F2.8: Sigma 24-70 or Tamron 28-75 or Tokina 28-80 better?

[megane2]

You have a great point here. Weight is not a concern to me. I can walk all day zoo with my Bigma.

My only worry is the Tokina is only just as sharp as Sigma which is rather unacceptable.

I like tank-build lens. But, Tamron is really fighting it. Sigh

 

[smallaperture]

Sharpness is relative. What I suggest is go to Cathay and test both the Tamron and Tokina there using your cam, under the same condition. See the shots on your 15 inch monitor and see for yourself if there is a significant difference that matters to you. If you blow up to 100% and see the difference, you will. And if you wish to, also print at 4R to compare as well.

Most of the test reports show you 100% crop at corners, at the centre, wide open aperture and so forth to make you see the minute difference. Believe me, the difference is small in practical terms. There are other attributes that matter more, like built quality, durability and convenience of use and so forth. Sharpness is only one of them - optical performance.

There are photogs nicknamed measurbateurs - they are obsessed with measurements. And for portraits, they want to see if the subject's pores on the face could be seen despite being covered by make-up.... or tell the time from the watch of a woman in a large group photo.....

 

[budiman]

Hi folks, which of this 3 budget standard zoom lens is sharper, better contrast, better colour and better build? Please share your views. Thinking of getting 1 but confused and spoilt by choices.

Tamron! Sharp and contrasty

 

[Splutter]

I owned the tamron 28-75, now using canon 28-70. At the tele end, the tamron is at least on par with canon, but on the wide end, its pretty soft. Colours are also warmer with the tamron.

 

[sidder]

i just purchased the Sigma 24-70 EX DG Macro a week ago. i tried both the tamron 28-75 and the sigma 24-70 before i purchase my sigma baby. I look at the pics from both lenses on MS Color computer and i found that the sigma gave better colour definition and wide open sharpness than the tamron i tried. the diff in sharpness are definitely very minute at f2.8 at common focal lengths. but in the end the sigma was a much sharper copy than the tamrons that i tried in MS color. i personally have a very high sensitvity to sharpness and color definition and such, and the sigma won me over. part of the considering factor was the 24mm or 28mm. That 4mm proved very diff for me in my photography.

In the end the lens must sastify you in the pictures it produces. Take note that sigma 24-70mm have two versions, one older without the macro" word and the other with it. The newer one is the one with MAcro word. I would say Sigma have improved the optics using the lessons learn from the previous version.

take note of also back and front focusing when getting the lens. Take your time to test the lens thought... happy shopping !

 

[n0d3]

Well I guess its also up to what copy you get since the QC is not really there. Just be sure to test out a few copies so that you won't get a dud.

 

[megane2]

Sharpness is relative. What I suggest is go to Cathay and test both the Tamron and Tokina there using your cam, under the same condition. See the shots on your 15 inch monitor and see for yourself if there is a significant difference that matters to you. If you blow up to 100% and see the difference, you will. And if you wish to, also print at 4R to compare as well.

Most of the test reports show you 100% crop at corners, at the centre, wide open aperture and so forth to make you see the minute difference. Believe me, the difference is small in practical terms. There are other attributes that matter more, like built quality, durability and convenience of use and so forth. Sharpness is only one of them - optical performance.

There are photogs nicknamed measurbateurs - they are obsessed with measurements. And for portraits, they want to see if the subject's pores on the face could be seen despite being covered by make-up.... or tell the time from the watch of a woman in a large group photo.....

Thanks smallaperture for the reminder. Almost forgotten about other optical performance as Tamron is the sharpest. For me, as long as there's little or acceptable dispersion at wide aperture, I'm fine with it. Stop down should improve the sharpness.

 

[megane2]

I owned the tamron 28-75, now using canon 28-70. At the tele end, the tamron is at least on par with canon, but on the wide end, its pretty soft. Colours are also warmer with the tamron.

Thanks, great point to note. Canon is too much of an amatuer investment for me.

 

[megane2]

i just purchased the Sigma 24-70 EX DG Macro a week ago. i tried both the tamron 28-75 and the sigma 24-70 before i purchase my sigma baby. I look at the pics from both lenses on MS Color computer and i found that the sigma gave better colour definition and wide open sharpness than the tamron i tried. the diff in sharpness are definitely very minute at f2.8 at common focal lengths. but in the end the sigma was a much sharper copy than the tamrons that i tried in MS color. i personally have a very high sensitvity to sharpness and color definition and such, and the sigma won me over. part of the considering factor was the 24mm or 28mm. That 4mm proved very diff for me in my photography.

In the end the lens must sastify you in the pictures it produces. Take note that sigma 24-70mm have two versions, one older without the macro" word and the other with it. The newer one is the one with MAcro word. I would say Sigma have improved the optics using the lessons learn from the previous version.

take note of also back and front focusing when getting the lens. Take your time to test the lens thought... happy shopping !

Hmmm... interesting. Unbiased judgement. Another testing technic to learn. However, only CP has these 3 lenses.

Thanx for all bros input. Keep coming, don't stop. It's good for anyone looking for such zoom range.

 

[megane2]

From what I learn on internet, the Sigma Macro is not as sharp as non-Macro.

Is Tamron Di equivalent to Sigma DG coating? A lot of feedback about DG is very good.

 

[sidder]

From what I learn on internet, the Sigma Macro is not as sharp as non-Macro.

Is Tamron Di equivalent to Sigma DG coating? A lot of feedback about DG is very good.

its seems weird cos i have a fellow photographer who owns the DG DF Asp version of the 24-70( the non-macro) and he says its soft on his nikon D100. he has a EOS adapter also as he likes Canon's Soft focus lenses for his portraitture. i passed him my DG Macro to do comparison, and he says the Macro version is sharper than his. He is also considering selling or trading in his current lens for the Macro version.

Maybe its just the Nikon? lol... i will not know if u use the canon body that it will yield any diff should u try out both lenses. then again who has both lenses?

I will feel that its a match making situation in selecting the lens.some lens just have prob with some bodies until a new firmware comes out. but how can one predict whether the next firmware update will resolve the problem u have? (20D re-enactment?)

anyway rest assured, the 24-70 and the 28-75 are close to on par. both camps' users will have their opinions on their Tamron or Sigma lenses. I like the Tamron also, as it focus quitely. I also a little astounded when i first heard tamron build was not so good. but when i held it in my hand, it feels solid enough to be more than worthy that 625 dollars price tag. in fact i will love to have Tamron's smooth focusing and zoom ring on my sigma. Dun be mistaken though, Sigma is also quite well build only shortcomings is its surfaces of the housing and the zoom ring. Tokina, i have no say, IMO i will not go into those since the company is a little messy.(THK photo, who bought over who? Tokina? Hoya? Kenko?)

 

[litechaser]

yup, i tink alot of factors are involved in len sharpness. some say Sigma better but some prefer tamron... best is to see for yourself whether which is better as u are going to use the lens, not anybody else. it makes sense to test a lens at the shops to get a good copy. luckily my copy is a very sharp one. it fact it even beat my 70-200Lf4 and 17-40L in sharpness at f4 !

 

[megane2]

its seems weird cos i have a fellow photographer who owns the DG DF Asp version of the 24-70( the non-macro) and he says its soft on his nikon D100. he has a EOS adapter also as he likes Canon's Soft focus lenses for his portraitture. i passed him my DG Macro to do comparison, and he says the Macro version is sharper than his. He is also considering selling or trading in his current lens for the Macro version.

Maybe its just the Nikon? lol... i will not know if u use the canon body that it will yield any diff should u try out both lenses. then again who has both lenses?

I will feel that its a match making situation in selecting the lens.some lens just have prob with some bodies until a new firmware comes out. but how can one predict whether the next firmware update will resolve the problem u have? (20D re-enactment?)

anyway rest assured, the 24-70 and the 28-75 are close to on par. both camps' users will have their opinions on their Tamron or Sigma lenses. I like the Tamron also, as it focus quitely. I also a little astounded when i first heard tamron build was not so good. but when i held it in my hand, it feels solid enough to be more than worthy that 625 dollars price tag. in fact i will love to have Tamron's smooth focusing and zoom ring on my sigma. Dun be mistaken though, Sigma is also quite well build only shortcomings is its surfaces of the housing and the zoom ring. Tokina, i have no say, IMO i will not go into those since the company is a little messy.(THK photo, who bought over who? Tokina? Hoya? Kenko?)

Hmmm... Your friend may be unlucky.

Sigma do feel more heavy weight than Tamron. I feel the zoom ring tightens up when zoom in. The AF motor is rather noisy and may unpleasant if you are shooting in quiet ceremony. Lastly, the EX finished, no confident in that. My Bigma is flaking like crazy though it's output is magical.

My next step is to test out Tamron and Tokina.

 

[megane2]

yup, i tink alot of factors are involved in len sharpness. some say Sigma better but some prefer tamron... best is to see for yourself whether which is better as u are going to use the lens, not anybody else. it makes sense to test a lens at the shops to get a good copy. luckily my copy is a very sharp one. it fact it even beat my 70-200Lf4 and 17-40L in sharpness at f4 !

Better than 17/40 and 70/200... hmmm... Which one? Sigma or Tamron?

 

[litechaser]

Better than 17/40 and 70/200... hmmm... Which one? Sigma or Tamron?

it's the sigma 24-70

 

[Bryan831]

I got my copy of Tamron 28-75mm F2.8, DI Lens from John 3:16 about 6 months back. Wow! my copy is really sharp!

Before I make my purchase, I read many reviews and some were quite worrying. It’s basically about QC issues, mainly calibration inconsistencies with zoom lenses which plague most brands, including Tokinas, Sigmas, Nikons & Canons etc. Some people feel that being “Assembled in China” is the problem, but I don’t think so. Even lenses made and assembled in Japan faces similar problems as well. At the end of the day, it all boils down to the men & women on the manufacturing/assembly/calibration/quality control lines. Although the optical engineers at all major manufactures are able to design high quality standard zoom lenses of “24, 28-70, 80” range, they have little or no control on how the guys at the ground level produces them. In short, what’s on the drawing map may not necessarily translates into what it’s supposes to be at the ground level.

Tamron:
Optically, mine is impressively sharp, even at F2.8. Focusing is quick and “not noisy at all” in my opinion. Built quality is good but not comparable to Tokina’s “built like a tank “ feel. Filter size is great because its just 67mm instead of 77mm. This well sized package gets the photographic job done beautifully without having me to carry an excessively heavy lens like the original Canon 24-70L.

Tokina:
I own a 19-35mm zoom lens which performs well. True to what most people say, its really built like a tank. The only slight drawback is the slower and louder focusing motor. Otherwise, its really great value for money. I am very happy with my copy so far.

Since I have insufficient experience with Sigma zooms, it wouldn’t be fair for me to comment. The only Sigma I previously owned was the 50mm EX DG Marco. Apart from the slower and louder focusing motor, the rest are good. Optics wise, I think EX DG are generally good, as long as you get a good copy.

Hope these helps, thanks!

sorry to side track a bit, but what and where is john 3.16? i know its in the bible btw

 

[megane2]

May be, you can reference this thread.

Tel no. of camera shops

 

[Bryan831]

I have tested the DG Macro during Comex. Frankly, at wide open, it's unacceptable for me.
It's still soft with or without flash. I was surprised to be so, I even switch to manual focus to confirm. My Tokina superzoom fare better.

Since there's so many test conducted with Tamron and Tokina, and Tamron has proved to be better.
Sigma is therefore the 2nd runner up.

Found a url to compare between Sigma DG DF and Tokina ATX 280, although it's older model, but I believe it's the same output as the new model.

http://www.tawbaware.com/sigma_tokina_test1.htm

Well, i feel the Sigma is the best choice out of the three. Its robust build is one of its strengths compared to the tamron. BTW, i don't think you should come to a conclusion that the Sigma you tested at COMEX is representative of all sigma 24-70mm. from many sites and forums, you should know that there are extremely wonderful, or- extremely bad copies of any lens-even Canon or Nikon (especially for zoom lenses, not so for primes). from fredmiranda reviews, many people have said their copy of lens is "tack sharp" etc, and they feel that they have gotten a excellent copy of the lens.

That test is of the older Sigma, and thus, you cannot compare the Tokina to the Sigma. You can go read many reviews (does not have to be a comparison), and you will find that the Newer Sigma 24-70 f2.8 DG Macro has much, much better scores than the old DG DF.

If you would like to compare the Sigma (newer Macro version) and the Tamron, you can go to this site:http://www.pbase.com/fstopjojo/24702875 The picture results speak for themselves-the Sigma is sharper, and the color is better. Also, i quote from the webmaster of the site:
"Hi, I've seen that test before and must say it's certainly not representative of what the Sigma "can" do, especially wide open. Again, the new Sigma 24-70 is arguably the sharpest standard zoom wide open. It certainly could be a "dud" copy, as there are QC issues with all the standard zooms. Thanks and best wishes."
That test is the tabaware test that you found

 

[Bryan831]

its seems weird cos i have a fellow photographer who owns the DG DF Asp version of the 24-70( the non-macro) and he says its soft on his nikon D100. he has a EOS adapter also as he likes Canon's Soft focus lenses for his portraitture. i passed him my DG Macro to do comparison, and he says the Macro version is sharper than his. He is also considering selling or trading in his current lens for the Macro version.

Maybe its just the Nikon? lol... i will not know if u use the canon body that it will yield any diff should u try out both lenses. then again who has both lenses?

I will feel that its a match making situation in selecting the lens.some lens just have prob with some bodies until a new firmware comes out. but how can one predict whether the next firmware update will resolve the problem u have? (20D re-enactment?)

anyway rest assured, the 24-70 and the 28-75 are close to on par. both camps' users will have their opinions on their Tamron or Sigma lenses. I like the Tamron also, as it focus quitely. I also a little astounded when i first heard tamron build was not so good. but when i held it in my hand, it feels solid enough to be more than worthy that 625 dollars price tag. in fact i will love to have Tamron's smooth focusing and zoom ring on my sigma. Dun be mistaken though, Sigma is also quite well build only shortcomings is its surfaces of the housing and the zoom ring. Tokina, i have no say, IMO i will not go into those since the company is a little messy.(THK photo, who bought over who? Tokina? Hoya? Kenko?)

Yup. thats right. the newer macro version is very sharp if you get a good copy, compared to the older DF version. Maybe its just newer technology going into making the DG macro version?

IMO, you should either get the 24-70 DG (make sure its the macro one) or the tamron 28-75. its basically a question of you budget (tamron is cheaper) and which lens feels 'right' in your hands. for me, its the 24-70 and i'm going to get it in 2 weeks time!

 

[sidder]

hey bryan where u gonna buy from? Curious to know which shop u patronise