Fred Miranda wrote:
Love how close this lens can focus. The lens can almost touch the subject. At f/3.5 there is some glow from SA but stopping down to f/4.5 or f/5.6 at MFD things look very crispy.
I totally agree the close focusing capability is fantastic and can be used for so many creative compositions. I pair this Sigma 24mm with my Sigma 45 mm and 65 mm for a nice compact 3 lens kit.
Seems to me that the Tamron 24mm f2.8 is the overall better deal.
- Has f2.8
- Macro up to 1:2
- Only 200 bucks now!
- Sharp into the corners at 2.8
- Really good flare resistance, very low coma
- AF is better than it seems - especially in AF-C. At least it hits very consistently, and it's perfectly usable and fast enough in handheld macro shooting.
I've read pretty much every review you can find online for the Sigma 24mm 3.5. The Tamron is not only the better deal but also the better performer in terms of sharpness...especially outside it's MFD at wider apertures (According to sonyalpha.blog's testing, it is also better in the corners). All for 200 bucks- which is crazy.
I have the Tamron and it is sharp (By far the better deal) but the Sigma I series wins for user experience. It also appears to have an unusually nice OOF rendering for such a slow lens.
The Sigma 24/3.5 has lower distortion than the Tamron 24/2.8 as well as the Sony 24/2.8 G. This convinced me to get the Sigma. Btw the Sigma provides an excellenet user experience.
bjornthun wrote:
The Sigma 24/3.5 has lower distortion than the Tamron 24/2.8 as well as the Sony 24/2.8 G. This convinced me to get the Sigma. Btw the Sigma provides an excellenet user experience.
Tests can be found at lenstip.com.
I was planning on testing it for distortion today. I don't find much in my real world images.
The Sigma 24/3.5 DG DN has very impressive distortion control. The best I've seen in a 24mm lens.
The Lightroom distortion correction shows zero changes from the non-profiled image. Wow.
Great lens for street photography. With a small crop one can get 24mm and 28mm in one.
LR profile turned OFF
LR profile turned ON. (zero difference from having it "OFF")
Is the IQ of the Sigma with distortion correction OFF really significantly better than the IQ of the Tamron with correction ON? That is the crucial question for me.
You can see lots of samples here. It includes some samples between the Tamron as well. The Sigma does have a very nice OOF rendering. The chart toward the center of the review shows the Tamron is always better in the corners at respective apertures. It also bests the Sigma in the center at F8.
I have not owned the Tamron, but I hear for $199 in the USA it's a sharp punchy lens. For the money superb. The Sigma is nice too. It is possible it isn't as sharp, though it doesn't lack in real world images. It has a very nice build quality. It has super close focus and seems to have the I series Sigma look. I am tempted to get the Tamron too, but the distortion has to be taken into consideration.
MARKFER wrote:
I have not owned the Tamron, but I hear for $199 in the USA it's a sharp punchy lens. For the money superb. The Sigma is nice too. It is possible it isn't as sharp, though it doesn't lack in real world images. It has a very nice build quality. It has super close focus and seems to have the I series Sigma look. I am tempted to get the Tamron too, but the distortion has to be taken into consideration.
I sold my Tamron after getting the Sigma. Yes, the Tamron is a sharp punchy lens and has a very nice close focusing capability. But, the build quality of the Sigma is superior to the Tamron and I really liked the rendering of the out-of-focus areas better than that of the Tamron.
Chuck Coyne wrote:
I sold my Tamron after getting the Sigma. Yes, the Tamron is a sharp punchy lens and has a very nice close focusing capability. But, the build quality of the Sigma is superior to the Tamron and I really liked the rendering of the out-of-focus areas better than that of the Tamron.
Rendering and build quality aside, the main issue with the Tamron is the very high distortion whereas the Sigma 24/3.5i is distortion free.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Rendering and build quality aside, the main issue with the Tamron is the very high distortion whereas the Sigma 24/3.5i is distortion free.
Yes, you are correct, I didn't mention the distortion difference. It was very clear when comparing the Tamron 24 mm Raw files to the Sigma 24/3.5i Raw files with no auto-correction applied.
I, like anyone else, know that the distortion of the Tamron is high.
But no one to this point has answered my question from above, so I will repeat it, a bit rephrased:
When comparing the corner sharpness of a UNcorrected Sigma file with the corner sharpness of a CORRECTED Tamron file, is there - given the anyway a bit lower sharpness of the Sigma, as some here stated - actually a significant difference that warrants to shun the Tamron?
hasenbein wrote:
I, like anyone else, know that the distortion of the Tamron is high.
But no one to this point has answered my question from above, so I will repeat it, a bit rephrased:
When comparing the corner sharpness of a UNcorrected Sigma file with the corner sharpness of a CORRECTED Tamron file, is there - given the anyway a bit lower sharpness of the Sigma, as some here stated - actually a significant difference that warrants to shun the Tamron?
I tested my Sigma 24 mm 3.5/i against my Tamron 24 and Sony 24 GM and decided to sell the Sony 24 GM, Tamron 24 mm and replace them with the Sony 20 mm G lens. The Sigma 24 mm 3.5/i was sharp enough across the frame including the corners at f/4, f/5.6, f/8, and f/11 compared to both the Sony and Tamron to replace them as my travel and landscape 24mm prime lens. The Sony 20 mm gives me a strong wider focal length prime that I can use at f/1.8 for low light and Astrophotography purposes. The major reason I purchased the Sony 24 f/1.4 GM was for that low light and Astrophotography purposes. Once I tested the Sigma 24 mm I realized I would be better off with that lens versus the Sony or Tamron 24 mm lens for my photography needs.
Your needs may be different and I would suggest you rent both the Tamron and Sigma 24 mm lenses and see for yourself what fits your needs.
hasenbein wrote:
I, like anyone else, know that the distortion of the Tamron is high.
But no one to this point has answered my question from above, so I will repeat it, a bit rephrased:
When comparing the corner sharpness of a UNcorrected Sigma file with the corner sharpness of a CORRECTED Tamron file, is there - given the anyway a bit lower sharpness of the Sigma, as some here stated - actually a significant difference that warrants to shun the Tamron?
Phillip Reeve did a nice review of the Tamron; this was before the Sigma was released, so there are no direct comparisons:
"Distortion is beyond very high and will have to be corrected in many images. A value of +28 in LR corrects it well enough but not perfectly because distortion isn’t simple barrel but complex. Probably we will se a profile which corrects it better in the future.
After correction and cropping the 24 MP image of my a7II has only 20.5 MP, which is a loss of about 15% in resolution."
He further states that corners suffer on the corrected file.
Now, the Tamron is a screaming good deal, so, for the money, does it matter? If that's a main consideration, I'd say it doesn't matter on a lens that costs $300 CDN. I don't like the size and build of the Tamron and I'm at the stage of life and my photography hobby that I'd pay more for what the Sigma brings to the table...but that is $400 more in Canada, at the moment. I understand why that would give a person pause.
It is simply not true that after correction the image has fewer megapixels.
With correction profile "on" in LR/ACR the resulting file still has 6000x4000px.
Philipp Reeve, at the time of his review, had to correct manually because no profile was available - thus his finding with the 20.5MP. Irrelevant today.
Would be interesting to see a corner test on the Tamron 24 vs other similar lenses after correction. I have no ability to do so, but I've read general information about issues that can crop up at the pixel level with fixing major distortion.
hasenbein wrote:
It is simply not true that after correction the image has fewer megapixels.
With correction profile "on" in LR/ACR the resulting file still has 6000x4000px.
Philipp Reeve, at the time of his review, had to correct manually because no profile was available - thus his finding with the 20.5MP. Irrelevant today.
Point taken. There is, however, no free lunch. Distortion correction is always a matter of 'is resolution loss noticeable' not whether or not it happens. So, take a photo, correct, look at the corners. Does it matter? For most people and most situations, the answer is likely 'not one bit' and the resultant corrected image is typically visually more pleasing than the uncorrected image. It varies image to image, but for me, I'm unlikely to have detail of any sort in at least two corners and half the edges so...likely wouldn't matter.
The choice between these two lenses is, IMO, down to cost and haptics. I doubt there's much of a performance difference.
