Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 or Sigma 18-50 f/2.8

[ride16]

I've decedid on going with a wider angel lens for my D90. Now I'm debating between the tamron 17-50 f/2.8 and the sigma 18-50mm f/2.8. Between those two, is one considered better than the other? I've heard that sigma might have some quality control issues (as in some soft copies), but I haven't heard that with the tamron ones.

[Pupator]

I went through this same debate for Sony mount. I read tons of reviews and user opinions, tried both, and in the end found the Tamron to be superior. I don't know if it's different for Nikon mount.

[ziggy53]

I own the older:

Sigma 18-50mm, f/2.8 EX DC (before the current "Macro" version)

... and the quality is very nice. It does miss focus sometimes but not so much to be a genuine problem.

I do believe that the:

Tamron 17-50mm, f/2.8 XR Di II

... is a better lens overall, but the Sigma is good enough that I will not be replacing mine anytime soon. If I were to recommend a lens, it would be the Tamron.

Reviews of both lenses:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/reviews/Sigma-18-50mm-f-2.8-EX-DC-Lens-Review.aspx
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/reviews/Tamron-17-50mm-f-2.8-XR-Di-II-Lens-Review.aspx

[ride16]

That's another thing. I really want a macro lens, too. I know the sigma is considered a macro lens. Does anyone know if the tamron one is a macro lens, too? And are they 1:1 macros?

[divamum]

I can't comment on the Sigma, but I will say that I love, love, love, love, LOVE (did I say love?) my Tamron 17-50. :D

ETA: The Tamron is not a macro

[Tim Kamppinen]

I just got the Tamron today, and from what I can tell so far it's great. I'm just renting it for use at a wedding this weekend, but I'm definitely going to buy one sometime down the road. I also have the 28-75 which is equally awesome but I miss the wide angle capabilities when using it on my D90.

[ride16]

I just got the Tamron today, and from what I can tell so far it's great. I'm just renting it for use at a wedding this weekend, but I'm definitely going to buy one sometime down the road. I also have the 28-75 which is equally awesome but I miss the wide angle capabilities when using it on my D90.

Tim - funny you should mention the 28-75. That was the one I was originally considering, but I believe the macro is 3:1. The fact that it's not a *true* macro, and that it's not very wide on the D90 made me consider going with the 17-50 instead. Still not a macro, but at least I'll have a bit wider angel. I've been going back and fourth between the two for quite a while. Glad to hear that you like them both!