p.1 #1 · Pictures - Tamron 15-30 2.8 vs Sigma 14-24 2.8 Art
I'm not super scientific about lenses, but I did what I think some/most would do when comparing the lenses (same focus point, completely stable surface, same ISO, exposure, misc). Right off the bat, the Sigma has a much nicer quality feel to it.
p.1 #4 · Pictures - Tamron 15-30 2.8 vs Sigma 14-24 2.8 Art
As you can see, each lens is a touch better at different focal lengths and apertures. I think the Sigma is better at 2.8 sort of all across the board (14mm, 20mm, 24mm). Tamron is soft but really catches up around F4 and higher. The thing is, the Tamron is lighter and has stabilization but the Sigma might be the sharper lens and higher quality. Which to choooose?
Do I need stabilization for a wide?
The reasons I'd choose the Tamron
- Covers same focal length, although an additional +6mm at the far end.
- It's lighter.
- It has Vibration Compensation
The reasons I'd choose the Sigma
- Its focal length is wider (1mm)
- It feels solid, higher quality
- Its a bit sharper
- Must faster focusing
*Update - After doing another test shoot at 2.8 from the widest focal length to 20mm and 24mm, the Sigma is just sharper with better contrast, faster focusing. I am leaning towards the Sigma Art
p.1 #5 · Pictures - Tamron 15-30 2.8 vs Sigma 14-24 2.8 Art
Thank you for a first impression and a comparision. However, in my opinion the typical use of either lens would not be close to MFD but at landscape or architecture scale. Thus, I would really appreciate to see what the new Sigma 14-24 does outside the house and for starscapes.
p.1 #6 · Pictures - Tamron 15-30 2.8 vs Sigma 14-24 2.8 Art
Thanks for this comparison. I'm still torn on which to get - I found a good deal for the Nikon 14-24 f2.8 locally, and I like that it's physically smaller and lighter than both the Tamron and Sigma.. None are small or light lenses, but I know that I'm more likely to leave a heavy lens behind for on location shoots (I almost never brought my Sigma art 85 f1.4 with me because the thing was so big).
From the sounds of it, the Nikon lens would be the least sharp of the three (being that the tamron is sharper than the nikon, and from the sounds of it the sigma is sharper than the tamron), but the X factor here is AF performance consistency in a broad range of conditions - high contrast, low contrast, backlit, frontlit, AF-C, AF-S, etc and I've found that the first party lenses tend to be better in this regard.
p.1 #8 · Pictures - Tamron 15-30 2.8 vs Sigma 14-24 2.8 Art
Did you use manual focus or AF?
Focus (or DOF) of the Sigma is more to the back than the Tamron (which is more in front). If you compare the areas that are in sharpest focus, I see no real difference. Both seem very good.
p.1 #9 · Pictures - Tamron 15-30 2.8 vs Sigma 14-24 2.8 Art
Did you have VR on or off on the Tamron? Since you had the camera on a tripod, or at least on a solid support, VR should be set to off. Maybe it's my tired old eyes, but I don't see a difference in sharpness except in the last photo where you state that the focus point is different between to two lenses. It's impossible to say that one lens is sharper than the other in that photo since the focus point is not the same.
IMHO, the Tamron does a better job of maintaining the details in the black wheels than the Sigma. The Sigma has too much contrast, at least in this scene. More contrast does not necessarily equal better contrast.
p.1 #11 · Pictures - Tamron 15-30 2.8 vs Sigma 14-24 2.8 Art
jhg photo wrote:
Thank you for a first impression and a comparision. However, in my opinion the typical use of either lens would not be close to MFD but at landscape or architecture scale. Thus, I would really appreciate to see what the new Sigma 14-24 does outside the house and for starscapes.
Posted. I can put some links up for the RAW files if anyone wants
p.1 #13 · Pictures - Tamron 15-30 2.8 vs Sigma 14-24 2.8 Art
sungphoto wrote:
Thanks for this comparison. I'm still torn on which to get - I found a good deal for the Nikon 14-24 f2.8 locally, and I like that it's physically smaller and lighter than both the Tamron and Sigma.. None are small or light lenses, but I know that I'm more likely to leave a heavy lens behind for on location shoots (I almost never brought my Sigma art 85 f1.4 with me because the thing was so big).
From the sounds of it, the Nikon lens would be the least sharp of the three (being that the tamron is sharper than the nikon, and from the sounds of it the sigma is sharper than the tamron), but the X factor here is AF performance consistency in a broad range of conditions - high contrast, low contrast, backlit, frontlit, AF-C, AF-S, etc and I've found that the first party lenses tend to be better in this regard....Show more →
The Sigma 14-24mm Art is awesome. Sure, it doesn't have image stabilization but neither did the Nikkor and people still took awesome pics with it. Tamron is still really good, but the lens doesn't handle distortion or CA like the Sigma, even bumping it up to a higher aperture. The Nikkor too has great distortion control. Either Sigma or Nikkor works, but the performance of the Tamron swayed me away. The Sigma is very nice at 2.8 where the Tamron looks very soft.
p.1 #14 · Pictures - Tamron 15-30 2.8 vs Sigma 14-24 2.8 Art
One thing worth noting is that the Tamron is 15.6mm at its widest end. That means it's a lot more like 2mm difference at the wide end.
As I personally find IS is decidedly less useful on UWA's as the typical 1/15-1/30 floor for IS systems is at pretty much the same shutter speeds as I can handhold an unstabilized UWA, having a quality f2.8 is to me more valuable than IS in this range (not that IS is a bad thing, you just aren't getting 3-4 stops of handholding at 15mm, unlike at say 70mm).
p.1 #15 · Pictures - Tamron 15-30 2.8 vs Sigma 14-24 2.8 Art
mawz wrote:
One thing worth noting is that the Tamron is 15.6mm at its widest end. That means it's a lot more like 2mm difference at the wide end.
As I personally find IS is decidedly less useful on UWA's as the typical 1/15-1/30 floor for IS systems is at pretty much the same shutter speeds as I can handhold an unstabilized UWA, having a quality f2.8 is to me more valuable than IS in this range (not that IS is a bad thing, you just aren't getting 3-4 stops of handholding at 15mm, unlike at say 70mm).
Agreed. That's why I chose the Sigma. I have pretty steady hands, even holding a D850 & 14-24mm. I was watching some photographer review a lens and I remember he stated that lenses with VC/IS/VR tend to be a touch less sharp due to more glass. But, thats some serious pixel peeping
p.1 #16 · Pictures - Tamron 15-30 2.8 vs Sigma 14-24 2.8 Art
Does your camera have the newest firmware? Have read about problems with sigma lenses and newest firmware. Tamron was on my list but this lens has peaked my interest.
