Sigma 24-70... Heavy, or is it just you?

[DaFireMedic]

The Tamron isn't a 24-70.

No. It's not. What's your point?

Is that not self explanatory? Or do I need to spell it out really slowly... We're talking about 24-70 lenses.

Then I’m not sure what your original point was, as I don’t know of anyone saying that the Sigma 24-70 2.8. is a heavy 24-70 2.8 lens.

 

[burning1rr]

The Tamron isn't a 24-70.

No. It's not. What's your point?

That it’s not a 24-70. Changing focal distances impacts the dimensions of the lens. If you want a 24-70, a 28-75 is going to result in you having to make compromises. If you definitely want 24mm, then the 28-75 isn’t going to work. A lot of people use 24mm, which is why the 24-105 goes to 24mm.

Those differences are entirely irrelevant to what I wrote in my original reply.

I own both the Tamron and the Sony GM. I don't need someone to explain the differences between the two lenses.

Personal experience? The difference between 24mm and 28mm isn't huge. I've been in very few situations where 28mm is limiting but 24mm is not.

The Tamron doesn't have a manual focus switch or a focus hold button. That's more of an issue than the focal range.

 

[tqlla]

Why are you trying to derail this thread with junk lenses from 10 years ago?

I'll shorten this to match your attention span: Lately, as in, within the last 10 years, up to just last year, Sigma has been making a lot of heavy lenses.

Their 24-105 is 1/3 heavier than Sony's.

Their 12-24 is twice the weight of Sony's.

These DN lenses I mentioned (which were released less than 7 years ago) just added weight to existing lenses.

That 70-200/2.8, which is the heaviest in its class, was released about a year ago.

Sigma has a habit and reputation of releasing heavy lenses, so people assume a new lens from them is also heavy.

1) The 30mm F2.8 was 135g, the recast 30mm ART is 140g. You are griping over 0.17 ounce

2) The Sigma 24-105mm/12-24 are heavier than the Sonys.... AND? What does that have to do with the 24-70mm?

3) The last 10 years is lately? The Sigma DN 30mm was released in January 2012. To put that in perspective, PDAF was introduced on E-mount in October 2012 with the NEX 5R, FF E-mount was initially released in Oct 2013.

 

[DaFireMedic]

Since when is an 830g 24-70 2.8 considered heavy?

It's basically one of the lightest 24-70 f2.8 lenses ever made, and yet the weight is all everyone seems to talk about with it... Is there really nothing else to complain about with the Sigma?

The Tamron 28-75 is 550g; or only 66% the weight of the Sigma. For me the Tamron is already at the upper limit of what I want to handhold and carry around with me. Also how the weight is distributed matters as well. The Sigma has a massive front element; starting at 28mm the Tamron is able to have a noticeably smaller front element. IMO a front heavy lens is more fatiguing to use than a heavy body.

Edit: before you say it the Tamron ISN'T a 24-70, but its a competitor. For many photographers 24 vs 28 doesn't matter. I personally would like a 30-85 but I'm probably alone in that.

Yes and no, it’s also missing 4mm and is made of plastic which most pro level 24-70 f/2.8 lenses aren’t. That may no make a difference for an amateur but for a pro, there would be a concern as to whether it could take the daily knocks required for the job.

so, yes it’s lighter but there are no free lunches.

Agreed, there are trade offs for all of these lenses.

 

[burning1rr]

The Tamron isn't a 24-70.

No. It's not. What's your point?

Is that not self explanatory? Or do I need to spell it out really slowly... We're talking about 24-70 lenses.

I also doubt the Tamron's build quality, as I don't generally like the idea of plastic lenses, but to each their own.

I guess I have to repeat my question very slowly. Why do you feel that it's necessary to exclude the Tamron 28-75 from the discussion?

I already know how you're going to answer this question. I bought the 24-70 for the reasons you are about to list. And because I own both of them, I know why your answer is not a good one.

 

[XeroJay]

The Tamron isn't a 24-70.

No. It's not. What's your point?

Is that not self explanatory? Or do I need to spell it out really slowly... We're talking about 24-70 lenses.

I also doubt the Tamron's build quality, as I don't generally like the idea of plastic lenses, but to each their own.

I guess I have to repeat my question very slowly. Why do you feel that it's necessary to exclude the Tamron 28-75 from the discussion?

I already know how you're going to answer this question. I bought the 24-70 for the reasons you are about to list. And because I own both of them, I know why your answer is not a good one.

Here's what I already said:

Tamron has a 24-70 f2.8, and it's larger than the Sigma: https://www.tamron.ca/product/sp-24-70mm-f2-8-di-vc-usd-g2/

Tamron has also always had 28-75 f2.8 lenses that they sold alongside as a cheaper lighter alternative, but again, they are not the same lens. https://www.tamron.ca/product/28-75mm-f2-8-xr-di-sp/

Even Tamron doesn't consider them to be comparable.
If we're going to start introducing different lens focal ranges into the conversation just because they have some overlap, I'll just make my case for the Samyang 45mm f1.8 now and be done. It's smaller, lighter, faster, cheaper and covers some of the focal range of a 24-70 and 28-75.

 

[burning1rr]

Here's what I already said:

Tamron has a 24-70 f2.8, and it's larger than the Sigma: https://www.tamron.ca/product/sp-24-70mm-f2-8-di-vc-usd-g2/

Tamron has also always had 28-75 f2.8 lenses that they sold alongside ad a cheaper lighter alternative, but again, they are not the same lens. https://www.tamron.ca/product/28-75mm-f2-8-xr-di-sp/

Even Tamron doesn't consider them to be comparable.
If we're going to start introducing different lens focal ranges into the conversation just because they have some overlap, I'll just make my case for the Samyang 45mm f1.8 now and be done. It's smaller, lighter, faster, cheaper and comes some of the focal range of a 24-70 and 28-75.

First off, you should probably re-read the post you originally replied to. I used the Tamron to explain why balance impacts the perception of weight. I could have used any one of a dozen lenses to make that comparison (the 50ZA comes to mind.) You, for some reason, took issue with that.

As I said in my previous reply, the Tamron 28-75 Di III is clearly derived from the Tamron 24-70 G2. A reading into their intention for the lens should be made based on the rest of their Di III line of lenses, not based on the Di lenses.

Furthermore, I don't think it's difficult to understand why the existence of the 28-75 would make the Sigma and Sony lenses seem heavy. I suspect you already understand that.

Bringing up the Samyang 45mm lens is ridiculous. I don't think I need to explain why.

 

[XeroJay]

Here's what I already said:

Tamron has a 24-70 f2.8, and it's larger than the Sigma: https://www.tamron.ca/product/sp-24-70mm-f2-8-di-vc-usd-g2/

Tamron has also always had 28-75 f2.8 lenses that they sold alongside ad a cheaper lighter alternative, but again, they are not the same lens. https://www.tamron.ca/product/28-75mm-f2-8-xr-di-sp/

Even Tamron doesn't consider them to be comparable.
If we're going to start introducing different lens focal ranges into the conversation just because they have some overlap, I'll just make my case for the Samyang 45mm f1.8 now and be done. It's smaller, lighter, faster, cheaper and comes some of the focal range of a 24-70 and 28-75.

First off, you should probably re-read the post you originally replied to. I used the Tamron to explain why balance impacts the perception of weight. I could have used any one of a dozen lenses to make that comparison (the 50ZA comes to mind.) You, for some reason, took issue with that.

As I said in my previous reply, the Tamron 28-75 Di III is clearly derived from the Tamron 24-70 G2. A reading into their intention for the lens should be made based on the rest of their Di III line of lenses, not based on the Di lenses.

Again, something you're completely wrong about. The current 28-75 III is derived from the ancient 28-75. I don't know where you're getting your facts.

Furthermore, I don't think it's difficult to understand why the existence of the 28-75 would make the Sigma and Sony lenses seem heavy. I suspect you already understand that.

Bringing up the Samyang 45mm lens is ridiculous. I don't think I need to explain why.

The point is, why draw the line conveniently at the different lens that you want to bring into the conversation? Why not push the line a bit further and include other options? To me, the conversation is about 24-70 lenses. That's it.

 

[tqlla]

Here's what I already said:

Tamron has a 24-70 f2.8, and it's larger than the Sigma: https://www.tamron.ca/product/sp-24-70mm-f2-8-di-vc-usd-g2/

Tamron has also always had 28-75 f2.8 lenses that they sold alongside ad a cheaper lighter alternative, but again, they are not the same lens. https://www.tamron.ca/product/28-75mm-f2-8-xr-di-sp/

Even Tamron doesn't consider them to be comparable.
If we're going to start introducing different lens focal ranges into the conversation just because they have some overlap, I'll just make my case for the Samyang 45mm f1.8 now and be done. It's smaller, lighter, faster, cheaper and comes some of the focal range of a 24-70 and 28-75.

First off, you should probably re-read the post you originally replied to. I used the Tamron to explain why balance impacts the perception of weight. I could have used any one of a dozen lenses to make that comparison (the 50ZA comes to mind.) You, for some reason, took issue with that.

As I said in my previous reply, the Tamron 28-75 Di III is clearly derived from the Tamron 24-70 G2. A reading into their intention for the lens should be made based on the rest of their Di III line of lenses, not based on the Di lenses.

Furthermore, I don't think it's difficult to understand why the existence of the 28-75 would make the Sigma and Sony lenses seem heavy. I suspect you already understand that.

Bringing up the Samyang 45mm lens is ridiculous. I don't think I need to explain why.

The 28-75mm focal range has always been meant as a cheap alternative to the more premium 24-70mm focal range lenses. The Tamron caught fire because the only alternative was $2200.

Its not appropriate to compare different focal ranges, because they serve a different purpose. If you do, you might as well start comparing F4's to F2.8s. "I hardly ever use F2.8"...etc etc

 

[XeroJay]

Here's what I already said:

Tamron has a 24-70 f2.8, and it's larger than the Sigma: https://www.tamron.ca/product/sp-24-70mm-f2-8-di-vc-usd-g2/

Tamron has also always had 28-75 f2.8 lenses that they sold alongside ad a cheaper lighter alternative, but again, they are not the same lens. https://www.tamron.ca/product/28-75mm-f2-8-xr-di-sp/

Even Tamron doesn't consider them to be comparable.
If we're going to start introducing different lens focal ranges into the conversation just because they have some overlap, I'll just make my case for the Samyang 45mm f1.8 now and be done. It's smaller, lighter, faster, cheaper and comes some of the focal range of a 24-70 and 28-75.

First off, you should probably re-read the post you originally replied to. I used the Tamron to explain why balance impacts the perception of weight. I could have used any one of a dozen lenses to make that comparison (the 50ZA comes to mind.) You, for some reason, took issue with that.

As I said in my previous reply, the Tamron 28-75 Di III is clearly derived from the Tamron 24-70 G2. A reading into their intention for the lens should be made based on the rest of their Di III line of lenses, not based on the Di lenses.

Furthermore, I don't think it's difficult to understand why the existence of the 28-75 would make the Sigma and Sony lenses seem heavy. I suspect you already understand that.

Bringing up the Samyang 45mm lens is ridiculous. I don't think I need to explain why.

The 28-75mm focal range has always been meant as a cheap alternative to the more premium 24-70mm focal range lenses. The Tamron caught fire because the only alternative was $2200.

Its not appropriate to compare different focal ranges, because they serve a different purpose. If you do, you might as well start comparing F4's to F2.8s. "I hardly ever use F2.8"...etc etc

Thank you!

 

[DaFireMedic]

Since when is an 830g 24-70 2.8 considered heavy?

It's basically one of the lightest 24-70 f2.8 lenses ever made, and yet the weight is all everyone seems to talk about with it... Is there really nothing else to complain about with the Sigma?

Can you post a link or something to where someone has called the Sigma “heavy” in relation to other 24-70 2.8 lenses?

Frankly, I see nothing to complain about with regard to the Sigma, it looks to be a great new, high quality option for a standard zoom. But this whole thread is based around the claim that people are talking about how heavy the lens is compared to other 24-70 2.8 lenses, and I’m just not seeing such complaints about the lens.

 

[XeroJay]

Since when is an 830g 24-70 2.8 considered heavy?

It's basically one of the lightest 24-70 f2.8 lenses ever made, and yet the weight is all everyone seems to talk about with it... Is there really nothing else to complain about with the Sigma?

Can you post a link or something to where someone has called the Sigma “heavy” in relation to other 24-70 2.8 lenses?

Frankly, I see nothing to complain about with regard to the Sigma, it looks to be a great new, high quality option for a standard zoom. But this whole thread is based around the claim that people are talking about how heavy the lens is compared to other 24-70 2.8 lenses, and I’m just not seeing such complaints about the lens.

Watch any YouTube "review" of the lens, then read the comments section.

 

[DaFireMedic]

Since when is an 830g 24-70 2.8 considered heavy?

It's basically one of the lightest 24-70 f2.8 lenses ever made, and yet the weight is all everyone seems to talk about with it... Is there really nothing else to complain about with the Sigma?

Can you post a link or something to where someone has called the Sigma “heavy” in relation to other 24-70 2.8 lenses?

Frankly, I see nothing to complain about with regard to the Sigma, it looks to be a great new, high quality option for a standard zoom. But this whole thread is based around the claim that people are talking about how heavy the lens is compared to other 24-70 2.8 lenses, and I’m just not seeing such complaints about the lens.

Watch any YouTube "review" of the lens, then read the comments section.

So nobody here has been making such comments? You were asking the question of people here “Since when is an 830g 24-70 2.8 lens considered heavy?”

I don’t think anyone here considers it to be heavy compared to other 24-70 2.8 lenses.

 

[burning1rr]

Its not appropriate to compare different focal ranges, because they serve a different purpose. If you do, you might as well start comparing F4's to F2.8s. "I hardly ever use F2.8"...etc etc

ƒ4 is to ƒ2.8 as 35mm is to 24mm. We can pretty comfortably discount a 35-100 from this discussion.

If you're concerned about weight, why would you discount the Tamron? It fundamentally serves the same role as a 24-70.

The Sony GM and the Sigma 24-70 are both relatively heavy lenses. Pretty much any lens that weighs more than the camera body is going to feel a bit heavy.

 

[burning1rr]

Watch any YouTube "review" of the lens, then read the comments section.

So nobody here has been making such comments? You were asking the question of people here “Since when is an 830g 24-70 2.8 lens considered heavy?”

I don’t think anyone here considers it to be heavy compared to other 24-70 2.8 lenses.

The Canon 5D4 weighs 890g, and has a fairly beefy grip. The Sony A7M3 weighs 650g, and has a relatively small grip.

An 830g 24-70 ƒ2.8 lens is going to feel heavy on the A7M3 regardless of whether or not it's unusually heavy for its class.

Balance affects the perception of weight a lot. As I said in a previous post, a battery grip makes the 24-70 feel lighter, despite adding to the overall weight of the camera.

 

[burning1rr]

Again, something you're completely wrong about. The current 28-75 III is derived from the ancient 28-75. I don't know where you're getting your facts.

Tamron 24-70 G2 Optical Elements

Tamron 28-85 Di III Optical Elements


Tamron 28-75 Di (Gold ring) Optical Elements

You keep claiming I'm wrong based on... Absolutely nothing. You haven't even done the most basic of research on the topic.

Furthermore, I don't think it's difficult to understand why the existence of the 28-75 would make the Sigma and Sony lenses seem heavy. I suspect you already understand that.

Bringing up the Samyang 45mm lens is ridiculous. I don't think I need to explain why.

The point is, why draw the line conveniently at the different lens that you want to bring into the conversation? Why not push the line a bit further and include other options? To me, the conversation is about 24-70 lenses. That's it.

You seem to be drawing the line in such a way as to support your point.

You are comparing DSLR lenses to mirrorless lenses. An 800g lens is going to feel a lot heavier on a 650g body with no pinky grip than it's going to feel on an 900g pro level DSLR.

The fact that there's a normal ƒ2.8 zoom that weighs 600g makes the problem even more apparent.

 

[XeroJay]

After all this back & forth, all I can say is that the entire thread was basically meant as a rhetorical question.

"Since when is an 830g 24-70 f2.8 considered heavy?"

We all know when; it's since people began comparing it to the Tamron 28-75 III. Why though? A smaller, lighter, cheaper Tamron 28-75 has existed for decades, and yet it never received enough attention to threaten the gold-standard 24-70's. It was never considered a direct competitor to the pro-level 24-70's, and in fact even Tamron sold it as a cheaper compact lens.

My main point was as a reminder that the Sigma 24-70 DN is by all measures a light, compact 24-70. No company to date has made one significantly smaller or lighter to date. The only thing that's changed is the expectation that many seem to have that every lens for mirrorless should be smaller and lighter and more compact and uncompromising. My point is this: show me a 24-70 f2.8 that is significantly smaller and lighter, and I submit. But don't compare it to a 28-75; because that's not the same thing. It never has been.

 

[W3PYF]

The Tamron isn't a 24-70.

No. It's not. What's your point?

That it’s not a 24-70. Changing focal distances impacts the dimensions of the lens. If you want a 24-70, a 28-75 is going to result in you having to make compromises. If you definitely want 24mm, then the 28-75 isn’t going to work. A lot of people use 24mm, which is why the 24-105 goes to 24mm.

Those differences are entirely irrelevant to what I wrote in my original reply.

I own both the Tamron and the Sony GM. I don't need someone to explain the differences between the two lenses.

Personal experience? The difference between 24mm and 28mm isn't huge. I've been in very few situations where 28mm is limiting but 24mm is not.

The Tamron doesn't have a manual focus switch or a focus hold button. That's more of an issue than the focal range.

I agree. When I want more than 28mm, I don’t want four silly millimeters more. I want - and have - a 15 mm

 

[theoverratedphotog]

The Tamron isn't a 24-70.

No. It's not. What's your point?

That it’s not a 24-70. Changing focal distances impacts the dimensions of the lens. If you want a 24-70, a 28-75 is going to result in you having to make compromises. If you definitely want 24mm, then the 28-75 isn’t going to work. A lot of people use 24mm, which is why the 24-105 goes to 24mm.

Those differences are entirely irrelevant to what I wrote in my original reply.

I own both the Tamron and the Sony GM. I don't need someone to explain the differences between the two lenses.

Personal experience? The difference between 24mm and 28mm isn't huge. I've been in very few situations where 28mm is limiting but 24mm is not.

The Tamron doesn't have a manual focus switch or a focus hold button. That's more of an issue than the focal range.

I agree. When I want more than 28mm, I don’t want four silly millimeters more. I want - and have - a 15 mm

The difference on the wide end is huge or every lens would be 28-70. Its particularly big if you need a 24mm and only have a 28mm which is less than a problem on the opposite end where you can crop.

--

Login • Instagram

Welcome back to Instagram. Sign in to check out what your friends, family & interests have been capturing & sharing around the world.

www.instagram.com

(no title)

www.theoverratedphotographer.com

 

[burning1rr]

After all this back & forth, all I can say is that the entire thread was basically meant as a rhetorical question.

"Since when is an 830g 24-70 f2.8 considered heavy?"

We all know when; it's since people began comparing it to the Tamron 28-75 III.

The 24-70 GM was always considered heavy, long before the Tamron came out. The Tamron simply makes the weight problem more obvious.

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sony-FE-24-70mm-f-2.8-GM-Lens.aspx

"This is a relatively large and heavy lens, as are most lenses in this class. It takes a relatively wide barrel to hold the lens elements necessary to reach f/2.8 over this focal length range and of course, large lens elements in a solidly-designed lens equal a heavy weight. Still, I carried and used this lens for long periods of time without issue – it is big and heavy, but not too big and heavy – if that makes sense."

https://www.dxomark.com/sony-fe-24-70mm-f2-8-gm-review-best-zoom-in-the-range/

"Despite being intended for mirrorless camera bodies, the lens remains large, with a 82mm accessory thread, and measures 3.45 x 5.35” (87.6 x 136mm). It is also relatively heavy and weighs in at a substantial 1.95 lb (886g)."

These reviews predate the Tamron.

Why though? A smaller, lighter, cheaper Tamron 28-75 has existed for decades, and yet it never received enough attention to threaten the gold-standard 24-70's. It was never considered a direct competitor to the pro-level 24-70's, and in fact even Tamron sold it as a cheaper compact lens.

The optical quality, autofocus performance, and weather resistance of the Tamron 28-75 Di III is professional level. I'm not sure we could say the same about th old Di I 28-75.

My main point was as a reminder that the Sigma 24-70 DN is by all measures a light, compact 24-70. No company to date has made one significantly smaller or lighter to date. The only thing that's changed is the expectation that many seem to have that every lens for mirrorless should be smaller and lighter and more compact and uncompromising.

That's been the sales point for mirrorless cameras from the beginning. But I think you're missing the obvious point; a small lightweight body *needs* a small lightweight lens in order to feel balanced.

https://www.digitalcameraworld.com/reviews/hands-on-canon-rf-24-70mm-f28l-is-usm-review

"The Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8L is around the same size as its EF forebear, but feels front-heavy on the smaller EOS R"

My point is this: show me a 24-70 f2.8 that is significantly smaller and lighter, and I submit. But don't compare it to a 28-75; because that's not the same thing. It never has been.

The Nikon 28-70 ƒ2.8 was most certainly a pro lens in it's time.

We've been conditioned to see the 24-70 ƒ2.8 and 70-200 ƒ2.8 as pro lenses. Anything that diverges from those focal lengths have been "budget" lenses. But that's marketing as much as anything. Those same biases don't exist in the UWA space, and as a result people don't perceive "pro" vs "not pro" based on focal length.

The Tamron lacks a few basic controls, and the body material feels a bit cheap. Make it out of cast mag, add the controls, and sell it for $1100.