damiroz wrote:
I've tested both lenses on A7r3 and the difference is huge in my opinion (The Tamron is a lot sharper than the Sigma). I'll replace my copy of the Sigma and I'll try another one. If situation will be the same, then I'll stick with the Tamron.
I actually managed to find two comparison pictures in my photos folder. Both are taken at the Rijksmuseum, one with the Tamron and one with the Sigma, shot at 30mm.
I would definitely try another copy. I don't have a Sigma, but I don't expect quality like this from a $1K+ lens.
damiroz wrote:
I bought this lens yesterday to replace my Tamron 28-75 and... It seems to me that I've got faulty copy of this lens or the Tamron is just better.
Sigma (on the left) vs Tamron (on the right)
Camera: A7r3 on sturdy tripod, 2s selftimer, IBIS off
damiroz wrote:
I've tested both lenses on A7r3 and the difference is huge in my opinion (The Tamron is a lot sharper than the Sigma). I'll replace my copy of the Sigma and I'll try another one. If situation will be the same, then I'll stick with the Tamron.
Maybe you have to press the shutter twice like with your 24-105 ?
j4nu wrote:
Maybe you have to press the shutter twice like with your 24-105 ?
Verry funny The thing about 24-105 F4 is still there on a multiple cameras (a7r3) - only on af-s and I'm not the only one that noticed this problem.
In this scenario I've tested AF-S, AF-C and MF - every single time the tamron was much sharper than the sigma. But I'm 99,9 % sure that it was something wrong with the lens, beacuse the far corners was sharp.
I still had the Tamron when I bought the Sigma and did some comparisons.
The Sigma was always as sharp, or a hair sharper than the Tamron (that was a good copy). Except at very close focus / macro 70mm f/2.8.
I feel like the Sigma can replace f/2.8 primes in the 24-70mm range.
My copy of the Sigma is extremely sharp. I agree with the others you may have got a bad copy. The Sigma has lived on my RIII since I got it last December.
I bought second copy of the Sigma. Yes, it's better than the first one, but... It's sharper than Tamron on extreme corners (at 28 mm and 35 mm a lot, then tamron is better at 50 and 75 mm), but not in the midframe and especially in the center the tamron is much better.
Second thing that I've noticed it has problems with AF on 24 mm at infinity distance when I focus with the center point - from camera to about 20 meters away, the picture is mushy and blury. But when I switch the focus point with the joystick (+2 moves on the left or +2 moves on the right) everything is ok - same thing is on mid distance 30 - 40 meters from camera. I have checked this on tripod, no IBIS, in AF-C and AF-S mode. So i think it might be something with firmware - first lens had the same issues at 24 mm.
damiroz wrote:
I bought second copy of the Sigma. Yes, it's better than the first one, but... It's sharper than Tamron on extreme corners (at 28 mm and 35 mm a lot, then tamron is better at 50 and 75 mm), but not in the midframe and especially in the center the tamron is much better.
Second thing that I've noticed it has problems with AF on 24 mm at infinity distance when I focus with the center point - from camera to about 20 meters away, the picture is mushy and blury. But when I switch the focus point with the joystick (+2 moves on the left or +2 moves on the right) everything is ok - same thing is on mid distance 30 - 40 meters from camera. I have checked this on tripod, no IBIS, in AF-C and AF-S mode. So i think it might be something with firmware - first lens had the same issues at 24 mm.
j4nu wrote:
Hmm, strange indeed... I'll try this myself on my copy - so do you focus @infinity@ wide open?
Maybe, it's field curvature?
Maybe it is. I've tried this in two scenarios:
1. Grab focus on building with good detail and contrast - about 150 m from me
2. Grab focus on building with good detail and contrast - about 40 m from me
No problem with side af point's (for example +2 on the left from center or right). This was a problem on 24 mm. From 30 and above, the issue wasn't there.
damiroz wrote:
Maybe it is. I've tried this in two scenarios:
1. Grab focus on building with good detail and contrast - about 150 m from me
2. Grab focus on building with good detail and contrast - about 40 m from me
No problem with side af point's (for example +2 on the left from center or right). This was a problem on 24 mm. From 30 and above, the issue wasn't there.
I have to admit you have a good eye for this stuff .
I see the same behavior with mine:
Schlotkins wrote:
Man, I am looking for a midrange zoom. Seems like none of the current native options are all that compelling. Blah.
Well, you have a plethora of options nowadays, to name the most interesting to my eye:
* Tamron 28-200
* Tamron 28-75
* Sigma 24-70
* Sony 24-70 GM
* Sony 24-105
but I think it's true for any system that these "standard" zooms will have some downsides...
It all depends on what you value the most and what you can tolerate .
I was sure I would sell my Tamron 28-75 the moment I got the Sigma, but it's still here sitting on the shelf because it's that much more compact I can't let it go easily, even though I like pictures from the Sigma better (and 24mm on the wide end)...
I'm also close to coming to a conclusion, that for majority of my type of shooting a "standard" (35-50 mm) prime is enough and I get wide aperture as a bonus .
Yea I mean for me I have a baby now so I’m thinking ahead to when he is running around in a year or two. 2.8 will be helpful there as well as good af. Primes are great but with him running around zooming will be important to get shots.
Before this i shot landscape and Astro. LAOWA 15 - tokina 20 - samyang 24 for Astro and then fe 16-35 and Contax 35-70 for landscape on a terribly focusing a7r. Now I’m out of my element haha
j4nu wrote:
Well, you have a plethora of options nowadays, to name the most interesting to my eye:
* Tamron 28-200
* Tamron 28-75
* Sigma 24-70
* Sony 24-70 GM
* Sony 24-105
but I think it's true for any system that these "standard" zooms will have some downsides...
It all depends on what you value the most and what you can tolerate .
I was sure I would sell my Tamron 28-75 the moment I got the Sigma, but it's still here sitting on the shelf because it's that much more compact I can't let it go easily, even though I like pictures from the Sigma better (and 24mm on the wide end)...
I'm also close to coming to a conclusion, that for majority of my type of shooting a "standard" (35-50 mm) prime is enough and I get wide aperture as a bonus ....Show more →
This includes measured MTF diagrams at 40lp/mm at f/2.8 f/5.6 and f/8, which goes beyond what Sigma provides.
They show pretty strong astigmatism at 24mm and what will likely end up as not critically sharp corners on high res bodies across all focal lengths - at least at f/2.8 and f/5.6.
j4nu wrote:
Well, you have a plethora of options nowadays, to name the most interesting to my eye:
* Tamron 28-200
* Tamron 28-75
* Sigma 24-70
* Sony 24-70 GM
* Sony 24-105
but I think it's true for any system that these "standard" zooms will have some downsides...
It all depends on what you value the most and what you can tolerate .
I was sure I would sell my Tamron 28-75 the moment I got the Sigma, but it's still here sitting on the shelf because it's that much more compact I can't let it go easily, even though I like pictures from the Sigma better (and 24mm on the wide end)...
I'm also close to coming to a conclusion, that for majority of my type of shooting a "standard" (35-50 mm) prime is enough and I get wide aperture as a bonus ....Show more →
sigma 28-70 is your answer to replace the tamron with.
it's a good bit smaller than the tamron, which is pretty small already!
it's sharper, and has nicer bokeh on the long end where tamron struggles. Had to return due to the recall, but I'm heavily leaning on buying it again to replace the tamron. I cant be bothered by the other 24-70's, I refuse to put up with that weight increase, and for some perspective, the 17-28 f2.8 + sigma 28-70mm f2.8 combo, weighs as much as the 24-70 GM..... if you're finding 24-28 to be a lot, then 17-24 is a whole new world
it's a shame sigma didnt reinvent the 24-60mm f2.8 instead, as the smaller option.....
This includes measured MTF diagrams at 40lp/mm at f/2.8 f/5.6 and f/8, which goes beyond what Sigma provides.
They show pretty strong astigmatism at 24mm and what will likely end up as not critically sharp corners on high res bodies across all focal lengths - at least at f/2.8 and f/5.6.
Interesting. Leica takes the Sigma lens, puts it in a metal body, and then charges THREE times the price.
?
.
