Sigma VS Tamrom

[mtndew]

Can't decide between the Sigma 24-70 2.8 or Tamron 28-75 2.8 somewhat on a budget so thats why the L's are out of the question. I currently have the 28-135 IS but im getting tired of having to switch up lens between 10d to 7n. So any suggestion or comments on either len or if you have an alternative len is greatly appreciated.

[mikesd]

Can't comment on the Sigma but the Tamron is one fine lens. As close as you can get to L quality without the price tag.

[liza]

I just purchased the Tamron and have not been disappointed. The sharpness and color are close to my L glass lens. The price was pretty nice, too, so I don't think you could go wrong by purchasing it.

[antaine]

I just purchased the Tamron and have not been disappointed. The sharpness and color are close to my L glass lens. The price was pretty nice, too, so I don't think you could go wrong by purchasing it.


agree as well, A.

[ed rader]

i also own the canon 28-135, agonized between the sigma and the tamron and ended up with the tamron -- in fact i also own the tamron 17-35 and that helped to sway my decision.

i wanted to like the sigma because the 4mm really does make a difference on the short end but i concluded that sigma had more "issues" and was more likely to have compatibility problems with the next camera upgrade.

also, the tamron is unbelievably small and light and i can honestly say it is the best lens i've ever used....even a hair better than the tamron 17-35 tho both are in the same league.

the dynamic duo of tamron lenses is fantastic....but i'll always reach for the 28-75 whenever i can pull it off...all the fuss about this lens is justitied, imo.

the canon is now on ebay with absolutely no regrets.

ed rader

[LightRules]

Plenty of discussion about these 2 lenses. Usually it's between the Canon 24-70L, Sigma 24-70EX, and Tamron 28-75Di. See my sig for plenty shots. In a nutshell, given good copies of both:

*Sigma is sharper wide open (center), has 24mm wide, faster AF, better (EX) build, non-rotating ring during AF.
*Tamron is lighter, goes to 75mm, uses smaller filters (67 v 82), generally better edge performance.

Both lenses can be stellar optically (e.g., CA control, flare resistance, pleasing bokeh, good saturation). Both can have AF problems when used wide open at the wide end, especially on a 20D; both companies have fixes for it. The parfocal method helps a lot without the fix.

Look for a good deal on either, and be sure you can return/exchange your copy just in case. I think you'll be pleased either way. Try going to a store to try them out and see how they handle. My preference: the Sigma.

[condyk]

I agree with fStopJojo ... I was looking at these lenses and decided, after lots of research, that the balance of strengths and weaknesses was so close that either would be a fine buy. I only bought the Tamron because I found a nicer new price. It's a good lens. The EX build Sigma's are excellent in my experience. I'd buy on best price and then be happy.

[xstrio]

i`ve only used the tamron but i highly recommend it , my next lens was going to be the 17-40L but i`m seriously considering getting the tamron 17-35, its had some really good reviews

[Cadwell]

i`ve only used the tamron but i highly recommend it , my next lens was going to be the 17-40L but i`m seriously considering getting the tamron 17-35, its had some really good reviews

The optics of the Tamron 17-35 are very good and the build quality is decent. The autofocus motor is glacial though... very, very slow AF with this lens.

[Nightcrawler]

Right now the Tamron 28-75 is not very available due to limited supply, so the Sigma is a good alternative. An alternative that I plan to buy on Monday.

[xstrio]

The optics of the Tamron 17-35 are very good and the build quality is decent. The autofocus motor is glacial though... very, very slow AF with this lens.

sorry for going slightly of topic, how does the focus speed with the 17-35 compare with the 28-75 which is often said to be pretty slow, would you say its even worse than that.

[Cadwell]

sorry for going slightly of topic, how does the focus speed with the 17-35 compare with the 28-75 which is often said to be pretty slow, would you say its even worse than that.

Yup. Significantly worse.

[mtndew]

Thanks guys for your comments I settled on the tamron and just picked it up today from Ritz Camera and saved a few bucks with the rebate.