From my perspective of owning several of the Sigma DG DN Contemporary lenses - 24/3.5, 35/2, 45/2.8, 65/2, 90/2.8, 28-70/2.8 .. I think they have a clear design approach with these Contemporary lenses.
Larger F2 primes uses 62m filters (20/24/35/65)
Smaller 3.5 & 2.8 primes use 55m filters (24/45/90)
Minimal weather sealing but meets my A7C non-wilderness usage/need
OOF rendering that I like
For me, these are ideal with my A7C in urban settings and most intl travel.
I am guessing the chosen focal length for the new 16-28 was based on a number of design goals including internal zoom.
I use Sony G, GM and Batis prime lenses with my A7IV which I use for hiking and are more concerned about weather-sealing and less concerned about size/weight. I do have the new 24-70GMII on order (possibly replace my great 24-105) but will pass on the 16-35PZ.
This is interesting for those of us looking from the side of the superior L-mount alliance.. (I kid.. I kid..).
The only other comparable option (price-wise) is the Lumix 16-35 /4.. which has 7mm of reach to the Sigma's extra stop and -50g weight difference. I may order this from Amazon (easy return) and see what the IQ difference is.
Detailed comparison Sigma 16-28mm f/2.8 DG DN vs Tamron 17-28mm F2.8 RXD by Dustin Abbott:
In general more alike than different. Thou Tamron is sharper in the center and almost throu the whole frame outside of extreme corners. Distortion and Vignette is also way below the Tamron same with bokeh which is softer/nicer on the Tamron. Like i said before, considering the price and the fact that the Tamron lens was introduced like back in 2019(?) i've hoped for a better performance from the new Sigma.
I was going to wait for reviews like this one but I broke down and ordered the Tamron yesterday.The 2 deciding factors were the 67mm filter ring which matches other lenses I have, and secondly was the price. The Tamron currently has an instant rebate of $100 and there's a coupon on eBay for Father's Day that saved me another $100 on a new one from a Sony authorized dealer. After seeing this I'm even more pleased with the decision.
Pretty close overall, but the Tamron edges out the Sigma for me. The Tamron looks noticeably better in the center 2/3rds at the longer focal lengths and seems to have lower vignetting in the corners. Also I'm not liking the sunstars on the Sigma, the Tamron's sunstars are pointed and better defined. Add that to the cost difference, and its a lot to give up for the Sigma being 1mm wider.
grahamgibson wrote:
Pretty close overall, but the Tamron edges out the Sigma for me. The Tamron looks noticeably better in the center 2/3rds at the longer focal lengths and seems to have lower vignetting in the corners. Also I'm not liking the sunstars on the Sigma, the Tamron's sunstars are pointed and better defined. Add that to the cost difference, and its a lot to give up for the Sigma being 1mm wider
I fully agree. I was hopeful that the new Sigma lens would be a better lens overall but that's not really the case here.
Let's see what DA's review of the 16-35 mm f4 PZ will give (it seems the Sony PZ is slightly better but it's also significantly more expansive) or a potential G2 version of the Tammy which would improve the edges (just like what the G2 version of the 28-75mm brought us).
grahamgibson wrote:
Pretty close overall, but the Tamron edges out the Sigma for me. The Tamron looks noticeably better in the center 2/3rds at the longer focal lengths and seems to have lower vignetting in the corners. Also I'm not liking the sunstars on the Sigma, the Tamron's sunstars are pointed and better defined. Add that to the cost difference, and its a lot to give up for the Sigma being 1mm wider.
---------------------------------------------
nicephore wrote:
I fully agree. I was hopeful that the new Sigma lens would be a better lens overall but that's not really the case here.
Let's see what DA's review of the 16-35 mm f4 PZ will give (it seems the Sony PZ is slightly better but it's also significantly more expansive) or a potential G2 version of the Tammy which would improve the edges (just like what the G2 version of the 28-75mm brought us).
Is that based on one review with possibly only 1 copy tested or it's the consensus from several reviews?
Fred Miranda wrote:
Is that based on one review with possibly only 1 copy tested or it's the consensus from several reviews?
I've seen so far like 4 reviews where that Sigma was put against Tamron 17-28 and the consensus is pretty much the same. Weak and strong points of both lenses are the same, the degree of differences varies a bit since the copy variance is a thing.
j4nu wrote:
Yeah, hard to tell really.
This review:
shows actually a tad better performance on the long end on the new lens compared to 14-24...
I've seen it but he only does chart sharpness comparisons(and don't even bother with different apertures in it) which for me is semi-useless. Real world comparisons imo are way more accurate(like the one in later parts of Abbott vs video). That being said - i do appreciate his work.
Outside of that one review i didn't see anybody else confirming that this new Sigma is as sharp or even tad better than the 14-24 at any focal lenght or aperture. Even Sigma on their own website if you check both MTFs for these lenses - 14-24 is stronger at wide and long end, so he either got a bad copy or i don't know what was that.
Anyway, as more reviews pop up(direct comparisons) we gonna know for sure.
Just back from a trip where I had the Sigma 28-70, 20G and E70-350 in a PD 6 sling. This 16-28 was waiting for me and I will do some testing this weekend to see if the performance meets my travel photography needs.
If so, I will consider taking the 16-28 and 28-70 as a 2-lens kit for my next trip with my A7C.
Don't care about video and fast AF. I like the background rendering of the Sigma's. Saw a video where the Sigma CEO talked about this as a design criteria.
Would prefer the filter was also 67 but on my last trip, I rarely used my Kase Magnetic filters or never my mini tripod so apparently not my thing when traveling .. more interested in capturing the experiences then a photographic masterpiece worthy of a large print.
If somebody is looking at the extreme corners of my photos, then it is my fault because the compostion/light/subject was not interesting enough and no lens or camera will fix that
Just took the Sigma 16-28 for a hike in the forest and the performance certainly meets my needs.
Earlier was at the Arts festival in town .. since GNP is visible from town, lots of landscape photographers had exhibits selling prints from small to huge. Always fun to check out the work of people whose full-time job is landscape photography.
Here's the review I've been waiting for: The-Digital-Picture has just put up their test results for the Sigma 16-28, so we can now see how it compares to the Sigma 14-24/2.8
I was hoping for a lighter option that takes regular filters, but sadly, its not up to the performance level of the 14-24/2.8 ART, based on these results...
Petegh wrote:
I was hoping for a lighter option that takes regular filters, but sadly, its not up to the performance level of the 14-24/2.8 ART, based on these results...
you have to bite the bullet sometimes. the 14-24 is a marvel with little competition.
That link doesn't bring up the Sony PZ on the right hand side, it has to be set manually.
After doing so, the Sony is clearly the winner at every focal length at f/4.0, especially in the corners. Sigma has a lot of CA in comparison and is not as sharp. The only place is wins is seemingly less distortion.
dasbin wrote:
That link doesn't bring up the Sony PZ on the right hand side, it has to be set manually.
After doing so, the Sony is clearly the winner at every focal length at f/4.0, especially in the corners. Sigma has a lot of CA in comparison and is not as sharp. The only place is wins is seemingly less distortion.
