Sigma 35mm Art or Tamron 24-70?

I posted earlier this week about my dilemma of switching my gear up and it helped me narrow down my decisions.

My current set up is the following... (All on a 5D II)
Canon 50 1.8
Canon 70-200 2.8 II
Tamron 28-75 2.8 (Being sold due to the unsatisfied IQ and to help fund next lens)

I usually shoot anything involving people or events such as portrait, candid, concerts, low light events (especially indoors), weddings, and etc.

So my question to you is, with the money from selling the 28-75 should I get a Tamron 24-70 2.8 or a 35mm prime of some sort???

Heya,

Depends. You're either a prime guy who wants F1.4. Or you're a zoom guy who is ok with F2.8. It depends what is going to serve your purposes more. I would want the 35 F1.4, not even a question. It's sharper, much faster (2 stops), and lends for more creative isolation with depth of field control. But, I can see the value of having a 24-70 F2.8 instead, having several focal lengths and a good fast aperture to boot. I like more isolation, so I want the prime with the faster aperture. For someone just making quick images with more relaxed depth of field control to ensure everything is in focus (like when doing a Wedding), the F2.8 makes sense, so a Zoom makes sense (since you can't redo a lot of the shots, I don't see most people shooting at F1.4 at a wedding up close, maybe from a distance, but not up close for fear of losing an eye to out of focus or something).

Very best,

MalVeauX wrote in post #16901625
Heya,

Depends. You're either a prime guy who wants F1.4. Or you're a zoom guy who is ok with F2.8. It depends what is going to serve your purposes more. I would want the 35 F1.4, not even a question. It's sharper, much faster (2 stops), and lends for more creative isolation with depth of field control. But, I can see the value of having a 24-70 F2.8 instead, having several focal lengths and a good fast aperture to boot. I like more isolation, so I want the prime with the faster aperture. For someone just making quick images with more relaxed depth of field control to ensure everything is in focus (like when doing a Wedding), the F2.8 makes sense, so a Zoom makes sense (since you can't redo a lot of the shots, I don't see most people shooting at F1.4 at a wedding up close, maybe from a distance, but not up close for fear of losing an eye to out of focus or something).

Very best,

Yea you do make a good point about the wedding aspect of it. At the same time I feel that I would be able to hold my ground at a wedding with a 35mm, 50mm, and a 70-200 on me.

Appreciate the insight!

I'd take the Canon 35mm f/2 IS over the Sigma, if only for better focus accuracy indoors in low-light. Since the 5D II has AF microadjustment you might be ok with the Sigma prime though.

^ agreed

I normally say 24-70, but as soon as you said concerts and low light events, I say 35 1.4. You have a 50 so you aren't stuck range wise (you'll have 35, 50, 70-200). I would upgrade the 50 1.8 simply for a better AF IF it is something that really holds you back, but not immediate.

I vote for the 35 prime as well. Ever since I got it, I never use my 24-70 anymore. It just collects dust in my closet. For most of my situations, I do just fine with the 35mm and 135mm. I do plan to add an 85 at some point, but it hasn't been that necessary. Usually, all I bring with me now is the 17-40, 35, 135.

tagnal wrote in post #16902504
I vote for the 35 prime as well. Ever since I got it, I never use my 24-70 anymore. It just collects dust in my closet. For most of my situations, I do just fine with the 35mm and 135mm. I do plan to add an 85 at some point, but it hasn't been that necessary. Usually, all I bring with me now is the 17-40, 35, 135.

Yea I mean I have had a standard zoom and I felt as though I don't value it as much when I use it.

jt354 wrote in post #16901694
I'd take the Canon 35mm f/2 IS over the Sigma, if only for better focus accuracy indoors in low-light. Since the 5D II has AF microadjustment you might be ok with the Sigma prime though.

In terms of IQ, I've seen samples of both the Sigma Art 35mm and the Canon 35mm, there's a some difference. Plus Sigma has really stepped their game up with their Art series lenses.

If you want/need a zoom, it's an easy choice.

If not, then definitely the Sigma. That lens really is something special.

I just sold my Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC for the Sigma 35 1.4 Art.
In past I had the 28-70 2.8L (great price/quality), 24-105 f4L IS (nice range), 24-70 2.8L (not sharp enough wide open), and since 1 year the Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC. I had them all next to my 35 1.4L.

For 1 year I worked with the Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC & 35L.
I sold 35L as the Sigma 35 Art is better in every case, but it wasn't much for sale and new it was a lot out of stock or fastly sold out when again in stock.

So I worked some months only with the Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC waiting for a Sigma 35 Art.
Then I realised how boring a 24-70 2.8 standardzoom really is...

- The range is not so big (1 step backward = 24mm, 2 steps forward = 70mm)
- Awkward backwards zooming
- f2.8 isn't always fast enough, going to f1.4 is very comfortable
- I like the prime sharpness / bokeh / colours more

The Tamron's VC was nice for movierecording, but I sold it immediately when I found a Sigma 35 1.4 Art.
For standardzooms you can say it's maybe handy for travel, but nah... fast bokehlicious glas with best IQ is always more welcome in my case.

I have no objection having 2 fast compact primes like the 35 Art + 85 1.8 or 135L with me and do a lens change, they even fit together in my holsterbag

CanonYouCan wrote in post #16904586
I just sold my Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC for the Sigma 35 1.4 Art.
In past I had the 28-70 2.8L (great price/quality), 24-105 f4L IS (nice range), 24-70 2.8L (not sharp enough wide open), and since 1 year the Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC. I had them all next to my 35 1.4L.

For 1 year I worked with the Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC & 35L.
I sold 35L as the Sigma 35 Art is better in every case, but it wasn't much for sale and new it was a lot out of stock or fastly sold out when again in stock.

So I worked some months only with the Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC waiting for a Sigma 35 Art.
Then I realised how boring a 24-70 2.8 standardzoom really is...

- The range is not so big (1 step backward = 24mm, 2 steps forward = 70mm)
- Awkward backwards zooming
- f2.8 isn't always fast enough, going to f1.4 is very comfortable
- I like the prime sharpness / bokeh / colours more

The Tamron's VC was nice for movierecording, but I sold it immediately when I found a Sigma 35 1.4 Art.
For standardzooms you can say it's maybe handy for travel, but nah... fast bokehlicious glas with best IQ is always more welcome in my case.

I have no objection having 2 fast compact primes like the 35 Art + 85 1.8 or 135L with me and do a lens change, they even fit together in my holsterbag

So I finally had the will to buy the Sigma 35mm Art with the money from the 28-75 and I totally agree with you %100. Especially after using the standard zoom for awhile, it seemed that the IQ didn't cut it for me and yes it is boring sometimes having a standard in comparison with a prime.

No regrets!!!