My guess is the Sigma will render slightly better, but I doubt it will be sharper, especially at the long end. (Talking Sigma 28-70.)
This is based on conjecture from what I've seen from the Sigma, no first hand experience. I have quite a few Sigma lenses though.
I actively use Sony, Voigtlander, Pentax, Zeiss, Tamron, Leica......and less actively use Nikon, Olympus...and probably some I'm forgetting. I've grown accustomed to things being different (direction, feel, location, etc.)
zeitlos wrote:
I‘m also tempted by the Sigma 28-70 f2.8. However, I already have a 24-70mm and I like 24mm because it provides you with a lot more versatility.
Any (valid) reasons to pick the Tamron and not the Sigma 28-70mm 2.8? I read that it‘s not really sharp at 70mm. The Tamron seems to be perfect at any focal length.
Edit and btw.: Do you mind the different directions of rotation of the Sigma zooms? I can already tell when I rarely use the Sigma 24-70 that I‘m always a bit “confused“ at first ...
So I wonder if the combination 17-28 (Tamron) + 28-70 Sigma is a good combination in this regard. Is it just me who has these concerns?...Show more →
Notice the shallower depth of field in the foreground for the Tamron vs the CVs. The Tamron is wide open, so it can't be focus shift. Unless it's field curvature or something... But again it's not uncommon for me to see more range fall within the sharp area of the CVs than some of my other lenses.
I think this performance is pretty respectable for a zoom wide open against the CVs.
I can’t really see much difference. They’re all good lenses. 28-75 does just fine in these shots. Might be others where it’s not so good. But I am tempted.
tsdevine wrote:
Okay, these comments are based on having the time to do a couple hours of shooting on one day...and my interest was more focused on how the Tamron compares to my primes, not the 24-105. My impression of the 24-105 is that it's an excellent all around lens, very flexible in covering a broad FL range, having OSS, etc. But at different FLs and different apertures it's a little bit of a mixed bag (some FLs are sharper across the frame than other FLs at the same aperture.) This is not uncommon for zooms.
Primes are easier to judge...you have one FL and you run the apertures, and you can get a feel for performance. Maybe you need to look for field curvature and focus shift, but you can figure it out somewhat quickly. It takes me to sort of understand how a zoom performs at different FLs, it takes some quality shooting time.
So far, I've found the Tamron to be "closer" to my CVs in performance than it is to the Sony. One area the CVs always seem to win is that the depth of field at a given aperture seems wider at a given f-stop than either of the zooms. So for landscape that's a big advantage. It has more bite in general (sharpness and contrast), but the Tamron is closer to the CVs than it is to my 24-105. Again....my judgement based on my copies of the lenses on the a7R III. All based on a few hours of shooting, so take it for what it is.
My copy seems very close to perfectly centered, at least more centered then I often expect from a zoom. It's sharp from wide open, to the corners, and every FL I've shot.
Again, the knock I feel is that it seems like there is a loss of foreground depth of field compared to my other lenses at the same aperture (similar to the 24-105.) I don't know if it's focus shift or something else. I have not tested sharpness across the frame at close distances, so I know others have expressed some concern there.
For me, there is tangible difference between the 24-105 and 28-75. Again, based on limited shooting.....
Having had a chance to look at your full size photos on a 4k monitor. I agree the tamron is between the sony and the CV. All of the photos look very good to me. As you said the tamron has a bit more bite than the sony.
I have primes for normal use, but for backpacking I am interested in either three light primes or the 20mm f3.5 and the G2. Looks like the G2 will do it unless something better comes along in the next few months.
Note that there is more depth of field in the foreground for the CV 35, and less behind the subject. The Tamron has less in the foreground, but seems to have slightly more behind. I focused on the upstairs window for both.
I'm the same in generally preferring primes. In certain situations (like when I'm out with the family), I'd like to use a zoom as a walkaround, but I usually end up just going with one of my primes. The Tamron is more in the ballpark of my better primes (on the a7R III), so I finally think I can start using a zoom in those situations. (And yeah...I'll probably still have some primes in my bag for when I find something really really awesome and I'll swap just for those shots.)
Roadless wrote:
Thank you for the comparison.
I have primes for normal use, but for backpacking I am interested in either three light primes or the 20mm f3.5 and the G2. Looks like the G2 will do it unless something better comes along in the next few months.
Thank you for these comparison shots. For a zoom it holds up well to those CV primes, which are both among the sharpest out there. I'm also quite impressed by the rendering.
These simple USB-C dust caps plug the open USB-C hole in the Tamron 28-75 G2 for weatherproofing
They are made for phones but work perfectly on the Tamron 28-75 G2 lens
I would certainly choose the Tamron 28-75 G2 over the manual focus CV primes
Any slight image quality improvement on the prime is not work dealing with manual focus
For most of what I shoot, I don't mind manual focus at all, in fact I kind of enjoy it. Either way, choice is good, everyone can be happy.
rattlebonez wrote:
I would certainly choose the Tamron 28-75 G2 over the manual focus CV primes
Any slight image quality improvement on the prime is not work dealing with manual focus
Yeah, not an exhaustive testing, but I'm pretty pleased with the results so far. It's also very sharp at wider apertures.
kevphoto wrote:
Thank you for these comparison shots. For a zoom it holds up well to those CV primes, which are both among the sharpest out there. I'm also quite impressed by the rendering.
tsdevine wrote:
I'm the same in generally preferring primes. In certain situations (like when I'm out with the family), I'd like to use a zoom as a walkaround, but I usually end up just going with one of my primes. The Tamron is more in the ballpark of my better primes (on the a7R III), so I finally think I can start using a zoom in those situations. (And yeah...I'll probably still have some primes in my bag for when I find something really really awesome and I'll swap just for those shots.)
Your tests have been especially impressive. Tbh, I've avoided using my (loaned) 24-105 G very often because I find it doesn't really come into its own until 5.6/8, which isn't always the best for casual documentary... especially with the faster moving smaller subjects :P
Your tests showing it competing pretty well with the the APO-Lanthar of all lenses have been especially dramatic, and along with other reviews have made it very likely that at some point this will find its way into my bag as a dedicated spring/summer outing workhorse.
At this point, I think the only thing that could sway my opinion away from this lens would be an even more impressive reproduction ratio and/or an even greater reduction in size. I'd be fine with limiting the zoom range even further to make either happen, but this is the first zoom I've really seen that would relax the death grip my hands have on primes for their obvious advantages in image quality—and that's the one thing that can't change for me in a possible future purchase.
DPReview's review. They give the preference for the Tamron on autofocus performance and general sharpness and the preference for the Sigma when it comes to rendering and overall build quality.
I owned the first version of this Tamron and the main reason why I sold it was the bokeh. dpreview has posted their review and confirms this has been improved with the G2.
This is really a nice upgrade from G1. Better AF, sharpness and rendering.
@tsdevine, thanks for posting the comparison pictures. The differences with the CV are really small. By any chance do you have a few (close up) shots taken with the G2 at 75mm f/2.8, I would like to see the rendering ?
zz wrote:
DPReview's review. They give the preference for the Tamron on autofocus performance and general sharpness and the preference for the Sigma when it comes to rendering and overall build quality.
Looks really good overall, especially the improved rendering. But that flare resistance is a bit of a pickle. Either they picked the worst possible scenarios or the lens performs really poorly in this area. I had the first version but don't recall such severe flare issues.
zz wrote: