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

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!

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 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

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.

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.

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.

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!

mystik610 wrote in post #16939290
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.

BFox549 wrote in post #16917494
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.

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
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.

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.

mystik610 wrote in post #16939290
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.

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.

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

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