. there is no comparison with Sigma 17-70 or Pentax 17-70... I wonder if I should go with Macro capability and extra 20 reach on Sigma or stick to Tamron... never found those 2 comparison.. that's why I posted here...

sterretje · 10-28-2011, 05:26 AM

I think I told you before, but it might have been somebody else

There is no (real) macro capability on that sigma; the kit lens (as an example) does nearly as good with regards to magnification

dr_romix · 10-28-2011, 05:44 AM

Originally posted by sterretje

I think I told you before, but it might have been somebody else

There is no (real) macro capability on that sigma; the kit lens (as an example) does nearly as good with regards to magnification

in terms of IQ, which one do you recommend?

frank · 10-28-2011, 08:08 AM

IQ wise, I'd go w/ the Tamron. It's a better lens among these three, and the extra 20mm can be easily covered by walking back and forth a bit. The Sigma 1770 is a good lens on its own, but its AF hunts quite easily under low light, hard to focus (at least it's my own experience w/ two copies). Some Pentax 1770 also have focusing problem at the tele end, you can read this in the user's reviews at the forum.

dr_romix · 10-28-2011, 09:04 AM

Originally posted by frank

IQ wise, I'd go w/ the Tamron. It's a better lens among these three, and the extra 20mm can be easily covered by walking back and forth a bit. The Sigma 1770 is a good lens on its own, but its AF hunts quite easily under low light, hard to focus (at least it's my own experience w/ two copies). Some Pentax 1770 also have focusing problem at the tele end, you can read this in the user's reviews at the forum.

Thanks Frank.

so, between newer sigma 17-50 and Tamron, would you still recommend Tamron over Sigma?

frank · 10-28-2011, 09:14 AM

Originally posted by dr_romix

Thanks Frank.

so, between newer sigma 17-50 and Tamron, would you still recommend Tamron over Sigma?

Yes, I'd go with the Tamron because: Tamron 1750 is optically as good if not better, it's quite abit smaller, and a lot cheaper too.

dr_romix · 10-28-2011, 06:29 PM

Originally posted by frank

Yes, I'd go with the Tamron because: Tamron 1750 is optically as good if not better, it's quite abit smaller, and a lot cheaper too.

thanks.
Have you worked with Pentax 16-50?

dr_romix · 10-31-2011, 06:38 AM - **1 Like**

I just got off the phone with Sigma Technical support and they guy said if I have K-5 and not worried about low light high ISO, I should stick to 17-70. Both 17-70 and 17-50 use the same optics..The only difference is EX lenses have fixed 2.8 aperture and 4 year warranty vs DC lenses don't have fixed aperture and only 3 year warranty. He also said " As much as I would want to sell you 17-50 , if you have 17-70, I would hold on to that. I have the same lens and extra 20mm comes handy quite sometime. and in our lab test, I didn't notice a difference between the two".. now I'm even more confused..what do you guys think?

kenyee · 10-31-2011, 07:40 AM

Originally posted by dr_romix

if you have 17-70, I would hold on to that. I have the same lens and extra 20mm comes handy quite sometime. and in our lab test, I didn't notice a difference between the two".. now I'm even more confused..what do you guys think?

That's because the Sigma 17-50 is relatively crappy

The Tamron 17-50 easily outperforms it IIRC...

That said, if you get a good copy of the 17-70, it'll work fine. Mine seems pretty sharp slighly stopped down...

bimjo · 10-31-2011, 07:54 AM

You've asked for and received advice, act on it. This isn't like buying a house, it's a camera lens. Buy one. If you don't like it sell it and buy another. There is such a thing as "too much info". Paralysis by analysis and all that.

Having said that, which end of the zoom range is more important to you- the wide end or the tele end? If it's the wide end go with the Tamron 17-50. If it's the tele end buy a Tamron 28-75. Either one performs equally well. Both are constant f/2.8.

dr_romix · 10-31-2011, 08:36 AM

Originally posted by bimjo

You've asked for and received advice, act on it. This isn't like buying a house, it's a camera lens. Buy one. If you don't like it sell it and buy another. There is such a thing as "too much info". Paralysis by analysis and all that.

Having said that, which end of the zoom range is more important to you- the wide end or the tele end? If it's the wide end go with the Tamron 17-50. If it's the tele end buy a Tamron 28-75. Either one performs equally well. Both are constant f/2.8.

I have Tamron 28-75 which is amazing and I use it mostly for portrait. I want something for walk around especially when I'm travelling to Europe in the summer. I usually do a lot of landscape and street photos and never needed to use f2.8 as I use smaller aperture setting to get greater depth of field in my shots. Based on what the sigma technical supports says, I wouldn't notice any difference in terms of IQ on either 17-50 vs 17-70 for those purposes unless I shoot inside the church or indoor with low lighting. He also said if I have external flash for indoor photos and set my aperture to f8, again the IQ on 17-50 and 17-70 would be the same... do you agree with him?

bimjo · 10-31-2011, 12:04 PM

Honestly, if you don't need a fast lens for DOF then get the 17-70. Outdoors, in good light the picture quality will be comparable assuming you do your part. I don't do flash, and you won't either in a church in Europe I'm pretty sure. How often are you going to do that vs. outdoors? I have a Tamron 18-250 I use for travel/when I'm feeling lazy and for the most part I can't tell the pics apart from my faster glass after processing. Sure, the 18-250 needs a little bit more TLC during processing, but the end results for anything up to a 12x18 inch print are comparable.

Personally, since you've already got the 28-75 I'd look at something like the DA15 instead of another zoom. Smaller, lighter, great IQ, no duplication. YMMV.

dr_romix · 10-31-2011, 02:32 PM

Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 EX DC OS HSM Lens Image Quality

-to me it seems like sigma 17-70 is as sharp as 17-50 in the center at f4 and above ... also I did the comparison with Tamron 17-50 which appears to have more CA at the corner compare to Sigma.

Let me know what you guys think.

Thanks.

10-27-2011, 09:17 PM	#1
dr_romix Banned Join Date: May 2011 Location: Pittsburgh,PA Posts: 321	sigma 17-70 vs Tamron 17-50 vs Pentax 17-70 Hello there, I'm debating between either of these lenses for general purpose. IQ is very important. Extra 20mm on Sigma and Penatx would also be helpful in some situations. I have K-5 so not having fixed 2.8 is not a big issue.. which one do you recommend? again sharpness is important. thanks,

10-31-2011, 02:32 PM	#15
dr_romix Banned Join Date: May 2011 Location: Pittsburgh,PA Posts: 321 Original Poster	Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 EX DC OS HSM Lens Image Quality -to me it seems like sigma 17-70 is as sharp as 17-50 in the center at f4 and above ... also I did the comparison with Tamron 17-50 which appears to have more CA at the corner compare to Sigma. Let me know what you guys think. Thanks. Last edited by dr_romix; 10-31-2011 at 03:13 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Pentax, Tamron or Sigma ultra-wide lens???	Pepe Guitarra	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	23	06-30-2012 08:45 PM
Help me choose between Pentax 50-135, Sigma/Tamron 70-200	Christine Tham	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	12	01-22-2011 05:17 AM
Pentax DA 50-200mm vs Tamron/Sigma 70-300?	SirJangly	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	11	09-06-2010 11:01 AM
zoom lens face off - tamron vs sigma vs pentax	Wired	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	8	02-18-2010 12:36 PM

10-27-2011, 10:27 PM	#2
hcc Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Brisbane, Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 4,004	Off course you read the comparative review: DA* 16-50mm vs. Sigma and Tamron 17-50mm Comparison - Introduction where the tammy 17-50mm figured well.

10-28-2011, 05:10 AM	#3
dr_romix Banned Join Date: May 2011 Location: Pittsburgh,PA Posts: 321 Original Poster	Originally posted by hcc Off course you read the comparative review: DA* 16-50mm vs. Sigma and Tamron 17-50mm Comparison - Introduction where the tammy 17-50mm figured well. I read that. there is no comparison with Sigma 17-70 or Pentax 17-70... I wonder if I should go with Macro capability and extra 20 reach on Sigma or stick to Tamron... never found those 2 comparison.. that's why I posted here...

10-28-2011, 05:26 AM	#4
sterretje Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Roodepoort, South Africa Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,561	I think I told you before, but it might have been somebody else There is no (real) macro capability on that sigma; the kit lens (as an example) does nearly as good with regards to magnification

10-28-2011, 05:44 AM	#5
dr_romix Banned Join Date: May 2011 Location: Pittsburgh,PA Posts: 321 Original Poster	Originally posted by sterretje I think I told you before, but it might have been somebody else There is no (real) macro capability on that sigma; the kit lens (as an example) does nearly as good with regards to magnification in terms of IQ, which one do you recommend?

10-28-2011, 08:08 AM	#6
frank Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Singapore Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,202	IQ wise, I'd go w/ the Tamron. It's a better lens among these three, and the extra 20mm can be easily covered by walking back and forth a bit. The Sigma 1770 is a good lens on its own, but its AF hunts quite easily under low light, hard to focus (at least it's my own experience w/ two copies). Some Pentax 1770 also have focusing problem at the tele end, you can read this in the user's reviews at the forum.

10-28-2011, 09:04 AM	#7
dr_romix Banned Join Date: May 2011 Location: Pittsburgh,PA Posts: 321 Original Poster	Originally posted by frank IQ wise, I'd go w/ the Tamron. It's a better lens among these three, and the extra 20mm can be easily covered by walking back and forth a bit. The Sigma 1770 is a good lens on its own, but its AF hunts quite easily under low light, hard to focus (at least it's my own experience w/ two copies). Some Pentax 1770 also have focusing problem at the tele end, you can read this in the user's reviews at the forum. Thanks Frank. so, between newer sigma 17-50 and Tamron, would you still recommend Tamron over Sigma?

10-28-2011, 09:14 AM	#8
frank Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Singapore Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,202	Originally posted by dr_romix Thanks Frank. so, between newer sigma 17-50 and Tamron, would you still recommend Tamron over Sigma? Yes, I'd go with the Tamron because: Tamron 1750 is optically as good if not better, it's quite abit smaller, and a lot cheaper too.

10-28-2011, 06:29 PM	#9
dr_romix Banned Join Date: May 2011 Location: Pittsburgh,PA Posts: 321 Original Poster	Originally posted by frank Yes, I'd go with the Tamron because: Tamron 1750 is optically as good if not better, it's quite abit smaller, and a lot cheaper too. thanks. Have you worked with Pentax 16-50?

10-31-2011, 06:38 AM - 1 Like	#10
dr_romix Banned Join Date: May 2011 Location: Pittsburgh,PA Posts: 321 Original Poster	I just got off the phone with Sigma Technical support and they guy said if I have K-5 and not worried about low light high ISO, I should stick to 17-70. Both 17-70 and 17-50 use the same optics..The only difference is EX lenses have fixed 2.8 aperture and 4 year warranty vs DC lenses don't have fixed aperture and only 3 year warranty. He also said " As much as I would want to sell you 17-50 , if you have 17-70, I would hold on to that. I have the same lens and extra 20mm comes handy quite sometime. and in our lab test, I didn't notice a difference between the two".. now I'm even more confused..what do you guys think?

10-31-2011, 07:40 AM	#11
kenyee Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Boston, PRofMA Photos: Albums Posts: 3,026	Originally posted by dr_romix if you have 17-70, I would hold on to that. I have the same lens and extra 20mm comes handy quite sometime. and in our lab test, I didn't notice a difference between the two".. now I'm even more confused..what do you guys think? That's because the Sigma 17-50 is relatively crappy The Tamron 17-50 easily outperforms it IIRC... That said, if you get a good copy of the 17-70, it'll work fine. Mine seems pretty sharp slighly stopped down...

10-31-2011, 07:54 AM	#12
bimjo Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Pasco, WA Posts: 967	You've asked for and received advice, act on it. This isn't like buying a house, it's a camera lens. Buy one. If you don't like it sell it and buy another. There is such a thing as "too much info". Paralysis by analysis and all that. Having said that, which end of the zoom range is more important to you- the wide end or the tele end? If it's the wide end go with the Tamron 17-50. If it's the tele end buy a Tamron 28-75. Either one performs equally well. Both are constant f/2.8.

10-31-2011, 08:36 AM	#13
dr_romix Banned Join Date: May 2011 Location: Pittsburgh,PA Posts: 321 Original Poster	Originally posted by bimjo You've asked for and received advice, act on it. This isn't like buying a house, it's a camera lens. Buy one. If you don't like it sell it and buy another. There is such a thing as "too much info". Paralysis by analysis and all that. Having said that, which end of the zoom range is more important to you- the wide end or the tele end? If it's the wide end go with the Tamron 17-50. If it's the tele end buy a Tamron 28-75. Either one performs equally well. Both are constant f/2.8. I have Tamron 28-75 which is amazing and I use it mostly for portrait. I want something for walk around especially when I'm travelling to Europe in the summer. I usually do a lot of landscape and street photos and never needed to use f2.8 as I use smaller aperture setting to get greater depth of field in my shots. Based on what the sigma technical supports says, I wouldn't notice any difference in terms of IQ on either 17-50 vs 17-70 for those purposes unless I shoot inside the church or indoor with low lighting. He also said if I have external flash for indoor photos and set my aperture to f8, again the IQ on 17-50 and 17-70 would be the same... do you agree with him?

10-31-2011, 12:04 PM	#14
bimjo Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Pasco, WA Posts: 967	Honestly, if you don't need a fast lens for DOF then get the 17-70. Outdoors, in good light the picture quality will be comparable assuming you do your part. I don't do flash, and you won't either in a church in Europe I'm pretty sure. How often are you going to do that vs. outdoors? I have a Tamron 18-250 I use for travel/when I'm feeling lazy and for the most part I can't tell the pics apart from my faster glass after processing. Sure, the 18-250 needs a little bit more TLC during processing, but the end results for anything up to a 12x18 inch print are comparable. Personally, since you've already got the 28-75 I'd look at something like the DA15 instead of another zoom. Smaller, lighter, great IQ, no duplication. YMMV.