07-02-2010, 07:42 AM
[quote name='miro' date='02 July 2010 - 09:23 AM' timestamp='1278055383' post='797']
Thanks for the nice review.
I’m happy that I this review is included some AF properties like – rotating angle, MF focus capability etc.
Klaus what is your experience with this lens. How it compares to the old Tamron 17-50/2,8.
[/quote]
The old Tamron had some hefty field curvature issues so despite the better chart figures at 17mm @ f/2.8 there's no real world advantage for the Tammy at this setting. I think the Sigma is better at 17mm f/4 and the Tammy requires f/5.6 to catch up again. The Tammy has more CAs so its subjective quality perception may be somewhat lower as well here (unless you correct the issue). The Tammy has a tad less barrel distortion at 17mm.
Personally I'm not a fan of the Tamron build quality nor style - Sigma is better here. However, the Tammy non-VC is a lot cheaper.
So they're darn close - just like their ratings indicate. :-)
Thanks for the nice review.
I’m happy that I this review is included some AF properties like – rotating angle, MF focus capability etc.
Klaus what is your experience with this lens. How it compares to the old Tamron 17-50/2,8.
[/quote]
The old Tamron had some hefty field curvature issues so despite the better chart figures at 17mm @ f/2.8 there's no real world advantage for the Tammy at this setting. I think the Sigma is better at 17mm f/4 and the Tammy requires f/5.6 to catch up again. The Tammy has more CAs so its subjective quality perception may be somewhat lower as well here (unless you correct the issue). The Tammy has a tad less barrel distortion at 17mm.
Personally I'm not a fan of the Tamron build quality nor style - Sigma is better here. However, the Tammy non-VC is a lot cheaper.
So they're darn close - just like their ratings indicate. :-)