Sigma 28-70 f2.8 Vs Tamron 28-75 G2 - optical quality and build?

[sidius_wolf]

Darren you have been looking at this for a long time on several threads. . I see you have the Sony FE 24-105mm F4 G OSS and Sony16-35 , both great lenses and assume still have them.

Yes, I still have them, in particular, the 16-35 is fantastic and will not be leaving my kit.

I haven't really touched the 24-105 since travel has stalled in our lives. To be honest, I really need to compare the 28-200 to it but that's a different story...

The 24-105 covers more than the 28-70/75 obviously but heavier so perhaps less ideal for travel. . Is this new lens now actually for you or your wife as I answered you on another thread yesterday.

Yes still for the wife. I wasn't hesitating back and forth because of the price difference.

If you want a lighter lens then go for the Sigma and as someone mentioned already, with your camera the SonyA7IV , corners will not matter.. if you want for travel then the often reviewed and liked Tamron 28-500 weighs around the same as the Tamron 28-75 though not 2.8 after 55mm but not as relevant if using for landscapes. My advice at this point is Go for the Sigma if longer length not important and see how you like it. Is the great deal you see on the Sigma a second hand lens sold privately or at a camera store as warranty is important too. Just my thoughts.

I think you've sold me to go for the Sigma. Thanks so much.

 

[McH55]

I was in your shoes the other day, and if your use case is "general" photography, family stuff, places you visit etc.... i truly recommend Tamron 28-200mm f/2.8-5.6 Di III RXD

Yes, its nice to have f/2.8 at 75mm but, at least in my case (i was always missing a bit longer reach) T28-200 does the great job.

I know, its a bit off topic recommendation but, why not?

Trully anazing lens, same size as Sigma or Tamron 28-75 but yet still amazingly sharp wide open with very useful apertures:

28mm - f/2.8

30mm - f/2.8

50mm - f/3.5

70mm - f/4 !!!

100mm - f/4.5 !!!

125mm - f/5

150-200mm - f/5.6

Can easily compete with Sony 25-105 f/4

Tons of positive reviews available online



--
A7RIII, Tamron 28-75, Tamron 28-200, Sony 50 1.8, Sigma 150-600C, MC-11, Zeiss 16-35 f/4

 

[The Lamentable Lens]

The use case was general/travel, with a stronger slant to "general". Essentially I want to use it for general day trips etc with my family, probably a mixture of portraits and scenes when we do stuff.

I normally shoot primes but a midzoom for simplified one lens would make sense.

Got it -- so the question is how critical you are with those general family photos. The Tamron G2 certainly appears to be a bit sharper than the Sigma, and it also has better weather sealing, which obviously makes more of a practical difference if you shoot in bad weather.

I live in the UK which rains a lot although I suspect I'd not really take my camera out in anything too harsh - they wouldn't go out anyway!

That's where I landed, too, which helped me land on the Sigma for its smaller size and weight.

But the Sigma is already pretty sharp, and we're talking about pretty modest differences here. It's the kind of thing that shows up in side-by-side comparisons of 100% crops if you're looking for it -- no one would ever notice it in the wild. If someone looks at a photo of your kids hanging on your wall and they comment on the corner sharpness of the photo and ask what lens you used, then something has gone very, very wrong ;-)

The Sigma is also cheaper and a bit smaller and lighter. Personally, those factors would be enough to push me to the Sigma for casual use. In fact, I had the Sigma 28-70 for a bit, but I've since sold it as I prefer more versatile zoom ranges paired with fast primes. YMMV, of course, but remember that it's easy for gear reviews to make a big deal out of small differences (even if there are, in fact, differences).

What versatile zoom lens did you move to from the Sigma 28-70 lens?

I have the Sony 24-105 f/4 (my primary landscape lens) and the Tamron 28-200 (my recently-acquired general travel and walkaround zoom). Ideally, I prefer to shoot my primes, so if I'm grabbing a zoom lens, it's to maximize versatility. The Sigma wasn't as fast as my primes nor as versatile (in terms of focal length) as other zoom options, so I decided to sell it. That said, if you don't like swapping lenses, and you want an f/2.8 zoom in a small package, the Sigma is a fine choice.

At the moment I was leaning towards the Sigma over the Tamron to save the size and weight. Size wise, the Tamron doesn't seem much different to the Sigma 24-70 but its of course far heavier.

Yeah, that Sigma 24-70 is quite a bit heavier, and although the length is similar to the Tamron, the diameter is bigger. As I said, I went with the Sigma because I wanted the smallest and lightest option. You've probably done this already, but here they are side by side, in case it's helpful:

 

[sidius_wolf]

The use case was general/travel, with a stronger slant to "general". Essentially I want to use it for general day trips etc with my family, probably a mixture of portraits and scenes when we do stuff.

I normally shoot primes but a midzoom for simplified one lens would make sense.

Got it -- so the question is how critical you are with those general family photos. The Tamron G2 certainly appears to be a bit sharper than the Sigma, and it also has better weather sealing, which obviously makes more of a practical difference if you shoot in bad weather.

I live in the UK which rains a lot although I suspect I'd not really take my camera out in anything too harsh - they wouldn't go out anyway!

That's where I landed, too, which helped me land on the Sigma for its smaller size and weight.

But the Sigma is already pretty sharp, and we're talking about pretty modest differences here. It's the kind of thing that shows up in side-by-side comparisons of 100% crops if you're looking for it -- no one would ever notice it in the wild. If someone looks at a photo of your kids hanging on your wall and they comment on the corner sharpness of the photo and ask what lens you used, then something has gone very, very wrong ;-)

The Sigma is also cheaper and a bit smaller and lighter. Personally, those factors would be enough to push me to the Sigma for casual use. In fact, I had the Sigma 28-70 for a bit, but I've since sold it as I prefer more versatile zoom ranges paired with fast primes. YMMV, of course, but remember that it's easy for gear reviews to make a big deal out of small differences (even if there are, in fact, differences).

What versatile zoom lens did you move to from the Sigma 28-70 lens?

I have the Sony 24-105 f/4 (my primary landscape lens) and the Tamron 28-200 (my recently-acquired general travel and walkaround zoom). Ideally, I prefer to shoot my primes, so if I'm grabbing a zoom lens, it's to maximize versatility. The Sigma wasn't as fast as my primes nor as versatile (in terms of focal length) as other zoom options, so I decided to sell it. That said, if you don't like swapping lenses, and you want an f/2.8 zoom in a small package, the Sigma is a fine choice.

Interesting you own both the Sony 24-105 and Tamron 28-200.

At the moment I was leaning towards the Sigma over the Tamron to save the size and weight. Size wise, the Tamron doesn't seem much different to the Sigma 24-70 but its of course far heavier.

Yeah, that Sigma 24-70 is quite a bit heavier, and although the length is similar to the Tamron, the diameter is bigger. As I said, I went with the Sigma because I wanted the smallest and lightest option. You've probably done this already, but here they are side by side, in case it's helpful:

I hadn't actually put the Sigmas up against the Tamron on Camerasize, for some reason I thought the Sigmas always had the lens hoods on the images.

 

[The Lamentable Lens]

[SNIP]

Interesting you own both the Sony 24-105 and Tamron 28-200.

I only recently purchased the Tamron 28-200, so it's still a very new lens for me. And my 24-105 was my most used lens for years, especially for landscapes, where I have several decent filters for its 77mm filter threads. So, while I may end up selling it at some point, I'm just not there yet.

At the moment I was leaning towards the Sigma over the Tamron to save the size and weight. Size wise, the Tamron doesn't seem much different to the Sigma 24-70 but its of course far heavier.

Yeah, that Sigma 24-70 is quite a bit heavier, and although the length is similar to the Tamron, the diameter is bigger. As I said, I went with the Sigma because I wanted the smallest and lightest option. You've probably done this already, but here they are side by side, in case it's helpful:

I hadn't actually put the Sigmas up against the Tamron on Camerasize, for some reason I thought the Sigmas always had the lens hoods on the images.

Camersize.com does have the lens hood on the larger Sigma, but I actually use this site for comparing camera and lens sizes. I find it to be a better site (easier to use, with a few more options).

 

[sidius_wolf]

[SNIP]

Interesting you own both the Sony 24-105 and Tamron 28-200.

I only recently purchased the Tamron 28-200, so it's still a very new lens for me. And my 24-105 was my most used lens for years, especially for landscapes, where I have several decent filters for its 77mm filter threads. So, while I may end up selling it at some point, I'm just not there yet.

At the moment I was leaning towards the Sigma over the Tamron to save the size and weight. Size wise, the Tamron doesn't seem much different to the Sigma 24-70 but its of course far heavier.

Yeah, that Sigma 24-70 is quite a bit heavier, and although the length is similar to the Tamron, the diameter is bigger. As I said, I went with the Sigma because I wanted the smallest and lightest option. You've probably done this already, but here they are side by side, in case it's helpful:

I hadn't actually put the Sigmas up against the Tamron on Camerasize, for some reason I thought the Sigmas always had the lens hoods on the images.

Camersize.com does have the lens hood on the larger Sigma, but I actually use this site for comparing camera and lens sizes. I find it to be a better site (easier to use, with a few more options).

Well this is a bit of a game changer!

 

[Mr_Win]

Photos stopped down, a wash

photos wide open, Tamron is noticeably better

video Sigma is mostly better, parafocal, breathing, Tamron video AF

size, sigma is noticeably smaller and lighter

Tamron has slightly better body features with usb-c firmware.

 

[sidius_wolf]

Photos stopped down, a wash

photos wide open, Tamron is noticeably better

video Sigma is mostly better, parafocal, breathing, Tamron video AF

size, sigma is noticeably smaller and lighter

Tamron has slightly better body features with usb-c firmware.

How is the Tamron better wide open?

Overall, do you have your recommendation?

 

[TheOwl360]

While I have an affinity for Sigma lenses and admittedly haven’t used the Sigma 28-70, I can say without hesitation the Tamron 28-75 G2 is an excellent lens, which may be worth the extra money when factoring in weather sealing, reportedly better optics and the linear motors.

I use the G2 on my A7SIII and have been very impressed with its rendering (improved color and sharpness across the focal range in comparison to G1), including at close distances (see images below).

 

[Mr_Win]

Photos stopped down, a wash

photos wide open, Tamron is noticeably better

video Sigma is mostly better, parafocal, breathing, Tamron video AF

size, sigma is noticeably smaller and lighter

Tamron has slightly better body features with usb-c firmware.

How is the Tamron better wide open?

Overall, do you have your recommendation?

the sigma is a tad soft at 70mm f2.8, and that's my experience, I do own the lens regardless because I'm more into video. Check out the comparison by "guy with camera" on YouTube or search for Tamron 28-75 f2.8 g2 vs sigma 28-70 f2.8, you will see it. AF seems a tad more reliable on the Tamron, a small thing, but after years of use, that's my feeling. Its such a small thing that I keep using the sigma regardless, it's simply better for video.

 

[sidius_wolf]

Photos stopped down, a wash

photos wide open, Tamron is noticeably better

video Sigma is mostly better, parafocal, breathing, Tamron video AF

size, sigma is noticeably smaller and lighter

Tamron has slightly better body features with usb-c firmware.

How is the Tamron better wide open?

Overall, do you have your recommendation?

the sigma is a tad soft at 70mm f2.8, and that's my experience, I do own the lens regardless because I'm more into video.

Do you think it is a bit soft is a problem when 2.8 would more likely be used for portraits? Is it soft across the entire frame or more into the corners?

Check out the comparison by "guy with camera" on YouTube or search for Tamron 28-75 f2.8 g2 vs sigma 28-70 f2.8, you will see it. AF seems a tad more reliable on the Tamron, a small thing, but after years of use, that's my feeling.

The AF speed difference would make me swing to the G2. Do you still find the AF decent enough on the Sigma?

Its such a small thing that I keep using the sigma regardless, it's simply better for video.

It's size must certainly be a huge appeal tbh.

 

[The Lamentable Lens]

Photos stopped down, a wash

photos wide open, Tamron is noticeably better

video Sigma is mostly better, parafocal, breathing, Tamron video AF

size, sigma is noticeably smaller and lighter

Tamron has slightly better body features with usb-c firmware.

How is the Tamron better wide open?

You can find those comparisons in the various reviews out there and see the differences for yourself, but don't get stuck in analysis paralysis. Pick one and start using it. If you don't like it, you can always return it or sell it and give the other one a shot.

It's easy to get stuck looking at endless gear reviews highlighting relatively modest differences (using side-by-side comparisons of 100% crops) that simply won't have much of an impact on your photography as a practical matter.

Either of these two lenses should suit your use case well.

 

[sportyaccordy]

Bro you just made this thread and it's still active

Compact everyday lens - Tamron 28-75 G2 or Sigma 28-70 DG DN?

I was looking for a compact midzoom for my wife, which would you recommend of the two (or a third if you have one)? Will be used for family photos and trips out together (young family). sigma is smaller and lighter, I believe the Tamron has better AF and sharper centre frame.

www.dpreview.com

Just make a decision already. Flip a coin if you have to

 

[Martin Hutnik]

I think I already post it somewhere in another of your threads but if sharpness from wide open is important, Tamron is much better but doesn't change much when closing. When you scroll down a bit, there is nice comparison graph with S28-70.

https://asobinet.com/full-review-28-75mm-f-2-8-di-iii-vxd-g2/

 

[M43Hero]

I recently bought the Sigma 28-70 and already owned the Tamron 28-200. The Sigma has a bit better build quality. The plastic is more premium feeling as are the focus and zoom action.

The are very similar in sharpness (sharp enough for 42mp in the center or when stopped down).

The Sigma is noticeably smaller and renders smoother background/bokeh and not just because of the larger aperture.

The Sigma appears to have a bit more contrast and better flare resistance.

The Sigma is cooler and the Tamron warmer.

The Sigma has more barrel/pincushion distortion in the uncorrected raws at 28/70.

The Tamron is really a feat in optical design! It's a do it all lens with excellent image quality.

 

[sidius_wolf]

I recently bought the Sigma 28-70 and already owned the Tamron 28-200. The Sigma has a bit better build quality. The plastic is more premium feeling as are the focus and zoom action.

The are very similar in sharpness (sharp enough for 42mp in the center or when stopped down).

The Sigma is noticeably smaller and renders smoother background/bokeh and not just because of the larger aperture.

The Sigma appears to have a bit more contrast and better flare resistance.

The Sigma is cooler and the Tamron warmer.

The Sigma has more barrel/pincushion distortion in the uncorrected raws at 28/70.

The Tamron is really a feat in optical design! It's a do it all lens with excellent image quality.

Are you referring to the Tamron 28-200 in this comparison or the 28-75 G2?

 

[Mr_Win]

Photos stopped down, a wash

photos wide open, Tamron is noticeably better

video Sigma is mostly better, parafocal, breathing, Tamron video AF

size, sigma is noticeably smaller and lighter

Tamron has slightly better body features with usb-c firmware.

How is the Tamron better wide open?

Overall, do you have your recommendation?

the sigma is a tad soft at 70mm f2.8, and that's my experience, I do own the lens regardless because I'm more into video.

Do you think it is a bit soft is a problem when 2.8 would more likely be used for portraits? Is it soft across the entire frame or more into the corners?

Check out the comparison by "guy with camera" on YouTube or search for Tamron 28-75 f2.8 g2 vs sigma 28-70 f2.8, you will see it. AF seems a tad more reliable on the Tamron, a small thing, but after years of use, that's my feeling.

The AF speed difference would make me swing to the G2. Do you still find the AF decent enough on the Sigma?

Its such a small thing that I keep using the sigma regardless, it's simply better for video.

It's size must certainly be a huge appeal tbh.

I recall it was softer across the frame, not really soft? It's in-between the Tamron G1 and G2 @ 70mm. The G2 has better IQ all around, however we're talking about margins here between good and excellent. Oddly, the sigma 24-70 and 28-70 share very similar MTF's yet the 24-70 was clearly stronger at the long end, and this is based on two copies including one being recalled. The size is a strong appeal, not gonna lie, also, video performance, I weigh parafocal and breathing higher, simply because AF of any Tamron or sigma have been good enough the vast majority of the time. Again, good vs excellent AF, with thin margins. Not really going to fret over unmanned rigs that have the occasional hiccup, usually can be fixed with slower AF response settings.

 

[M43Hero]

I recently bought the Sigma 28-70 and already owned the Tamron 28-200. The Sigma has a bit better build quality. The plastic is more premium feeling as are the focus and zoom action.

The are very similar in sharpness (sharp enough for 42mp in the center or when stopped down).

The Sigma is noticeably smaller and renders smoother background/bokeh and not just because of the larger aperture.

The Sigma appears to have a bit more contrast and better flare resistance.

The Sigma is cooler and the Tamron warmer.

The Sigma has more barrel/pincushion distortion in the uncorrected raws at 28/70.

The Tamron is really a feat in optical design! It's a do it all lens with excellent image quality.

Are you referring to the Tamron 28-200 in this comparison or the 28-75 G2?

The 28-200

 

[OliverNZ]

I have asked between these two lenses before but frankly I'm still stumped.

I can get the Sigma 28-70 for £380 in a local used market and the G2 for about £650. It seems the Tamron is optically a bit better, properly weather sealed but heavier and larger.

With these price differences is the Tamron worth the extra for or would the Sigmas cheaper and smaller package be better?

I am asking again because these used prices really make a difference.

Many thanks

Hi,

Well, I find the bokeh on the Sigma way smoother than the Tamron. The Sigma is smaller and lighter but 5mm shorter at the long end. I can live without the 5mm. Pretty obvious which one I prefer

Oliver

 

[sidius_wolf]

You think the bokeh is smoother than the G2 or G1?

No, I can't tell your preference