Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 20 May 2014 (Tuesday) 12:57
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Tamron 24-70 VC VS Sigma 35 ART. Bokeh & Sharpness.

 
BFox549
Senior Member
316 posts
Joined Mar 2012
Location: Charleston, SC
     
May 20, 2014 12:57 |  #1

Hey guys, I'm looking to completely change my lens line up and focus on FF. I've been researching on a lot of lenses and looking at tons of comparisons and image samples. The idea of having a 24-70 seems interesting and I've decided to get the Tamron 24-70 over the Canon and Sigma models. I've seen that the 35 ART is better than the 35L optically at f2.8 and I'm wondering how it compares to the Tamron 24-70.

I'm assuming the 35 ART will be sharper since it will be stopped down instead of wide open, but I wonder how much sharper... Also, I'm wondering how their bokeh compares at f2.8 and smaller.

I'm really eyeballing the Tamron 24-70 VC because I'm wanting to expand my photography style to weddings along with sports. Also, I never find myself shooting wider than f2.8 so the 1.4 advantage won't be that big of a deal to me. The 6 year warranty is great as well. I just want to see how they both compare optically. If the 35 ART out does it noticeably I'd be tempted to buy it instead of the Tamron 24-70.

Any help or suggestions would be great! Thanks guys!


Canon 85 1.8, 430exII... No Camera ATM lolol
"Leave nothing but footprints. Take nothing but pictures. Kill nothing but time."

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
BrickR
Cream of the Crop
5,935 posts
Likes: 115
Joined Mar 2011
Location: Dallas TX
     
May 20, 2014 13:12 |  #2

Why not just rent both for a couple of days from Lensrentals and know for yourself?

In weddings they're is a need for 24-70 convenience and f1.4 light gathering. Would you say you are more comfortable with zooms or primes?

The Sigma will be sharper but not as wide or long obviously. The Tamron isn't particularly strong at 70mm until stopped down a little but wide to midrange it is a great performer. Not sure HOW sharp you need a lens to be so that is up to you to decide, and why renting a lens will always tell you more than opinions on a forum ;)


My junk
The grass isn't greener on the other side, it's green where you water it.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
CanonYouCan
Goldmember
Avatar
1,488 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 22
Joined Oct 2010
Location: Belgium
     
May 20, 2014 13:15 |  #3

My last lens swap was the Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC for the Sigma 35 1.4 Art last week, I also sold 35L a month ago.
I didn't test the Tamron & Sigma next to each other but I tested so many lenses that I know which direction to go.

Reasons I bought the Sigma:
- f1.4-f2.8 lowlight performance
- dreamy bokeh
- prime sharpness
- lighter

Reasons I sold the Tamron :
- the 24-70 isn't that big compared to the 35mm (24mm = 1 step behind, 70mm = 2 steps forward)
- the odd reverse zoom
- a standardzoom makes you lazy :)

But in your case you can go for the Tamron if f2.8 is enough for you, the Tamron is sharp enough for your needs.
I don't know if there are sharpness tests between the two, but you will be satisfied with the Tamron.

PS : for urbex i'll advise you the Tokina 16-28 2.8 ;)


Sony A7 III | Metabones V | Canon 16-35 F4 L | Sigma 85 1.4 Art | 70-200 2.8L II
Lighting : Godox AD600B TTL + Godox V860II-S + X1T-S
Modifiers: 60cm Collapsible Silver Beautydish + grid | Godox 120cm Octagon softbox + grid + Speedlite Flash bender
Tripod: Vanguard Alta 253CT carbon

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
artyH
Goldmember
2,115 posts
Likes: 31
Joined Aug 2009
     
May 20, 2014 13:16 |  #4

I don't own either lens, but a fast 35 is useful for low light. The two lenses are not comparable. One is a prime and the other a zoom. On a crop, I would rather have the Canon 24-105L for sports (or a prime) and a 17-55IS for a wedding zoom. I don't own the 17-55IS, but I do have the 35F2 IS, 17-40 and the 24-105.
If you want a zoom for a crop, I would think on terms of something like the 24-105 or 17-55, if you will need a wider view. There is no doubt about the high quality of the Tamron, but I am not a fan.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
BFox549
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
316 posts
Joined Mar 2012
Location: Charleston, SC
     
May 20, 2014 13:43 |  #5

BrickR - i would prefer not to rent them (even though that is probably best). the money put towards renting them could go towards purchasing one. i can kinda see the zoom convenience being better to have over 1.4 when i can still shoot at 2.8 and use an external flash or VC with slower shutter speeds if needed. i'm probably more comfortable with zooms due to having the convenience.

CanonYouCan - i'm fine with being lazy if i can get "the shot" if i can't back up or move forward for whatever reason ;). thanks for the advice!

artyH - i'm not using a crop, im planning on going full frame.


Canon 85 1.8, 430exII... No Camera ATM lolol
"Leave nothing but footprints. Take nothing but pictures. Kill nothing but time."

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mdripper
Member
104 posts
Likes: 44
Joined Jul 2013
     
May 29, 2014 12:26 |  #6

I own the 35 ART and I'm wrestling with the decision to sell that to grab a 24-70 2.8. I second shoot a decent amount of weddings and shoot a handful of my own and kinda feel like a 24-70 would be awesome for the first half of the day(getting ready/group stuff). But I do love my primes...tough decisions.


Sony A9 || Sony 28 f/2 || Sony 85 f/1.8 ||
XPLOR 600 || R2 Speedlights ||

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mystik610
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
9,809 posts
Gallery: 36 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 11447
Joined Jan 2012
Location: Houston, TX
     
May 29, 2014 21:13 |  #7

Optical performance should't dictate the decision to go with a 24-70 zoom and a 35mm prime, IMO. You either give priority to focal length flexibility, or aperture flexibility and go from there.

Also, stepping back and forth to frame your shots....this isn't the same as zooming, as changing your distance from the subject to frame your shot will produce a different perspective/FOV than changing your focal length from a fixed position. The advantage of the zoom isn't just the convenience of framing your shots...its the ability to quickly change perspective!


focalpointsphoto.com (external link) - flickr (external link) - Instagram (external link)
α7ʀIV - α7ʀIII
Sigma 14-24 f2.8 ART - Zeiss Loxia 21 - Sigma 35 f1.2 ART - Sony 35 1.8 - Sony/Zeiss 55 1.8 - Sony 85GM

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
supfresh
Member
Avatar
222 posts
Likes: 18
Joined Jun 2013
     
May 30, 2014 02:12 |  #8

mystik610 wrote in post #16939290 (external link)
The advantage of the zoom isn't just the convenience of framing your shots...its the ability to quickly change perspective!

This.

Although the optical performance does play its role, I feel as if perspective is a more important element when deciding this.

Personally, I have always been in between this choice. The only reason I'd go for the 24-70 would be to use it at 24-35mm focal length, which doesn't give me enough justification to swap out my already awesome 35mm f1.4. I just have my assistant or second shooter take some wide shots, and cover a few myself with an UWA.


Wedding (external link) - Facebook (external link)- Personal (external link)
5DMKIII / A7RII/ RICOHGR / 50L / 24-70L II/ 70-200 2.8 VC / 35A / 16-35L II / S85
Always some lens, never your lens.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
bobbyz
Cream of the Crop
20,433 posts
Likes: 3317
Joined Nov 2007
Location: Bay Area, CA
     
May 30, 2014 05:09 |  #9

BFox549 wrote in post #16917494 (external link)
I've seen that the 35 ART is better than the 35L optically at f2.8 and I'm wondering how it compares to the Tamron 24-70.

I have 35L, sigma 35mm f1.4 art and canon 24-70mm f2.8 II. 35L and sigma are pretty close so not sure why you say art is better than 35L at f2.8. Both are better than 24-70mm f2.8 II in sharpness etc. And canon is slightly better than tamron.


5dmk3, 35L, 85L II, 300mm f2.8 IS I, 400mm f5.6
Fuji XT-1, 14mm f2.8, 23mm f1.4, 35mm f1.4, 56mm f1.2, 90mm f2, 50-140mm f2.8

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
CanonYouCan
Goldmember
Avatar
1,488 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 22
Joined Oct 2010
Location: Belgium
     
Sep 06, 2015 04:10 |  #10

Probably you have sold your 35L allready, otherwise it's double with your 35L.
To the topic starter : now there's a 24-35 Art, as you say you mostly use this range :)

bobbyz wrote in post #16939773 (external link)
I have 35L, sigma 35mm f1.4 art and canon 24-70mm f2.8 II. 35L and sigma are pretty close so not sure why you say art is better than 35L at f2.8. Both are better than 24-70mm f2.8 II in sharpness etc. And canon is slightly better than tamron.


Sony A7 III | Metabones V | Canon 16-35 F4 L | Sigma 85 1.4 Art | 70-200 2.8L II
Lighting : Godox AD600B TTL + Godox V860II-S + X1T-S
Modifiers: 60cm Collapsible Silver Beautydish + grid | Godox 120cm Octagon softbox + grid + Speedlite Flash bender
Tripod: Vanguard Alta 253CT carbon

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Talley
Talley Whacker
Avatar
11,091 posts
Gallery: 46 photos
Likes: 2791
Joined Dec 2011
Location: Houston
     
Sep 06, 2015 10:20 |  #11

It'll end up a full circle for you. 2.8 zooms provide flexibility, quick perspective changes and the VC model is really sharp and provides nice smooth bokeh with a tad warm on the color reproduction compared to a canon/sigma.

Then you'll try the Sigma art and you'll see some amazing seperation when shot at 1.4... at 2.8 the sharpness will destroy all who walks on this earth so watch who you point it at. Then you'll move back to the zoom when you realize the ability to quickly frame a shot.

I really enjoy my Tamron bokeh over the sigmas and that is a reason why I own mine. For cutting edge sharpness the art series is wonderful and the sigmas produce a more canon like color production.


A7rIII | A7III | 12-24 F4 | 16-35 GM | 28-75 2.8 | 100-400 GM | 12mm 2.8 Fisheye | 35mm 2.8 | 85mm 1.8 | 35A | 85A | 200mm L F2 IS | MC-11
My Gear Archive

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Talley
Talley Whacker
Avatar
11,091 posts
Gallery: 46 photos
Likes: 2791
Joined Dec 2011
Location: Houston
     
Sep 06, 2015 10:21 |  #12

mystik610 wrote in post #16939290 (external link)
Optical performance should't dictate the decision to go with a 24-70 zoom and a 35mm prime, IMO. You either give priority to focal length flexibility, or aperture flexibility and go from there.

Also, stepping back and forth to frame your shots....this isn't the same as zooming, as changing your distance from the subject to frame your shot will produce a different perspective/FOV than changing your focal length from a fixed position. The advantage of the zoom isn't just the convenience of framing your shots...its the ability to quickly change perspective!


Exactly man... exactly. I get it, most don't. Foot zoom is not the same as focal length/perspective changes.

Tisk tisk for the foo' who said to foot zoom it.


A7rIII | A7III | 12-24 F4 | 16-35 GM | 28-75 2.8 | 100-400 GM | 12mm 2.8 Fisheye | 35mm 2.8 | 85mm 1.8 | 35A | 85A | 200mm L F2 IS | MC-11
My Gear Archive

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Left ­ Handed ­ Brisket
Combating camera shame since 1977...
Avatar
9,917 posts
Gallery: 15 photos
Likes: 2385
Joined Jun 2011
Location: The Uwharrie Mts, NC
Post edited over 5 years ago by Left Handed Brisket. (2 edits in all)
     
Sep 06, 2015 10:38 |  #13

Changing focal length does not change perspective

Camera position relative to subject/background is the only thing that changes perspective.

see: https://photography-on-the.net …hread.php?t=672​913&page=1

I went with the sigma 35A over upgrading my 24-105 to a f/2.8 zoom. But I did not consider the tamron due to having experience with the tamron 17-55 2.8. I liked the lens but it wasn't up to par when focusing in low light.

very happy with the sig. and have been using it and my 85 1.8 for what little event shooting I do.


PSA: The above post may contain sarcasm, reply at your own risk | Not in gear database: Auto Sears 50mm 2.0 / 3x CL-360, Nikon SB-28, SunPak auto 322 D, Minolta 20

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ed ­ rader
"I am not the final word"
Avatar
23,307 posts
Gallery: 4 photos
Likes: 526
Joined May 2005
Location: silicon valley
     
Sep 06, 2015 15:54 as a reply to  @ BrickR's post |  #14

because that will cost more than a $100 and anyone considering a tamron lens is looking for performance on the cheap


http://instagram.com/e​draderphotography/ (external link)
5D4, 80d, 16-35L F4 IS, 24-70L II, 70-200L F4 IS II, 100-400L II, sigma 15 FE, sigma 14 f1.8 art, tc 1.4 III, 430exII, gitzo 3542L + markins Q20, gitzo GT 1545T + markins Q3T, gitzo GM4562

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ed ­ rader
"I am not the final word"
Avatar
23,307 posts
Gallery: 4 photos
Likes: 526
Joined May 2005
Location: silicon valley
     
Sep 06, 2015 15:57 as a reply to  @ Talley's post |  #15

foot zoom is a noob myth. announcing on an internet forum: "i have decided to go all prime" in this day and age is the sure sign of a noob


http://instagram.com/e​draderphotography/ (external link)
5D4, 80d, 16-35L F4 IS, 24-70L II, 70-200L F4 IS II, 100-400L II, sigma 15 FE, sigma 14 f1.8 art, tc 1.4 III, 430exII, gitzo 3542L + markins Q20, gitzo GT 1545T + markins Q3T, gitzo GM4562

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

9,785 views & 0 likes for this thread
Tamron 24-70 VC VS Sigma 35 ART. Bokeh & Sharpness.
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is kenf
673 guests, 308 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.