Hey, I wanted to share my recent comparison of a Sigma Art 14-24 2.8 vs Tamron SP 15-30 VC 2.8, although this was tested on my Nikon D850. But, if anyone is looking for a comparo vs these two lenses, here it is. Keep in mind, I did same focus, same ISO (64), same WB, and shutter speed.
Lets Start -
First set is 24mm @ 2.8 (ISO 64, Exposure Same, Focus Same)
And the last is 14mm vs 15mm, but checking looks like focus wasn't on the same point.
- So, what do I have to say about both lenses? Well, the Tamron is softer at 2.8 but catches up f4 and higher. It also has Vibration Compensation and covers 6mm more at the long end, if that's important. The Tamron feels lighter, its plastic and feels a bit cheaper than the Sigma.
Now, on to the Sigma. The Sigma remains sharper at 2.8 across the focal lengths I tested at. I liked the contrast better. The focusing speed is much faster and the overall quality is better than the Tamron. It lacks the VC/IS, but many argue its not required on a ultra-wide. Both lenses are "weather sealed". I leaned towards the Sigma and will be sending the Tamron back.
Not sure I'd use a still life to test WA zooms as you're only presenting info for what is essentially close-focus, and not representing what these lenses are typically used for.
How are they at infinity?
How much vignetting?
Coma and CA? Corners?
Field curvature?
Looks to me like the Tamron wasn't focused similarly in the first three image sets (and later, as well). Not sure I'd send the Tamron back based on what you've presented, but you did the tests and have more info.
Can you post some 100% crops of the corners and the center of these nightsky shots, please? Also, don't you have similar pictures of stars / nightsky taken with Tamron?
Unprocessed raw converted directly to jpg would be better to analyze vignetting, focus, coma, chromatic aberration on the brightest stars (before any kind of lightroom correction).
I have seen lots of reviews already but is nice to see someone's experience in the real world.
I am really in doubt between these two lenses.
To me it seems the Sigma either has more DoF than the Tamron otherwise the focal planes are not the same. If you look at the non-crops, the Tamron is more in focus towards the front of the toy.
Dustin Abbott was using the Tamron for a while and has 2 videos comparing to the Sigma. The Sigma seems to be better in almost every regard (except for lack of IS)
musclepics wrote:
Yes, Dustin's reviews against all comers shows this 14-24 to be stellar and beating them all really, including the Zeiss lenses. Wow. Ordered mine!
That makes me think if he received an excellent copy and compared against a bad copy of Tamron.
It seems that the copies of both Tamron and Sigma are not very consistent in terms of quality. I don't know how to judge all these different information.
