Zoom lens comparison: Tamron 17-50 f2.8 VC, Sigma 17-50 f2.8 OS / 18-35 f1.8, Canon 17-55 IS USM

Hey guys,
I did a full comparison video of these four fast standard zoom lenses for Canon APS-C cameras.
This video took a LONG editing and post procession time.
I hope you find this video useful!
Download Link:
www.dropbox.com/sh/6ajlw2u4b9...
Photos are taken with:
CANON 700D
All photos are processed with the same effects (Adobe Lightroom 5.7):
- slightly sharpening
- slightly contrast boost
Used equipment in this video:
CANON 70D:
www.amazon.com/Canon-Digital-C...
CANON 50mm F/1.8 STM:
www.amazon.com/Canon-50mm-1-8-...
ZOOM H1 Handyrecorder:
www.amazon.com/Zoom-Handy-Port...

[@josemankapi]

Great side by side comparison! This is all that i had search! Thank you!

[@santosthi]

Great test, it helped me in selecting Sigma 17-50, thank you.

[@inlovewithkarate29]

great comparison video!!

[@TWX1138]

Interesting. Based on your images, as an amateur/hobbyist I've drawn the following conclusions: *Of the four:* The Sigma 17-35mm f/1.8 seems to produce the best images in the two focal ranges and at basically all apertures. *Of the three f/2.8 lenses:* at 17mm, the Tamron produces the least-soft and least subject to aberration at all apertures in both the center and the edge. In the center, the light glinting off of the corner of the orange shipping container is visible on the Tamron, but not on the others. Additionally details in the crane are more crisp, and some of the details in the highlights on the white buildings are visible in the Tamron image. At 35mm, at larger apertures, in the center, the Sigma and Canon lenses seem to be roughly on par for the crispness in the center, with the Canon lens seeming a little bit darker. Details in the roof are visible. The Tamron is softer. As the apertures tighten, the Tamron's quality improves, and the Canon's images get darker. At the edge, the Tamron is sharper than the Sigma and the Canon at larger apertures, and the Sigma is noticeably the worst. At 50mm in the center, at larger apertures the Sigma seems best as the Canon suffers from being too bright and having details washed out and the Tamron is soft, but the Tamron's quality catches up some at smaller apertures. Some details are more visible in the Tamron (the grass in the field in the lower left) than in the others, but the Sigma still looks to have a slight advantage. At the edge, at f/2.8 the Tamron is the worst, but at smaller apertures the Tamron is on par with the Sigma or even a little better, with the Canon maintaining even consistency. *Colors/Contrast/Summary:* The Sigma f/1.8 seems to have the best sharpness and quality, which makes sense with a shorter zoom range. The Tamron f/2.8 works best at widest angle. Color/contrast might not be as dramatic. At f/2.8 it's the weakest of the bunch but it improves dramatically when stopped down. The Sigma f/2.8 is weakest at widest angle. Color/contrast seems to be the best of the three f/2.8. It has some weaknesses of its own though. Canon f/2.8 seems the most consistent across its entire zoom range, but is a little darker in the middle of that range. It's arguably the strongest performer of the three, but is most likely the most expensive. With cost as an important factor, if you're shooting wide angle but need the occasional zoom-in and if the color/contrast is acceptable and you expect to leave f/2.8, the Tamron is probably the best choice. If you're zooming in and plan to keep the aperture wide open all the time, the Sigma f/2.8 is probably the best choice. If you don't expect to need to zoom much and want to keep the aperture open, the Sigma f/1.8 is best. If you want the best all-around performance with the least demerits in any given focal length and aperture, the Canon is probably the best choice.

[@MariusSchulte]

correct 🤗 nice summary. Im using fullframe right now with the Sigma 24-105 Art, and the 18-35mm f1.8 with my Panasonic GH5 with Metabones Speedboster 0.71. Found that the images of my Canon 6D are alot crisper than on my 70D. Sadly my 70D has a mainboard damage and I sold it. So no APS-C crop camera there in my equipment inventory.

[@TWX1138]

@@MariusSchulte I only recently bought my first new camera, a 77D. Before that I was using a Rebel XS (1000D) that was purchased used, primarily with a 18-55 IS II kit lens that I acquired separately. In some respects I'd have loved to go full-frame but since the justification for a new camera was video so we could take home movies of our daughter as she grows up the 77D was the most camera I could justify. Besides, right now my skills are certainly the limiting factor in how good my pictures turn out.

[@MariusSchulte]

@@TWX1138 Its a great cam to start. Espacally with the dual pixel autofocus. How old is your child? 😊 I have a 3 year old daughter.

[@TWX1138]

@@MariusSchulte She's not quite two, and we're blessed with a child that's equally happy to stay in and be read to or to run around at the park. The dual-pixel AF and flexible screen led us to the SL2 (200D), but some pretty limiting still-photography features on the SL2 steered us towards the T7i (800D), and 77D. I liked the more professional-style controls on the 77D, and since I didn't want to buy another 18-55 kit lens I was able to get the 77D cheaper than the T7i.

[@TWX1138]

@@MariusSchulte Amusingly, only a few days after watching your video I found a good deal on a used Canon 17-55mm f/2.8. The image stabilization is noisier than I'd like and the extra mass is taking some getting used to, but I'm getting good results with it.

[@wildcat22]

very good comparison. well done.

[@uscfroadie]

What a great video! I'm subscribing.

[@HassanETECH]

i like the way u made it. made me pausing the video to look for details 👍

[@MariusSchulte]

Look into the video description ;) you can download the pictures from my dropbox

[@dukebozikowski3801]

Marius Schulte Great video man!!! I’m between the Canon 18-55 and Sigma 17-50. I like the Sigma because it seems to just as sharp if not sharper for way less money. However, if the video autofocus and image stabilizer aren’t as good as the canon lens I’d rather spend the extra money. How’s the auto focus and stabilization compare between the two?

[@diy-fixit9566]

well done on technique, comparison and video. thanks

[@G4M3RGU1D3]

This is really interresting. The tamron lense tend to be not that good at wide aperture and sigma counterpart is better and cross side at mid point ending Tamron having better image quality at small aperture while the sigma is the opposite. Great comparison!

[@KeithJohnson.]

Great video thanks, subscribed :)

[@oleh_sivkov]

Sigma 17-50 Max. Natural color!!! very good!

[@groovesme]

if you still have all the lenses I would love to see comparison with portraits and macro type shots.

[@MariusSchulte]

No sorry, I didn't own any of these lenses anymore. I switched to Full Frame.

[@ItaysAvitan]

Thank you Very Much.

[@EugeniaLoli]

The Sigma 17-50 is unusable for video. It does not autofocus properly on a mirrorless Canon camera (I've tried it), and if you try to switch to MF, the focus travel is the shortest I ever saw in a lens (it's impossible to really focus with it). Also, if you're using that lens with an MFT camera and speedbooster, it doesn't cover. The Tamron autofocuses slowly but it's accurate, and it also covers with a speedbooster. It's very noisy when it AF though. The Canon lens is the best deal.It's lighter than the Sigma 18-35, it's as good in AF, it has a better focal range, and it has IS. For $350 on eBay, that's the best buy of the 4. The Tamron is the best cheap deal for $190 if you're using an MFT camera with a speedbooster. I would not touch the Sigma 17-50.

[@momchilyordanov8190]

From what I see in your test - If one has the money, buy Canon 17-55 IS USM. If on more limited budget - the Sigma 17-50 f2.8 OS. The other two I wouldn't consider, because of lower picture quality (Tamron) and less versatility (the 18-35 one is too short of a zoom). Very well made video.

[@MariusSchulte]

Thanks yes that would be my recommendation. The 18-35 is very nice for low light and film making but you are right, the zoomrange is short. Used the Canon and Sigma the most if I shoot on crop sensor bodys. The AF speed of the Canon is also better than the Sigma 17-50.

[@martimt.8749]

Thank you very much

[@Polarfrosch100]

Haste gut gemacht :)

[@hirschkuh1982]

das ist mal ein wirklich guter Vergleich. Gut gemacht. Das 18-35 ist unglaublich aber auch sehr teuer mit ca. 650€. Man könnte auch das 35mm 1.8 Nikon oder 30mm 1.8 Sigma als Alternative nehmen.

[@krino8137]

habe mich immer gefragt ob die Sigma 17-50 den Aufpreis zu der Tamron 17-50 Wert ist - ich denke aber eher nicht. danke Dir!

[@israrhussainaquarius]

Hi. please suggest which one should I buy for my kids and family videos, Canon 17-55mm or Sigma 17-50 ? Thanks 🤝

[@MariusSchulte]

I suggest the Canon 17-55 if you can afford it. Otherwise the Sigma 17-50.

[@damianocorsi9018]

sorry i do not understand english! What is the best lens in the review to replace the 18-55 lens of the Canon 200d kit?

[@MariusSchulte]

Best image quality 18-35 Sigma Art. Best price performance Sigma 17-50 - If you cant decide Canon 17-55 with better image quality as the 17-50 but worse then 18-35. But you get an extra zoom range compared to the sigma 18-35.

[@haceruyank7210]

Hello , I watched your video good job , I have Canon 80D and 24mm f2.8 , 50mm 1.8 stm lenses and I am thinking to buy sigma 18-35 or sigma 17-50 what do you think ?

[@MariusSchulte]

Hi, depends if you want more reach and image stabalization or a wider aputure with shorter range. If you dont need the 1.8 Aputure (which is not that much using apsc sensor camera like the 80d) I would go for the 17-50.

[@haceruyank7210]

@@MariusSchulte Thank you for your answer on the budget side 17-50 but I already have the 50mm 1.8 It feels like 18-35 is a good team for me

[@muani3194]

@@MariusSchulte is sigma 17 - 50 sharp at wider focal length and aperture such as 17 mm f 2.8 - f 5.6 - 35 mm f 2.8 - f 5.6

[@joaovtaveira]

In my opinion, Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 should not be in this comparison, it has a too much different focal range and maximum aperture, in the other hand, you could have included the non stabilized version of the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8.

[@Midane85]

Sigma 18-35mm is amazing. At f1.8 razor sharp.

[@ardyar9407]

What is the large structure just right of upper center? Like a huge billboard? Thanks for the video.

[@MariusSchulte]

I dont know which building you are looking at :D in the overview on top right: thats a beer factory.

[@ardyar9407]

That must be the roof of it. By far the largest building in town.

[@MariusSchulte]

Yes of course it's one of the biggest beer factories here in Germany.

[@ardyar9407]

Just a beautiful area..

[@CVonC]

What the hell happened to the Sigma 17-50mm (I have this lens) @ 35mm f4/f5.6/f8? It lost so much edge sharpness compared to the Tamron! Even at 18mm the Tamron seemed to have better edge sharpness. The same could be said at 50mm but not as apparent. This seems to contrast Chris Frost's reviews of both these lenses - the Sigma being significantly sharper at both centre and corner, evident in the sample pics he took, see --> kzbin.info/www/bejne/imS4l5WpmcuIq5o.

[@rn-rvchronicles]

Agreed, And the Sigma was sharper in the center then the Tamron but softer at the edges the the Tamron. I hope he did not mix the photos up.Chris's review was much different at the edges but the same for the center as this test. I just do see these lens getting sharper at the edges then the center of the pics??

[@hoguga]

good question... the problem is the 70d, i think

[@sunlbx]

sigma has ugly corners. stopping down never makes them really sharp. over the course of my "amateur career" i've had tamron 17-50, 17-50 vc and Sigma. The VC is my favourite, since it allows for max sharpness when stopped down. I agree that wide open the sigma is oftentimes better, but I sold it, having gotten tired of its ugly blurry corners everywhere other that at 50mm

[@miramezjr]

canon loses at wide apperture, sigma wins. but canon is good at 35 and 50mm. but 18-35 is yet better

[@Jmartinezvega]

My conclusions: -Sigma (18-35) is the best at all apertures and focal lengths. Buy this one. -Canon is very good at all the apertures and focal lengths. If you need a lens up to 50-55mm this is the right one. -Tamron is the worst wide open at all the focal lengths. Skip this one, unless you won't use it wide open all the time. -Sigma (17-50) is the worst from f5.6+ apertures at most focal lengths. On a budget, if you want to use it at f2.8-4 all the time, buy this one.

[@petermitchell2729]

i thought the sigma 17-50 performed better than the canon at 50mm. I think that the 17-50 sigma offers the best value at half the 18-35 price and less than half of the canon.

[@sunlbx]

@@petermitchell2729yeah this sigma is good at 50mm, other than that it's more or less kit lens performance in the corners

[@petermitchell2729]

@@sunlbx yeah but show me what kit lens goes to 2.8

[@sunlbx]

@@petermitchell2729effectively, if you want to take hand held photos in low light, the kit lens at 18mm with its better image stabilisation will get you respectable results. This sigma would be 2/3 stops faster, however its shit image stabilisation will eat up this advantage. The canon one is pretty ugly at wide angle wide open, so you would have to stop it down to the kit territory. I've used them all and know what i'm saying. If you need to stop action in low light, go for primes

[@rpdigital17]

Sigma and Canon were better than Tamron.

[@harleyrider9166]

The Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 is trash.

[@iammrknowitall]

good video but the discussion about the lenses was painful, not fluent at all. sounded like you were trying to construct sentences from dot points.

[@MariusSchulte]

Thanks for your feedback. I want to give some information and don't speak like 10 minutes. You're all here to see the pictures from the lenses :D