spannr wrote:
Gerald Undone's review (which is just up) notes that, with in-camera corrections off, "24mm" on the Sigma is wider than 24mm on the 24-70 GM, which is presumably to give leeway for the corrections. That's the strategy taken by the Sony 24-105 too.
Gerald's review was really excellent; even better than his other reviews from what I remember.
TravelinBriNY wrote:
I haven't been able to watch it yet - what's the summary?
He essentially argued that the Sigma gives you the functionality of the GM (AF/MF switch, customisable button, generous and basically linear focus throw) and IQ that trades punches with the GM for only a little more money than the Tamron. Weight is the only real downside versus the Tamron (that and the zoom ring turns the wrong way, just like the new 14-24).
Or just check out the article itself as it's worth the quick read.
Based on how many copies? The one I'm testing right now does better at 75mm and not so much at 50mm (compared to the chart above) while been centered at these focal lengths. 28mm is strongest for this lens. (I've tested 3 so far)
spannr wrote:
He essentially argued that the Sigma gives you the functionality of the GM (AF/MF switch, customisable button, generous and basically linear focus throw) and IQ that trades punches with the GM for only a little more money than the Tamron. Weight is the only real downside versus the Tamron (that and the zoom ring turns the wrong way, just like the new 14-24).
I watched the review and for sure the Sigma is a fantastic lens, however it's hardly "only a little more money" than the Tamron. In the UK the Tamron has hovering around GBP 599 since Black Friday whilst the Sigma is retailing at GBP 1049. Two thirds more expensive isn't "only a little more money".
That said the Sigma is inexpensive and undeniably good value compared to GM.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Based on how many copies? The one I'm testing right now does better at 75mm and not so much at 50mm (compared to the chart above) while been centered at these focal lengths. 28mm is strongest for this lens. (I've tested 3 so far)
Hi Fred. Are you going to review this lens? It would be great.
ryanli wrote:
I watched the review and for sure the Sigma is a fantastic lens, however it's hardly "only a little more money" than the Tamron. In the UK the Tamron has hovering around GBP 599 since Black Friday whilst the Sigma is retailing at GBP 1049. Two thirds more expensive isn't "only a little more money".
That said the Sigma is inexpensive and undeniably good value compared to GM.
Exactly. Everyone is always refering to the US pricing, but things look different in Europe. Tamron 28-75mm is 725€, Sigma 24-70mm is 1200€. That is a big difference.
I am not yet convinced that it is worth 1.65x the price of the Tamron. Will have to wait for a proper comparison (hopefully Fred gets his lens soon).
keepcoding wrote:
Exactly. Everyone is always refering to the US pricing, but things look different in Europe. Tamron 28-75mm is 725€, Sigma 24-70mm is 1200€. That is a big difference.
I am not yet convinced that it is worth 1.65x the price of the Tamron. Will have to wait for a proper comparison (hopefully Fred gets his lens soon).
Indeed I just scored a mint condition Tamron on eBay for GBP 530 so the Sigma brand new is a tougher sell for me, though YMMV.
I think price differential is really different in various places. But I think that the Sigma offer a good saving versus the GM and saves people who want the 24mm wide side. In Canada we are talking about $Can400 between the tamron and sigma and $Can1000 between the sigma and the GM.
Took 4 month for the Sigma 14-24mm from the sample pics to the review...
Sigma 45mm and Sony 35mm sample pics were release in July/August, but review is still not out.
keepcoding wrote:
Took 4 month for the Sigma 14-24mm from the sample pics to the review...
Sigma 45mm and Sony 35mm sample pics were release in July/August, but review is still not out.
All review sites seem in a dip, from july to oktober, (this year). It could indeed be much later. Mind you though, the sample pics of the Sigma 14-24mm DG DN back then were at an event, with a model loaned by sigma at the time. These 'polish' samples, like with the churge are their typical 'review' samples, and the fact they took this second set with them, for me indicates, review is a priority. They seem 'back on track' so to speak, and in the rush to catchup with all new mirrorless lenses. The anticipation of 24-70mm is big, so for them it's business to speed up that review. But we'll see i might be wrong.
The Japanese link posted here, shows incredible 35-70mm performance (but as a landscape shooter) dissapointing 24mm results, even at F8. I wonder if my Gmaster is better, so far i got one shot with impeccable sharpness at f8 24mm, but lots of them are blurry (still trying to find out why, IBIS certainly is a possibilty, but i turned if off with similar result. I got Gmaster for 1500 euro (only 300 more then Sigma) so all will depend in overal image quality (including 24mm wich i use the most). While AF seems very good on the Sigma, i'm spoiled now with gmaster AF performance and i'm not sure the Sigma will be as good for true faster action (cyclo cross comes to mind).
Matti6950 wrote:
The Japanese link posted here, shows incredible 35-70mm performance (but as a landscape shooter) dissapointing 24mm results, even at F8. I wonder if my Gmaster is better, so far i got one shot with impeccable sharpness at f8 24mm, but lots of them are blurry (still trying to find out why, IBIS certainly is a possibilty, but i turned if off with similar result. I got Gmaster for 1500 euro (only 300 more then Sigma) so all will depend in overal image quality (including 24mm wich i use the most). While AF seems very good on the Sigma, i'm spoiled now with gmaster AF performance and i'm not sure the Sigma will be as good for true faster action (cyclo cross comes to mind)....Show more →
Presumably you're referring to the numbers/graphs from the resolution test charts in the Japanese review, showing that centre performance looks OK at 24mm, but corners don't look that hot compared to the Tamron 17-28/2.8 or the Tamron 24/2.8. Maybe wait for the review to include sample images from distant/infinity focus which I imagine would be more like your use case for landscapes - the current samples (not the resolution charts) are all at MFD, which for most non-macro lenses are not going to be at their best.
ryanli wrote:
Presumably you're referring to the numbers/graphs from the resolution test charts in the Japanese review, showing that centre performance looks OK at 24mm, but corners don't look that hot compared to the Tamron 17-28/2.8 or the Tamron 24/2.8. Maybe wait for the review to include sample images from distant/infinity focus which I imagine would be more like your use case for landscapes - the current samples (not the resolution charts) are all at MFD, which for most non-macro lenses are not going to be at their best.
Certainly, i prefer sample pictures to judge sharpness (and i filter until i see pics without blurryness caused by heat distortion, shake, etc). Cameralabs usually is my go to, but imo their winter pics lack contrast and are unfair comparison to ultra sunny fall/summer pics, so i usually check more sources. I'm not in hurry since i have the GM. I'll do some more 'get the sharpest 24mm possible' tests on Gmaster as it seems to vary a great deal, even with my best methods for obtaining so.
