p.1 #2 · Tamron 17-28mm f2.8 vs Sigma 16-28mm f2.8?
I have not used the Tamron, so not much help, but I chose the Sigma because it is wider and also I have the 28-70/2.8 DG DN which is impressive. One thing I have noticed is that I don't use it as much as the 20-40/2.8 Tamron because that focal range is more suited to my style...I'm not fond of bumping up against 28mm in its use. I just noticed PC Magazine just voted the Sigma 16-28/2.8 and the 20/1.4 as their best photo products of 2022.
p.1 #3 · Tamron 17-28mm f2.8 vs Sigma 16-28mm f2.8?
I've used both and currently own the Sigma. The Tamron is a great lens, but the difference between 16 and 17mm is real. I like a wide angle zoom as my walk around lens on my A7c, and I wanted something as wide as possible but that wasn't too big and heavy (sigma 14-24, 16-35GM). I had the Tamron, but the zoom range felt restrictive at the wide end, so I replaced it with the older Zony 16-35 F4. I liked that lens, but it was a little heavy on the A7C and the resolution was a little uneven, so I replaced it with the Sigma, and I'm very happy with it. Sharper across the frame than the Zony was, and very little CA. It has pretty decent sunstars, as did the Tamron, and it's all internal zoom and focus. I personally like the Sigma color look over the Tamron, although that can be hard to describe and might be in my head. The weaknesses of the Sigma are few, but it can have issues with ghosting, and it's bokeh can be a little nervous. I don't remember how those issues compare on the Tamron. There's also the new sony pz16-35F4 to consider. Expensive, but the smallest and lightest of them all and looks like an excellent performer. Hope this helps.
p.1 #4 · Tamron 17-28mm f2.8 vs Sigma 16-28mm f2.8?
mjk115 wrote:
I've used both and currently own the Sigma. The Tamron is a great lens, but the difference between 16 and 17mm is real. I like a wide angle zoom as my walk around lens on my A7c, and I wanted something as wide as possible but that wasn't too big and heavy (sigma 14-24, 16-35GM). I had the Tamron, but the zoom range felt restrictive at the wide end, so I replaced it with the older Zony 16-35 F4. I liked that lens, but it was a little heavy on the A7C and the resolution was a little uneven, so I replaced it with the Sigma, and I'm very happy with it. Sharper across the frame than the Zony was, and very little CA. It has pretty decent sunstars, as did the Tamron, and it's all internal zoom and focus. I personally like the Sigma color look over the Tamron, although that can be hard to describe and might be in my head. The weaknesses of the Sigma are few, but it can have issues with ghosting, and it's bokeh can be a little nervous. I don't remember how those issues compare on the Tamron. There's also the new sony pz16-35F4 to consider. Expensive, but the smallest and lightest of them all and looks like an excellent performer. Hope this helps....Show more →
Thanks! I currently have both the new Tamron 20-40mm f2.8 and the Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 G2. I need something wider than 20mm, but I'm trying to stay away from the added weight of bigger lenses and the inconvenience of changing primes while traveling. I thought about the PZ 16-35mm f4, but I would prefer an f2.8.
p.1 #6 · Tamron 17-28mm f2.8 vs Sigma 16-28mm f2.8?
QuietOC wrote:
I have a hope that the Sigma will have less copy variation. That has been my experience so far with these brands.
I think it all boils down to luck when it comes to lenses no matter what the brand. Not too long ago I purchased a brand new Sony 40mm f2.5 G. It was extremely off center to the point that the left half of every image at every aperture was out of focus while the right half was in focus. Also, back when I used Nikon, I had to return several "legacy" lenses that were extremely soft (Nikon manual focus 55mm macro was one of them). I have been somewhat lucky with Tamron lenses so far, but I know my luck will run out some day!
