PDA

View Full Version : Tamron 20-->40 or Sigma 17-->35


Robert T
January 2nd, 2003, 11:33 AM
For the S2, which of the above wide angle zooms would you choose and why?
thanks

traumlandschaft
January 8th, 2003, 02:22 AM
Hello Robert,

I tried both of them and at the end I selected the Sigma 15-30. The Price difference is IMHO not that big, but the quality difference of the results is - and I do not want to talk about the additional 2 or 5 millimeters in the Wide area.

My internal tests brought similar results like the 2.8/80-200 Nikon, which is the best I have.

Give it a try - you will be surprised!

Regards

traumlandschaft

steve bingham
February 17th, 2003, 01:35 PM
Ditto. Try the Sigma 15-30 instead of either.

Jacques Gratton
March 20th, 2003, 05:52 PM
When I bought my S2, in December, the dealer had a mint Tamron 20-40mm for 600 CAN$ (~400 U$). I consulted a few websites, namely Photodo, and decided on the Tamron. A decisive factor, for me, was the possibility to use graduated and polarising filters with the Cokin holder, something not possible with the 15-30mm Sigma.

steve bingham
March 20th, 2003, 07:56 PM
Polarizing filters really don't work on wide angle shots - too much sky. So for landscapes I forget them. The graduated filter can be done more precisely in Photoshopso that wasn't a concern for me.

What Idid like about the Sigma was its extreme center sharpness - fine for the S2 but not so fine for full frame.

lightwrangler
April 7th, 2003, 01:33 PM
Grad filters still have their place even with PS. In many situations the range of light is too extreme for an accurate exposure and the grad used as a ND works very well. In this case, an exposure can't be found that would accomodate both shadows and highlights without losing something.

Even when the exposure is in an acceptable range, a filter is sometimes a expedient solution. I would rather take another minute fitting a filter than spend 10 minutes "fixing it in post".

lightwrangler
April 7th, 2003, 01:38 PM
I am satisfied with the Sigma 17-35mm. For the most part it is sharp. It is reasonably light and handles well. I do have a little bit of cromatic abberation (mostly on the edges)in very few cases, but so far it hasn't been a problem.

S_Leeper
April 12th, 2003, 10:17 AM
Might also consider the Sigma 20-40.
I have been happy with the results, mostly inside family events & some nature shots. . . but you got to watch for possible flare...

Jacques Gratton
May 5th, 2003, 02:32 PM
Circular polariser.