Sigma 24-70 vs Tamron 28-75

Both are very good and I had both. Tamron a bit plasticky for my liking. Sigma is a better all round lens. IQ between the two will be copy dependant. I think I prefer the Sigma but that may be because it seemed to have a more natural feel to the images while the Tamron seemed to be oversaturated to my eye at times. I would happily use either again as both are very capable. The Sigma buzzes a tad but I didn't really notice. It is a big lens but easy to handle and carrry around. I never use UV's - waste of money IMO.

Myself, I would get the Tamron 17-50mm 2,8 at the moment because the range is just more useful and a very nice price. I just got a 17-70mm Sigma and that looks a very good option too. I'll do a compare next week against my 17-40mm L - don't expect to see a huge difference in IQ, but hard to go to standard motor when you are used to USM/HSM. Range is more useful for travel tho'.

I like the Tamron based on IQ alone. However, I don't feel that it feels too plastic as some posters have mentioned. If you want a plastic feeling lens, pick up any of Canon's kit lenses. I have the 18-55mm kit that came with the 20D and the 28-90mm kit that came with my Rebel T2. Now those are plastic feeling lenses!

The Tamron doesn't feel like the 24-70L though. I am currently saving for that lens now. I just feel that weddings move pretty quickly and there have been a few occasions where the AF motor just didn't keep up with a moving subject in AI mode... For the most part it did what I needed it to do. If you look at the gear list in my signature, you can see that I'm not a Canon "L" elitist as some can be on here. I used to be of the mindset that 3rd party is just as good as the expensive Canon alternatives... (2 Sigma flashes, and 2 Tamron Lenses). I do not feel that way now.

JaGWiRE wrote in post #2151987
...I want no gaps in my focal lengths if possible.

Your thinking on "no gaps" is different than mine. I go back to either no zooms or poor performance zooms. My first SLR system (35mm) had 28, 50, 90, 200 and 500mm and I never felt wanting.

JaGWiRE wrote in post #2152115
...I'm going just with hoods.

The best choice regardless.

condyk wrote in post #2152764
Both are very good and I had both. Tamron a bit plasticky for my liking. Sigma is a better all round lens. IQ between the two will be copy dependant. I think I prefer the Sigma but that may be because it seemed to have a more natural feel to the images while the Tamron seemed to be oversaturated to my eye at times. I would happily use either again as both are very capable. The Sigma buzzes a tad but I didn't really notice. It is a big lens but easy to handle and carrry around. I never use UV's - waste of money IMO.

Myself, I would get the Tamron 17-50mm 2,8 at the moment because the range is just more useful and a very nice price. I just got a 17-70mm Sigma and that looks a very good option too. I'll do a compare next week against my 17-40mm L - don't expect to see a huge difference in IQ, but hard to go to standard motor when you are used to USM/HSM. Range is more useful for travel tho'.

Hm, I'm curious now how sharp the 17-70 is. I'm worried not about the weight of the Sigma, but it's only half a pound more then the Tamron, and about the weight of the 70-200 F4 which nobody whines about. Are people saying it's heavy becasue of it's weight for it's size, or the fact it's a street lens, or are people talking about it because of it's large diameter?

Jojo has a comparison between the 24-70 and the 28-75 here:
http://www.pbase.com/l​ightrules/exvdi
Also I've owned the 17-70 and thought it was a great lens. I traded it for my 24-70 for the constant 2.8 and better optics, although there's not a lot of difference there. The 17-70 is an awesome all around lens. There's a lot of third party options and I don't think you can lose with any of them!

Mr. Clean wrote in post #2153362
Jojo has a comparison between the 24-70 and the 28-75 here:
http://www.pbase.com/l​ightrules/exvdi
Also I've owned the 17-70 and thought it was a great lens. I traded it for my 24-70 for the constant 2.8 and better optics, although there's not a lot of difference there. The 17-70 is an awesome all around lens. There's a lot of third party options and I don't think you can lose with any of them!

Interesting. I feel like it's a no brainer, and if I can handle the weight, the 24-70 is the only lens I can go with.

forkball wrote in post #2152905
I like the Tamron based on IQ alone. However, I don't feel that it feels too plastic as some posters have mentioned. If you want a plastic feeling lens, pick up any of Canon's kit lenses. I have the 18-55mm kit that came with the 20D and the 28-90mm kit that came with my Rebel T2. Now those are plastic feeling lenses!

The Tamron doesn't feel like the 24-70L though. I am currently saving for that lens now. I just feel that weddings move pretty quickly and there have been a few occasions where the AF motor just didn't keep up with a moving subject in AI mode... For the most part it did what I needed it to do. If you look at the gear list in my signature, you can see that I'm not a Canon "L" elitist as some can be on here. I used to be of the mindset that 3rd party is just as good as the expensive Canon alternatives... (2 Sigma flashes, and 2 Tamron Lenses). I do not feel that way now.

i don't buy the plasticky argument either. i think that's one of the things you say when you are grasping for arguments.

the tamron is built as well as the $1200 canon 17-55 or the canon 85 1.8 and you don't hear those canon lenses getting the plasticky rap.

i think because the tamron is so small and lightweight next to the sigma and the brick that it gets the undeserved rap of having a substandard build, which in my opinion just isn't true.

the size and weight of the tamron belong in the positive column. AF speed and 28mm starting point are the negatives.

that's why i own the brick...because it's the best in this range, as well as the heaviest .

ed rader

I was in this situation about 18 months ago, I liked the tamron for its lightness and good optical quality but didnt have the wide angle i wanted. So I opted for the Sigma 24-70, excellent lens, colour rendition superb, optically not far off my 17-40 L lens. The sigma EX lens is built like a tank, focussing noise never really concerned about, the only downside is the filter thread is 82mm. Sigma for me on this one, if Tamron would have made it 24-75 then my choice would be tamron. Sigma is slightly better build as well.

ed rader wrote in post #2154107
i don't buy the plasticky argument either. i think that's one of the things you say when you are grasping for arguments.

Or, it's one of the things you say based on owning one and using it a lot and finally deciding, in one's own opinion, it is one of the things you don't like about it. Perfectly fit for purpose nevertheless. The 28mm end is more a problem.

condyk wrote in post #2154257
Or, it's one of the things you say based on owning one and using it a lot and finally deciding, in one's own opinion, it is one of the things you don't like about it. Perfectly fit for purpose nevertheless. The 28mm end is more a problem.

Yeah, I don't even know where they got the whole 28mm thing.

What I don't understand is why Canon doesn't have an ultra wide that goes from 12-24mm like Sigma and Tokina. It would make a lot more sense considering the Canon 24-70 and 24-105 both start at 24.