Sigma 24-70 vs Tamron 28-75

I'm curious, what the deal between the two is, and what you guys would recommend.

I want the sigma becasue it has the longer wide angle area, and because I have a 70-200 F4L on the way, I'de rather avoid the overlapping 5mm from the Tamron. I also plan to get a 12-24 sigma or tokina in the future and would love to have 12-200 covered without any gaps.

I am concerned about things like sharpness, focus noise, etc. My sigma 70-300 APO Macro focus really angers me, and it definitley is loud beyond belief.

I've heard the Sigma is more reliable though and that the Tamron has a little bit of quality control problems with soft copies.

I'm really not sure what to do.

The EX has a louder AF noise but the AF speed is a bit faster. It does weigh more than the Di, but OTOH, it weighs less than the Canon 24-70. Optically both can be very good and pleasing, but both have some QC issues (a minority report, I'm sure). If AF noise is a key consideration, the Tamron is quieter, though both lack any sort of ring USM/HSM and both lack FTM ability. Lots of people go back and forth between these 2 good 3rd party, FF-compatible standard zooms (and for good reason). I'm currently having a headache with my Tamron copy (currently at Tamron NY for the 3rd time -- blogged at my site), but when it's working, it's a good lens. The Sigma is the best bang for buck 24-xx out there and the Tamron the best bang for buck 28-xx out there.

LightRules wrote in post #2151905
The EX has a louder AF noise but the AF speed is a bit faster. It does weigh more than the Di, but OTOH, it weighs less than the Canon 24-70. Optically both can be very good and pleasing, but both have some QC issues (a minority report, I'm sure). If AF noise is a key consideration, the Tamron is quieter, though both lack any sort of ring USM/HSM and both lack FTM ability. Lots of people go back and forth between these 2 good 3rd party, FF-compatible standard zooms (and for good reason). I'm currently having a headache with my Tamron copy (currently at Tamron NY for the 3rd time -- blogged at my site), but when it's working, it's a good lens. The Sigma is the best bang for buck 24-xx out there and the Tamron the best bang for buck 28-xx out there.

I forgot to ask, they both are labelled macro, but are either of them decent, or just close focusing? Perhaps with extension tubes they are okay?

I have a couple friends who went through multiple Tamrons till getting a good copy, so I'm a little worried.

What is the weight diference? BH shows the Tamron at 1.5lb I believe and 500 or so grams, and the Sigma at 1.6lb and 700grams or so, so the numbers are definitley inaccurate as 200 grams definitley is more then .1lb. Is the lens really big cause of the 82mm filter size?

I think the weight is similiar to the 70-200 F4L on the way, so perhaps I should see if thats the type of weight I want for a standard walk around lens. More importantly though, what are the accurate weights on these lenses?

You should be able to check the manufacturer's respective websites for specs on these lenses, which will include their weight.

linarms wrote in post #2151940
You should be able to check the manufacturer's respective websites for specs on these lenses, which will include their weight.

Your right.

The sigma is 700 grams and the Tamron is 510grams.

Just trying to think how much 190 grams will feel like. It's 1.12lb vs 1.54lb. I don't think it'll feel all that different, although the lens may be larger in diameter cause of the huge filter size.

I'm wondering as well though now, which is considered better in build quality, regardless of weight?

JaGWiRE wrote in post #2151811
I'm curious...what you guys would recommend.

Canon's 24-70L

the tamron 28-75 is probably regarded as the best third party mid-range zoom.

if it had a ring USM and a 24mm wide end i probably would still own it .

ed rader

jr_senator wrote in post #2151959
Canon's 24-70L

Yeah, perhaps the idea that I'm looking at third party lenses didn't convey the idea that I am not looking to spend that $.

Ed Radar, has anybody on here done comparisons with two good copies? I really would like the 24-70 focal length more then the Tamron. And then if I upgrade later to the Canon 24-70L I'll have gotten used to the focal length.

JaGWiRE wrote in post #2151969
Yeah, perhaps the idea that I'm looking at third party lenses didn't convey the idea that I am not looking to spend that $.

Ed Radar, has anybody on here done comparisons with two good copies? I really would like the 24-70 focal length more then the Tamron. And then if I upgrade later to the Canon 24-70L I'll have gotten used to the focal length.

there have been many comparisons and i think the tamron has the edge but the sigma is close.

28mm is a deal killer for me too on my walkaround.

if you gotta have 24mm it's the sigma or the brick, and i have the brick (24-70L) .

ed rader

ed rader wrote in post #2151980
there have been many comparisons and i think the tamron has the edge but the sigma is close.

28mm is a deal killer for me too on my walkaround.

if you gotta have 24mm it's the sigma or the brick, and i have the brick (24-70L) .

ed rader

Do you find yourself needing the extra 4mm wide? I feel that the 5mm on the zoom won't do much, and I have that FL covered with the Canon 70-200. Like I said before, I think I'll end up with a cheaper ultra wide angle like the Tokina or Sigma 12-24, and I want no gaps in my focal lengths if possible.

JaGWiRE wrote in post #2151987
Do you find yourself needing the extra 4mm wide? I feel that the 5mm on the zoom won't do much, and I have that FL covered with the Canon 70-200. Like I said before, I think I'll end up with a cheaper ultra wide angle like the Tokina or Sigma 12-24, and I want no gaps in my focal lengths if possible.

i absolutely need 24mm. 28mm is like no wide angle. 24mm is like P&S WA. with a walkaround that begins at 28mm i am switching lenses far too often.

i know this from trial and error because i have tried several of each.

when i had the tamron 28-75 i also owned the 17-35. i was a lens swapping fool in lens-change hell.

what i did was get a 24mm walkaround and increased the long end on my short zoon -- 17-40L -- and i am muuuch happier !

YMMV but i gotta have 24mm.

edit: for sure the 4mm on the wide end is far more important than 5mm on the long end, which you probably wouldn't even notice. also, don't be scared of a little overlap -- it's a good thing imo.

ed rader

ed rader wrote in post #2152006
i absolutely need 24mm. 28mm is like no wide angle. 24mm is like P&S WA. with a walkaround that begins at 28mm i am switching lenses far too often.

i know this from trial and error because i have tried several of each.

when i had the tamron 28-75 i also owned the 17-35. i was a lens swapping fool in lens-change hell.

what i did was get a 24mm walkaround and increased the long end on my short zoon -- 17-40L and i am muuuch happier !

YMMV but i gotta have 24mm.

ed rader

I have a feeling it's going to be the same for me. Guess the sigma is my only choice .

JaGWiRE wrote in post #2152014
I have a feeling it's going to be the same for me. Guess the sigma is my only choice .

if you have doubts you probably are right. the tamron is a great lens but it just wasn't wide enough for me.

plenty of guys swear by the sigma so it'll probably work fine for you but make sure to factor in the cost of filters if you use them.

good luck!

ed rader

ed rader wrote in post #2152047
if you have doubts you probably are right. the tamron is a great lens but it just wasn't wide enough for me.

plenty of guys swear by the sigma so it'll probably work fine for you but make sure to factor in the cost of filters if you use them.

good luck!

ed rader

Well, UV filters for all my lenses seem to be topping out at high prices, especially when you think about how much it costs to get good enough glass to protect an L without affecting the quality, so at this point I'm going just with hoods. I'de love all those crazy filters, but they are #1 pricey, and #2, the lenses I want to buy all have varied filter sizes.

I think you can not go wrong with both.

Someones we have the Siggy and it is an excellent piece of glass. I did bought it following the reports/advice of LightRules in that time (I think the Tammy was not in the market yet) and I am very happy. I have a good copy and it´s a wonderful lens: sharp even wide open, nice contrast, 24 mm, etc. Cons: Heavy when you are the whole day hanging up with it from your neck and not USM; but I can live with it. The results are worth. I did pay $350 for it !!

In the other way, the Tammy it´s also a good lens. You can see many reports/reviews over it.

Canon EF 24-70 L: Sure it´s very good (also there are some copies with issues) but I can not afford it, I am not a pro, and I did choose to save my money to invest in other lenses.

It´s your choice !!