Help me waste money on a new lens !

diskojoe · #1 Posted: **Jan 31, 2012, 5:38 PM**

I want to finally upgrade my kit lens to something with a fixed aperture and wanted to get others imput on what to buy. I use a Sony a200 and am looking at the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 or the Sigma 17-50 f2.8. I have read lots of good things about the Tamron and it is about $400 but I also have a sigma 70-210mm f2.8 and really like the look and feel of the Sigma. But the Sigma lens retails for about $700.

So should I be cheap and go with the Tamron or is there a benefit to spending the extra $300 and getting the Sigma instead.

Your thoughts?

photoLith · #2 Posted: **Jan 31, 2012, 6:31 PM**

In my experience I find that the Sigmas are usually built with more metal and feel more robust than Tamron lenses.

diskojoe · #3 Posted: **Jan 31, 2012, 7:40 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by photoLith

In my experience I find that the Sigmas are usually built with more metal and feel more robust than Tamron lenses.

1 vote for Sigma!

I really like my Sigma 70-210. It has a nice aesthetic feel to the shots I get.

Okayyou · #4 Posted: **Jan 31, 2012, 7:41 PM**

People I've know with tamrons have had them break pretty easily. Can't say much about the image quality between the two.

diskojoe · #5 Posted: **Jan 31, 2012, 8:38 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Okayyou

People I've know with tamrons have had them break pretty easily. Can't say much about the image quality between the two.

2 votes for Sigma!

flar · #6 Posted: **Jan 31, 2012, 8:52 PM**

I considered the Tamron a couple years ago but opted instead for the Nikon 16-85. It seemed like a decent lens. A quick look on the internet shows a Sony 16-50 2.8 as well. I have no idea which one is best, check out the reviews and try them for yourself in the store. Bring your own camera and keep the shots so you can look at them at home.

diskojoe · #7 Posted: **Feb 1, 2012, 12:25 AM**

Only thing I've heard about the Sony 16-50 is from a friend who tested a a77 and that is the kit for it. He said it was decent but didn't elaborate much. This leads me to believe its not really anything special.

But for this I was planning on making a trip to the brick and mortar to do some testing. I'm leaning towards the sigma but just want to justify the expense. Plus I wanted to get a sigma wide angle. Then most of the focal range could be covered by similar lenses. Hopefully this would give me consistent looking shot for paying gigs.

Jimby · #8 Posted: **Feb 1, 2012, 12:46 AM**

since we're spending your money, I say go with Leica!

photoLith · #9 Posted: **Feb 1, 2012, 1:13 AM**

Go over to the camera exchange, they may have all those lenses in stock and ready to test.

glowrock · #10 Posted: **Feb 1, 2012, 1:32 AM**

1 vote for the Tamron. Mine has been perfect so far, and it's built pretty solid. In fact, I find little overall difference in build and feel between my Tamron 17-50 f.28 and my Sigma 10-20 lenses...

The Tamron is definitely less expensive. Why pay a few hundred extra if the quality of the glass itself isn't any or much different?

Aaron (Glowrock)

giovanni sasso · #11 Posted: **Feb 1, 2012, 1:48 AM**

i don't know much about the sony a200, but the tamron lens i have is probably my least favorite. it's a 11-17mm wide angle lens and takes decent enough pictures, but on the full frame (canon 5d), it's extremely soft around the edges and i'm not crazy about the diffraction (starburst) effect in small aperture/long exposure settings. still, it's durable enough and i'm not in a hurry to replace it. i'd rather get a 500mm lens first.

diskojoe · #12 Posted: **Feb 1, 2012, 2:07 AM**

Definitely going to camera exchange. I don't think there is any other place that would have a decent supply of a-mount lenses.

Just FYI - Sony a200 is a 10.2mp with an aps-c sensor that delivers a 1.5 crop factor. Full frame is not in the budget right now.

Robert Pence · #13 Posted: **Feb 1, 2012, 2:09 AM**

I picked up the Tamron 28-75mm lens for $400 because the price of comparapble Nikon glass made me cringe. I don't beat my equipment around much, and I've had no problems with breakage. I have noticed that when I shoot wide open at f/2.8 in outdoor scenes, flatness of field becomes an issue and sometimes overall sharpness suffers. Ordinarily for urban photography, though, I default to F/8, aperture preferred, and I think the lens performs very well. I think the price has gone up about $100 since I bought mine.

diskojoe · #14 Posted: **Feb 1, 2012, 2:32 AM**

I would like to be able to have good sharpness wide open. Im wondering which might have better bokeh?

diskojoe · #15 Posted: **Feb 1, 2012, 6:24 PM**

I think im going to go with the Sigma.

I read this great review on http://www.lenstip.com

The image resolution for the Sigma blew away the Tamron.

They had these nifty charts for the testing also.

tamron:

sigma:

"It’s worth reminding here that the best „primes”, tested on the 50D, reach the level about 52 lpmm and results near 34-35 lpmm we consider to be the decency level."

So the Tamron is a really good lens based upon the average range for most lenses but the Sigma is significantly higher quality.