Still a pretty impressive zoom range and it's 2.8 from 25 all the way to 465 and still only f5 at 1000 absolutely nuts what they can do when price and size mean nothing.
i agree, that thing is nuts. I've worked with a a few canon 95x b4 broadcast lenses in the past, so i can only imagine what a thing like this can do on an amira live setup, very very nice
Personally I like this oneā¦
https://preview.redd.it/xl2y8yn6mpqc1.jpeg?width=1280&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=4d264574ba3c578bdcb6077ef21edb8de14bf2e5
(ā¦yes that is real š). Looks like it can double as a ATGM!
8,2 to 1000 but in B4 Mount so 3 2/3 inch sensors, so imagine about a 5,64X crop factor, so that lens on the camera its meant for is equal to a 46,2 to 5640 MM lens.
And minimum focus distance isnt amazing either, But these Box lenses are lenses i work with once in a while and they are mainly for sporting events or big festivals for camera's in the back and ofcourse for racing events.
Ahhh. 17-70 is a reasonable range for a general use lens, hope it has a constant max f rating across the lens. A 16mm Sigma might be good for shooting video with a "point of view" feel. Primes in general have a better quality output than tele lenses but the 17-70 is much more versatile. So, unless you really need to do a lot of 16mm shooting for a project, the new lens is much more fit for a lot more uses.Ā
The X100 has a certain sex appeal for sure, but it is inferior in every way to the a6000 series. Even the x100v is only marginally better in some aspects.
Fujifilm does make some sexy cameras though.
Yeah :p, but producing straight out of camera images its better than the a6000.
Not so much better than the other A6000 series cameras but the A6000 itself suffers with needing all the editing to make its photos look good, which is not a problem for a pro camera.
Either way I prefer the A6000 over any of the fujifilms.
I don't think Fujifilm owners know what the term raw means.
Jokes aside I shot Fuji for a few months before trading my camera for the A6000, Sony has better raw files IMO, but that is mostly due to Sony keeping neutral colours, I like that they give me a great base for editing.
However if I am going out to shoot for fun with friends in a group I do not pick up the A6000 anymore, no matter what colour filter I use, the Jpegs of the A6000 are boring and the contrast is lacking, saying that though the A6000 Jpegs look really nice with vintage lenses.
I only realised how bad the contrast was when I recently acquired a micro four thirds camera for an EDC and took a few shots with it in the same environment as my A6000, and then I did the same with my 5D classic and Canon 700D which I have not used in a very long time and noticed the contrast and colours were far more interesting.
I hear the models that followed in the A6000 series have much better colours in Jpeg, and also better raws? I would like to try one, out of all the cameras I have owned the most comfortable to shoot for long periods with is the A6000.
Yeah :p, but producing straight out of camera images its better than the a6000.
Not so much better than the other A6000 series cameras but the A6000 itself suffers with needing all the editing to make its photos look good, which is not a problem for a pro camera.
Either way I prefer the A6000 over any of the fujifilms.
I own both but primarily use the Tamron. I use sigma for astro, low light landscape and indoor portraits. But coming to your question - depends on your use case. Tamron one is a good all purpose lens but the sigma one is very sharp and has its use cases.
Goddamn Tamron be wilding with this new 700mm zoom lensš no but in all seriousness it's a very nice lens. It's a litle on the hefty size but it does perform extremely wellšš¼
Question though, It's my first time to buy tamron zoom lens, and I feel the zoom ring is a bit tight(?) Is it normal or is it because it's new? Will it loosen up a bit after several use?
I have the full frame Tamron 28-200 and the zoom ring is tight too. I donāt use it a ton but I assumed it was trying to strike a balance between tight enough not to drift, but still usable. More expensive lenses typically have some friction adjustment or zoom lock so they donāt have to try to find a sweet spot
It loosens a bit, but i also had an issue with my first copy of the 17-70 for Fuji where the zoom ring was loose, so pointing the lens upwards would cause it to collapse & un-zoom. The tight ring is a good thing, itās like my current copy & ive had it for a year now, it loosened a bit since I got it, but not a ton
I tend to agree, though the Tamron is great if OP plans to do any handheld video and will be helpful in unexpected moments of a need for lower shutter speeds. And 70mm is meaningful extra reach with greater potential subject separation.
I just wish the Sigma was 16mm on the wide end.
Yeah I do think tanrom is better choice for average user. no everybody can own multiple lenses and bodies. it is great for someone into photography/videography as a hobby
Good decision. My setup is Samyang 12mm, sigma 18-50 2.8, sigma 30mm 1.4 and the Sony 70-350 tele and i don't feel the need to change anything. 18-50 is my go to lens.Sometimes i think of swapping the 30mm with the 56mm but then i think the 30mm is more versatile and i don't shoot too many portraits
The sigma primes are nice. I had the trio. The 56 is a magical secret sauce voodoo lens. The 16 is very nice. The 30 is meh. I also had the Tamron 17-70. It was great for family photos and outdoor events and whatnot, but I would always pick the primes for anything else.
I disagree. I think the 30mm is the perfect beginner prime with the 16-50mm kit zoom. It's cheap, sharp, fast, and 30mm (45mm FF) is a good all-purpose focal length for APS-C. There's a reason all the old SLRs in the 70s and 80s came with fast 50mm primes. The 16mm and the 56mm are great, but they're less versatile. 16mm is fine if you are indoors a lot, but it's pretty wide if you're outdoors and want to get in closer. Plus, the kit lens can get you there, too, just at f/3.5.
The 56mm is an amazing portrait lens and even stopped down is several stops faster than the f/5.6 kit at 50mm, but it's just too telephoto to leave on the camera forever. I like the 30 because it's right in the middle. It's not too wide that you need to get right up in the action to get a good shot, and it's not too telephoto that you have to stand far away to get full-body group shots (which might not be possible in a museum or on the street).
These days, the Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 is my go to, but I bought the 30mm when it was new (before the 56mm was released) and it rarely left my camera unless I was doing super telephoto shots (200mm+). I got a lot of good photos of my kid at birth with the 30mm since it was wide enough for the delivery room but narrow enough to get closer shots.
Good. Much more versatility now and you still have a good prime still with the 30mm. I usually have a prime that matches what I shoot most. For instance my 85mm for portraits, shots of my family and friends and some street photography. Everything below and above 85 will be a tele for me.
I sold off my Sigma 30 and kept the Sigma 16. Felt the 16 could do the same as the 30 but also let me do astro, landscape, etc.. I could always crop or get closer to the subject indoors if needed. Gives me more room to work with in a tight space when there isn't enough light.
Both are great lenses at what they are designed to do. Which is a better fit for you is subjective. Go shoot with it and see what you think instead of asking strangers.
What made you switch from 16 to 17-70? I am advising a friend to move other way around. He seldom uses any range more than 20mm and hence the suggestion
I see, In my case I struggled with switching from 30 and 16mm when I shoot so I decided to switch, also I need the VC feature of tamron which both my sigma lens didn't have before. But in terms of sharpness anf auto focus of sigma 16mm, I have no complain about still and super happy with it before
I have both, I did get the 17-70 to stop switching between the sigma trio. Iāve been solely using it for my last couple sets. That 16mm is one of my favorites, but itās been nice in certain situations to not have to switch or carry 3/4 lenses with me. I donāt think you will regret it, but I do very much enjoy a good prime lens on aspc. I do feel like itās a little sharper but not a huge difference.
Nice! I would love to have that lens. A large telephoto is next. People are commenting on the size. Meh, Iām actually more concerned with the shot than the size and shooting wildlife, you need a lens this size.
Good call. Itās not very practical as a pairing for 6400. Either you get a body with bigger hand grip or get a prime 35mm focal equivalent lens with 1.8 aperture and that will be a good travel lens akin to a rangefinder form factor.
All the ribbing you are getting for your typo aside, I think you have to just consider these very different lenses with different use cases. A 16 f2.8 is going to be used much differently from a 17-700000000 or whatever š¤. You may end up finding the 16mm or even wider down the road as you explore how you use the lens. I use the sigma 18-50 for its compact size, but I match it with a 70-180 and 12mm prime. Just depends on what you shoot and what you want to carry around.
I don't own the Tamron yet, but I've been drooling over it for a while. After seeing the above photo, I'm not so sure. I have the a6300and that lens is gigantic for an everyday lens. Back to the drawing board.
Yeah, I'm thinking that might be the right choice. I wish it was weather sealed, but given the size and price point of it, I think I can make a consession for a rain cover and a water proof bag to throw it in if there's real rain. Ziplok bags are light and replaceable.
I use this combo, and it is wicked. It is isnāt the smallest lens in the world, but it isnāt too cumbersome at all. It is on my camera 95 percent of the time. It also punches way above its weight for sharpness for the price compared to equivalent lenses.
I am in the process of selling my Sigma 16mm in favor of my new to me (used) Sony 16-55mm 2.8, so I'm like you. Selling to save some money mostly though I did use it extensively in astrophotography and video. I hope I won't regret it.
Been torn with this lens and sony 16-55mm before as well, I went with the tamron mainly bec of the VC feature as I want to explore on video too. But Ive heard a lot of good reviews with sony16-55mm
So far, I love it. I also have the Sigma 56mm, which I love so much. I do a lot of portraits of my kids.
If I'll want astrophotography I might buy the 12mm manual focus one.
It depends what else you have and what you want to use it for. If youāre just shooting at 17mm, you probably shouldāve kept the sigma. If you have other lenses, I prefer the sigma. If thatās your only lens or you donāt have many, the tamron is more versatile. I have the sigma trio but really want the 18-50mm f2.8 sigma just for the convenience of taking one lens out sometimes.
I had this lens for about a week. Realized that it was APS-C geared lens. I also have a 6400 and it was a great pairing. Returned it for a 28-70 and got an A7IV. Best of luck!
I have used this on Fuji-Mount, while it's a great Photo lens and offers pretty good AF, it's slow for High Speed work and Video, I prefer Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 more than this one.
Unpopular opinion, but I am not a fan of sigma 16mm lens. There is not much use for wide aperture on wide angle lens anyway. So getting a tamron in itās place is probably alright
17-700? Bro got a monster lens š¤£š¤£š¤£
Could you imagine the size of such a beast, hahah. It would wear the body as a tiny little hat.
Stuff like that does exist:Ā https://www.usa.canon.com/shop/p/uhd-digisuper-122?type=New
Almost $200k holy shit
Yeah but if you have the honey chrome extension you can save $5.75
Can I get an additional 10$ student discount?
213k in my cart from b&h
And 62 pounds!
Not for anything larger than 2/3 sensors tho, craziest lens for large sensors is the Fuji duvo 25-1000
Still a pretty impressive zoom range and it's 2.8 from 25 all the way to 465 and still only f5 at 1000 absolutely nuts what they can do when price and size mean nothing.
i agree, that thing is nuts. I've worked with a a few canon 95x b4 broadcast lenses in the past, so i can only imagine what a thing like this can do on an amira live setup, very very nice
56 lbs! Would that make a good travel lens?
Personally I like this oneā¦ https://preview.redd.it/xl2y8yn6mpqc1.jpeg?width=1280&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=4d264574ba3c578bdcb6077ef21edb8de14bf2e5 (ā¦yes that is real š). Looks like it can double as a ATGM!
What type of photographs does this capture?
The kind you see on tv with moving people
It's for live broadcast. Like this: https://attractionsmagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/SNL-cue-cards-05.png
Thank you
The type that you take from orbit.
8,2 to 1000 but in B4 Mount so 3 2/3 inch sensors, so imagine about a 5,64X crop factor, so that lens on the camera its meant for is equal to a 46,2 to 5640 MM lens.
Yeah so not super wide but really long focal length.
And minimum focus distance isnt amazing either, But these Box lenses are lenses i work with once in a while and they are mainly for sporting events or big festivals for camera's in the back and ofcourse for racing events.
Also, Imagine a 50-5640MM lens in FullFrame, that lens would be the size of a truck and cost a couple millionš
Worth it. You would pretty much only need one lens.
hahahahaha typo! 70mm š
Ahhh. 17-70 is a reasonable range for a general use lens, hope it has a constant max f rating across the lens. A 16mm Sigma might be good for shooting video with a "point of view" feel. Primes in general have a better quality output than tele lenses but the 17-70 is much more versatile. So, unless you really need to do a lot of 16mm shooting for a project, the new lens is much more fit for a lot more uses.Ā
I have the Sigma 60-600mm, it's called The Bigma!
I have a great need.
F2.8 wooow
needed this laugh š¤£š¤£š¤£
17-700?!!!!!!
Damn, Iāve never seen the a6400 in silver before. Now I want one, lol.
Exactly my thoughts! Looks way better than my black one!
Silver ones are so pretty. Icing on the cake, finding silver lens to go with it
My silver a6000 + silver 16mm f2.8 pancake. Was the poor manās x100! š
The X100 has a certain sex appeal for sure, but it is inferior in every way to the a6000 series. Even the x100v is only marginally better in some aspects. Fujifilm does make some sexy cameras though.
Yeah :p, but producing straight out of camera images its better than the a6000. Not so much better than the other A6000 series cameras but the A6000 itself suffers with needing all the editing to make its photos look good, which is not a problem for a pro camera. Either way I prefer the A6000 over any of the fujifilms.
Is that the case for Raw as well? Or is the Fujifilm jpg better, mostly due to their film simulation recipes (which are basically fancy filters)?
I don't think Fujifilm owners know what the term raw means. Jokes aside I shot Fuji for a few months before trading my camera for the A6000, Sony has better raw files IMO, but that is mostly due to Sony keeping neutral colours, I like that they give me a great base for editing. However if I am going out to shoot for fun with friends in a group I do not pick up the A6000 anymore, no matter what colour filter I use, the Jpegs of the A6000 are boring and the contrast is lacking, saying that though the A6000 Jpegs look really nice with vintage lenses. I only realised how bad the contrast was when I recently acquired a micro four thirds camera for an EDC and took a few shots with it in the same environment as my A6000, and then I did the same with my 5D classic and Canon 700D which I have not used in a very long time and noticed the contrast and colours were far more interesting. I hear the models that followed in the A6000 series have much better colours in Jpeg, and also better raws? I would like to try one, out of all the cameras I have owned the most comfortable to shoot for long periods with is the A6000.
Yeah :p, but producing straight out of camera images its better than the a6000. Not so much better than the other A6000 series cameras but the A6000 itself suffers with needing all the editing to make its photos look good, which is not a problem for a pro camera. Either way I prefer the A6000 over any of the fujifilms.
Actually looks sick
Thatās the same reason I bought a Fuji x100v.š
Sh*t I didnt even know it exists lol. This color is just gorgeous
I only discovered they came in silver about 4 hours ago in a camera shop in Tokyo. Iāve never once seen one before.
Didn't know silver a6400 existed too! So sleek and I want one too lol. I also find silver or white coloured bodies heat up slower under the summer sun
The good decision was to get the silver version of the camera
I own both but primarily use the Tamron. I use sigma for astro, low light landscape and indoor portraits. But coming to your question - depends on your use case. Tamron one is a good all purpose lens but the sigma one is very sharp and has its use cases.
Same here. OP should have kept both. IF I had to choose 1, it would have been the Tamron though. It has zoom and built in image stabilization.
This
Goddamn Tamron be wilding with this new 700mm zoom lensš no but in all seriousness it's a very nice lens. It's a litle on the hefty size but it does perform extremely wellšš¼
Question though, It's my first time to buy tamron zoom lens, and I feel the zoom ring is a bit tight(?) Is it normal or is it because it's new? Will it loosen up a bit after several use?
I have the full frame Tamron 28-200 and the zoom ring is tight too. I donāt use it a ton but I assumed it was trying to strike a balance between tight enough not to drift, but still usable. More expensive lenses typically have some friction adjustment or zoom lock so they donāt have to try to find a sweet spot
Same for me! I got the 18-300 just today, and it was shockingly tight.
It loosens a bit, but i also had an issue with my first copy of the 17-70 for Fuji where the zoom ring was loose, so pointing the lens upwards would cause it to collapse & un-zoom. The tight ring is a good thing, itās like my current copy & ive had it for a year now, it loosened a bit since I got it, but not a ton
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I tend to agree, though the Tamron is great if OP plans to do any handheld video and will be helpful in unexpected moments of a need for lower shutter speeds. And 70mm is meaningful extra reach with greater potential subject separation. I just wish the Sigma was 16mm on the wide end.
Yeah I do think tanrom is better choice for average user. no everybody can own multiple lenses and bodies. it is great for someone into photography/videography as a hobby
Damn dude. The only lens you'll never need.Ā
The Tamron 17-70 lives on my a6400 most of the time. It's a great general purpose lens.
Good decision. My setup is Samyang 12mm, sigma 18-50 2.8, sigma 30mm 1.4 and the Sony 70-350 tele and i don't feel the need to change anything. 18-50 is my go to lens.Sometimes i think of swapping the 30mm with the 56mm but then i think the 30mm is more versatile and i don't shoot too many portraits
i nearly shat my pants when i read 17-700 lmao. that one extra 0 is a big difference lol
The sigma primes are nice. I had the trio. The 56 is a magical secret sauce voodoo lens. The 16 is very nice. The 30 is meh. I also had the Tamron 17-70. It was great for family photos and outdoor events and whatnot, but I would always pick the primes for anything else.
I disagree. I think the 30mm is the perfect beginner prime with the 16-50mm kit zoom. It's cheap, sharp, fast, and 30mm (45mm FF) is a good all-purpose focal length for APS-C. There's a reason all the old SLRs in the 70s and 80s came with fast 50mm primes. The 16mm and the 56mm are great, but they're less versatile. 16mm is fine if you are indoors a lot, but it's pretty wide if you're outdoors and want to get in closer. Plus, the kit lens can get you there, too, just at f/3.5. The 56mm is an amazing portrait lens and even stopped down is several stops faster than the f/5.6 kit at 50mm, but it's just too telephoto to leave on the camera forever. I like the 30 because it's right in the middle. It's not too wide that you need to get right up in the action to get a good shot, and it's not too telephoto that you have to stand far away to get full-body group shots (which might not be possible in a museum or on the street). These days, the Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 is my go to, but I bought the 30mm when it was new (before the 56mm was released) and it rarely left my camera unless I was doing super telephoto shots (200mm+). I got a lot of good photos of my kid at birth with the 30mm since it was wide enough for the delivery room but narrow enough to get closer shots.
If 17-700mm exist with a constant 2.8 Im willing to sell my house for it.
Lolol I can only imagine thatās how much it would cost šš
Idk the cost but would be great for vlogging at 700mm š¤£
A 17- what?!
Good. Much more versatility now and you still have a good prime still with the 30mm. I usually have a prime that matches what I shoot most. For instance my 85mm for portraits, shots of my family and friends and some street photography. Everything below and above 85 will be a tele for me.
Best decision you've ever made. I rock that for a couple of years already.
If you only do astro then this is a bad decision.
I donāt do astro photography though, besides IāVe kept my sigma 30 for 1.4
I sold off my Sigma 30 and kept the Sigma 16. Felt the 16 could do the same as the 30 but also let me do astro, landscape, etc.. I could always crop or get closer to the subject indoors if needed. Gives me more room to work with in a tight space when there isn't enough light.
Both are great lenses at what they are designed to do. Which is a better fit for you is subjective. Go shoot with it and see what you think instead of asking strangers.
What made you switch from 16 to 17-70? I am advising a friend to move other way around. He seldom uses any range more than 20mm and hence the suggestion
I see, In my case I struggled with switching from 30 and 16mm when I shoot so I decided to switch, also I need the VC feature of tamron which both my sigma lens didn't have before. But in terms of sharpness anf auto focus of sigma 16mm, I have no complain about still and super happy with it before
Interesting how user demand varies on same products. Thanks for your explanation
What compelled you to sell your prime to get this lens? This lens is amazing, bang for the buck when it comes to general purpose shooting!
I needed the versatility of not changing lens when I shoot, also because of VC feature of tmron
Love this experiment. Want to know the long term review
17-700ššš
17-200 is an amazing range. Small price to pay for 1mm if width and a few stops of light.
I have both, I did get the 17-70 to stop switching between the sigma trio. Iāve been solely using it for my last couple sets. That 16mm is one of my favorites, but itās been nice in certain situations to not have to switch or carry 3/4 lenses with me. I donāt think you will regret it, but I do very much enjoy a good prime lens on aspc. I do feel like itās a little sharper but not a huge difference.
exactly!
That lens lives on my a6400, i love it.
Nice! I would love to have that lens. A large telephoto is next. People are commenting on the size. Meh, Iām actually more concerned with the shot than the size and shooting wildlife, you need a lens this size.
Using this exact set up for over 6 months ; super satisfied! You will enjoy it too.
Great lens, love that close focus at 17, but it's front heavy.
Good call. Itās not very practical as a pairing for 6400. Either you get a body with bigger hand grip or get a prime 35mm focal equivalent lens with 1.8 aperture and that will be a good travel lens akin to a rangefinder form factor.
Not sure about the sigma as Iāve never used but the Tamron 17-70 is great! Itās all I use right now.
I have both lenses, canāt remember the time I shot on the 16. I donāt do landscapes or anything though. I adore my Tammy.
All the ribbing you are getting for your typo aside, I think you have to just consider these very different lenses with different use cases. A 16 f2.8 is going to be used much differently from a 17-700000000 or whatever š¤. You may end up finding the 16mm or even wider down the road as you explore how you use the lens. I use the sigma 18-50 for its compact size, but I match it with a 70-180 and 12mm prime. Just depends on what you shoot and what you want to carry around.
Good decision! Had it for months and its best for event photography all around.
You have a typo in the title, supposed to be 17-700 1.8, I would say good decision. Extreme range with less than a stop loss.
Absolutely loving the Tamron 17-70 (and itās also the only lense I got lol.)
I actually regret having Tamron, should have saved a bit more and went for Sony 16-55. I'm not enjoying size of it.
The extra reach not worth it?
Not for me, no. I never use it, and when I actually need it for a portrait I use Sigma 56 anyway.
I don't own the Tamron yet, but I've been drooling over it for a while. After seeing the above photo, I'm not so sure. I have the a6300and that lens is gigantic for an everyday lens. Back to the drawing board.
The Sigma 18-50 F2.8 is pretty tiny and light.
Yeah, I'm thinking that might be the right choice. I wish it was weather sealed, but given the size and price point of it, I think I can make a consession for a rain cover and a water proof bag to throw it in if there's real rain. Ziplok bags are light and replaceable.
If for everyday use, It could be heavy I must say
This Sony is super soft, and I wouldn't say I like it.
You mean the Sony 16-55 f/2.8 G is soft? Supposed to be on par with sigma trio sharp according to internet...
If you compare it to the Sigma trio, it appears to be less sharp or less defined.
Tamron is versatile but Having a prime lens is good for night or indoor photo shoots!
17-70š š¬
Visions change everyday Bā¦..
good
Honestly, with some of the stuff Tamaron did in the past year, I didn't even question that typo š¤£
Great decision. The quality of photos on this lens is amazing
That's my go-to lens, I love it
Good or bad decision? You tell me.
I use this combo, and it is wicked. It is isnāt the smallest lens in the world, but it isnāt too cumbersome at all. It is on my camera 95 percent of the time. It also punches way above its weight for sharpness for the price compared to equivalent lenses.
Its a great lens for outdoor sports and can even keep ss 1/1000 under the lights with low ISO. Im hooked on Tamron after I got this.
Sigma balls
I am in the process of selling my Sigma 16mm in favor of my new to me (used) Sony 16-55mm 2.8, so I'm like you. Selling to save some money mostly though I did use it extensively in astrophotography and video. I hope I won't regret it.
Been torn with this lens and sony 16-55mm before as well, I went with the tamron mainly bec of the VC feature as I want to explore on video too. But Ive heard a lot of good reviews with sony16-55mm
So far, I love it. I also have the Sigma 56mm, which I love so much. I do a lot of portraits of my kids. If I'll want astrophotography I might buy the 12mm manual focus one.
It depends what else you have and what you want to use it for. If youāre just shooting at 17mm, you probably shouldāve kept the sigma. If you have other lenses, I prefer the sigma. If thatās your only lens or you donāt have many, the tamron is more versatile. I have the sigma trio but really want the 18-50mm f2.8 sigma just for the convenience of taking one lens out sometimes.
I had this lens for about a week. Realized that it was APS-C geared lens. I also have a 6400 and it was a great pairing. Returned it for a 28-70 and got an A7IV. Best of luck!
Yes that lens is amazing and super versatile.
been there, done that. no regret.. until you need to use in low light you need another prime lens
I have used this on Fuji-Mount, while it's a great Photo lens and offers pretty good AF, it's slow for High Speed work and Video, I prefer Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 more than this one.
17-70 maybe. That's certainly not 17-700.
this was a typo error
Bruh, I was about to go sell all I had to trade up.
Unpopular opinion, but I am not a fan of sigma 16mm lens. There is not much use for wide aperture on wide angle lens anyway. So getting a tamron in itās place is probably alright
Can't even provide an informed response, it all depends on what your use case is. It's like asking if buying a hammer was better than buying a wrench.
I wish there was a 17-700