Just bought it. I was stressing that the new Sigma 24-70mm f2.8 II was "so much better" for only about $300 more, but it just isn't from an image quality perspective. I don't need faster AF or weatherproof construction, and my gimbal will appreciate the smaller, lighter size.
@@mediamannaman Does the Sony ZV E1 fix the lens distortion of the Sigma 28-70 for video? I have seen footage from this lens that had pretty bad lens distortion. Either there isn't a way to correct the lens distortion in the latest Sony cameras for video, or the lens correction feature wasn't turned on.
@@thatchinaboi1 Sorry, I don’t know. I’m a Panasonic LUMIX shooter and I’m not familiar with Sony gear. Sigma makes the 28-70 lens for L-mount, and that is how I got my experience with it.
As always, another great, thorough and thoughtful review. You are my go-to reviewer because you discuss all the important details, inevitably compromises and also put them in context. Great Job!
Congrats on 100k subscribers though you deserve WAY more! By far my favorite reviews on youtube are by you so thank you Dustin. And yes I do agree the lens needs to be priced lower to be more compelling. For just $200 more it is an easy win for the 24-70 2.8 dg dn lens which I bought and absolutely love. I think I use it more than anything else.
DG/DN versions of 35/1.4, 50/1.4, 70-200/2.8 are more pressing holes in my opinion. However, this new 28-70/2.8 DG/DN is also a welcome, compact, light alternative to the others.
Enjoyed the review and glad to see Sigma continue to release lower cost lenses but wish it had been cheaper than the Tamron. At the same price, I still think Tamron is the winner of these two.
Thanks. Is this a dust magnet like the Sigma 24-70 2.8? Im a bit scared of Sigma zoom after that lens. Got dirt on my sensor very first use. Returned it the next day. Was leaning more towards the Tamron 28-75 G2 but like the size and weight of this.
Unfortunately I don't have most lenses long term, so it's hard for me to comment on their long-term reliability in dust sealing. I didn't have problems over my review period, but that's typically only 2-3 weeks.
@@DustinAbbottTWI I know it's for APSC Tamron made 17-70 and sigma made a 24-60mm in the past for Nikon. Surely a compact 20 or 24-60 could be made in this day and age... would be great to see for e-mount
I'm really not seeing much on the 28-70 that really makes me pick it over the 28-75, let alone spending more on the 24-70 and getting its benefits. It's not a bad lens. Very, very far from it. But I've really been feeling that they should maybe release lenses that is maybe perhaps needed more like the long-awaited 70-200 f/2.8 DG DN Art.
@Oh hi Which was my thoughts when I first heard of this lens. It's most definitely an L-Mount focused release since there is no direct equivalent on there. They just released it on E-Mount as well because they can.
The appeal to me was the size. On an A7c, this is a really well balanced lens. The image quality is more than enough for sharp 4K. The AF eye tracking works great enough, and the price is also affordable ($800 now). There is NO better lens for the A7c in this zoom range. 24-70 is big. 28-75 is still big. the 28-70 is perfect.
If you go back to the days of film the 28-70 f2.8 was very popular way before the 24-70 f2.8, plus the fact that many people have switched to mirrorless in pursuit of a lighter more compact system it's not hard to work out Sigma's reason for releasing this lens
I noticed you often mention with new Lenses, that there is not yet a RAW profile. This is true, but only for Adobe Lightroom/Photoshop. If you open those images in Sonys Imaging Edge (or if you have an SIGMA with Sigma Photo Pro), the correction profile is there.
That's true, I'm sure, but since I review lenses from so many brands and on so many different cameras systems, I cannot go to each individual piece of software to do my reviews. It eliminates any common platform for doing comparisons.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Thats true, beside the fact that most people use LR/PS anyway, so thats relevant information for them. But as you're mostly reviewing on Sony, it might be a nice addition to show how it will look with the profile applied (with the disclaimer, that its not from LR/PS)
@@Vamp898 IIRC, the profile that Imaging Edge pulls comes from the lens itself and is embedded into the RAW files. Capture One will use that profile if Capture One doesn't provide one themselves. However, it's worth noting that that the in-built profile often doesn't fully correct for issues, especially for lenses with a lot of vignetting and distortion. I'm not sure what Adobe does for lens it doesn't recognize.
@@siyangqiu1 I use SPP and there the Profiles are all loaded but i can still adjust how strong they are. So for example for vignetting, i can increase the profile applied strength.
Great review, as always. Maybe I missed that part, but which lens would have an edge in the bokeh department, if we compare Sigma vs Tamron 28-75 F2.8?
Nice video! I'd love to buy this lens for video. But I'm really concerned about the DUST issue the 24-70 had. And also about the focusing speed, especially when fastly chamging focal length (to punch in or out for a dinamic effect) Thanks!
This lens is a bit more compact, if that is your priority. In terms of overall performance, I think I still slightly favor the Tamron due to better up close and center performance.
Jut got mine ! Took me sometime to get past that E, L Mount crap ! Canon uses FD ! Im using this basically for Sunset and Sunrises !!! My Nifty 50 will hold up the latter ! Yet there loads of room for what this lens can do ! The sharpness and color look good so far (with my T.V test (Snicker))
It would be really nice to know the aps-c performance. On the B&H page, it notes an aps-c coverage of 36-105 and that it's good for gimbal use. If I remember correctly, you have an a7riii or iv, which does video better in aps-c mode than full frame. So goes 4k performance on the crop setting for the a1, or likely any high megapixel body sony offers with an aps-c crop. Moreover, from your excellent review you noted its better in the corners and edges at 28mm (and 36mm on crop), and pretty darn good across the frame stopped down a few. At the portrait end, it sounds like it's maybe as soft as vintage glass wide open? Maybe a bit sharper. I'd love to see this at 105 on crop with an a7r series vs the 24-105 on the a7c or somesuch suitably equal comparison point. What all that leads me to wonder is, what would this be like as a portrait and video lens you can slap on your gimbal. Imagine taking it to a wedding with the idea that you would get your wideshots at 28mm for stills and mostly 36mm for video ultrasharp and crispy (like in 8k on the a1, but definately also 4k crop on the A7r), and then on the long end get that dreamier portrait look. I mean, how many clients went to the old canon 85 f1.2 dslr lens portrait shooter and said you know, I love the emotion and composition of this image but I just can't stand that the micro poors in my skin are not visible at 200 percent (which is something I think you point out - living with the lenses' compromises)? If you could share any thoughts you may have on what living with the lenses compromises might be like if it lived on your a7riii/iv, for stills and video capture, on and off gimbal, in the context of portraiture (the kind that gets the whole face/head in focus vs. an eyelash), wedding photography and wedding videography.
I'm late to this video. But, congratulations Dustin for 100k! Quite a benchmark in YT. I had been watching how it went like 99.7,99.8,.... And finally 💯
One thing I noticed at 2;13 Sigma is less longer than Tamron at 28mm this might give a little wide view. I observed that in Sony's 85 f/1.8 is wider when compared to 85 GM due to compact size.
I don't think there was a comparison that would show that, actually. I did show the difference at 70mm vs 75mm, but there was no direct comparison at 28mm that would measure that.
Ive seen another review where it shown that the manual focusing of the tamron lens is not that smooth, linear as of the sigma 28-70. What do you think about that?
They have no competition for a lightweight compact zoom for the l mount cameras including their own Fp camera. I think dimensionwise they have it right as the tamron lenses are bulkier - primes too. So carrying them in small pouches is much easier and combining it with their own 24 i series prime. Perhaps they will take out a lightweight UW zoom as well. The weight difference between this and the 65mm f2 is less than 100grams only the optics & ergonomy of the 65 is way ahead. So it is very interesting their compact zoom and prime designs.
Hi, I am subscribed to the channel and I always follow your reviews and tests, always very technical. I have a Sony A7R III A and I would like to buy the igma 28-70 C. It is suitable for 42 mpx and does not limit the sensor in image quality.? I saw that you use the same car as me too. Thanks
Interesting that the price difference in US dollars is so small. Its MSRP in Euro is 849, while the 24-70 is at 1200, which is also the street price at the moment. So over here the new lens is roughly two thirds of the price of the bigger brother, which makes a lot more sense. Still, the Tamron has a street price of 700 euros currently, so that would still be my choice today. I own the Tamron for two years now and I am very satisfied with it. It's out in the rain, it's out in heavy snow and it never once had me worried. But I only have the A7 III and I seem to be a lot more satisfied with all my lenses than people owning the A7R. Must really be a huge difference in perceived sharpness. Never had a moment where I thought the Tamron doesn't cut it.
You've brought up a point that I raise in the text review - real world market prices almost always favor a lens that has been out for a while. You can get the Tamron for close to $150 cheaper here in Canada at current prices due to discounts. That's going to be significant hurdle for Sigma to climb.
I'm curious - why? The A7C doesn't have a new sensor or new focusing technology that would change anything in terms of testing. It might be a nice pairing in terms of size, but that doesn't change testing standards at all.
It's been too long since I've reviewed the 24-105 (over three years) for me to really have an informed opinion between these two lenses. The Sigma is obviously much smaller and more compact and has slightly better image quality, but I did find the 24-105 to be a very solid lens. Probably the biggest difference between the two is price, though. Even discounted, the Sony is going to cost considerably more.
Quite surprised the Tamron really is the better choice. It's not that much longer, but overall quality of image and that extra zoom length sold me. But, I have a 24-105 f4 Sony zoom so I won't be getting either. I will look at he super wide zoom offering by these companies. Overall a great review of the Sigma while comparing it with the Tamron.
Can anyone tell me if this lens is linear manual focus on sony? Its 24-70 is (almost) linear but too big for me. The tamron is amazing BUT nonlinear manual focus (and quite strongly ramping up/down) and unusable for manual video work. Would really love to know!
@@DustinAbbottTWI thank you for taking the time to reply. Would you say its a big difference to the tamron 28-75 or the sigma 24-70 if you can compare to either of them? The 24-70 wasnt perfectly linear but absolutely usable for video. The tamron is just impossible to focus somewhat consistently...
You well said the logics at the intro.....who has really asked for this lens Sigma? To be Honest I really like the sigma's understanding's improvement over the mirrorless concept to make it as much as light and compact as possible, but I would rather liked it to be a 24-70 f4! Something is really missing in E-mount third party lenses or why not something more innovative like an 35-85 f2.8 if it's going to be 2.8 that was a better move to compete with tamron while many already have the Sony 16-35 lenses. And last but not least,where are the big boys sigma? It's been several years wildlife photographers asking for the 150-600.... Now sigma making a lens like this I'm quite curious to see what would be their take on longer ranges? 70-200 2.8 and a light weight 200-500 would be a great option to come next hopefully.
I think the general consensus will be that people like this lens fine but that no one was really asking for it. People definitely ARE asking for longer lenses.
Vignetting...While for stills it could be easily corrected in lightroom, but for videos, I had problems trying to remove it. Even though I wanted to love this lens, I ended up returning it just due to a vignetting issue. :(
Let’s be honest, this lens is really for Panasonic and eventually Canon. They just happened to also release it for Sony because they can. I’ll be buying the Tamron. That much vignette is enough to really introduce noise at the edges which will negate the slight sharpness advantage plus complex and significant distortion.
I really wish I loved my tamron, I don’t. It feels cheap, And I think 4mm is a big deal. Did not expect to feel this way, because the action is good, sharpness acceptable, and focus fast. I can’t deny my shallow love for build quality. I’d trade for the 28-70sig without hesitating.
I feel the same (I own the Tamron as well). The only compelling reason for someone who owns the Tamron to switch would be if they really, really need the smaller size for some reason.
It seem obvious to me that Leica transfer of lens technologies to Sigma was part of the alliance. It seems logical that shrinking FF lens sizes better be a priority or everyone will conclude that something like the new gfx100s might be a better way to go if your willing to carry those gigantic FF mirrorless lenses.
great review as always . thank you so much. I think sigma should skip this focal length due to tamron is a very great lenses for this focal. sigma should focus and bring out 70 200 2.8 make it shorter I don't mind if it being front element being bigger lol. 200mm f2 would be epic! . I'm usi.g sony 70 200 gm and not too happy with it sometime. but it is still the best 70 200 for sony.
I suspect that Sigma was thinking more about L mount than E-mount with this lens. And yes, I think a lot of us are eager for a quality 70-200 option from Sigma.
I meant it have better performance across at F4, consider for landscape, for portrait sure it's good enough at f2.8. And the irregular distortion put me off for video
Would this sum up the differences with Tamron? Other than the AF/MF switch, Bokeh and the outer circle sharpness, Tamron is the better lens? (Weather sealed, better CA control, better flare control, less vignetting and less distortion?)
I think even $800 would make it more compelling. It needs to undercut the Tamron in price, as on paper Tamron has the edge of an additional 5mm of reach...and a slightly cheaper price.
I’m assuming this was thought up more for L-mount. If I already didn’t own the 28-75, and I was shopping these two lenses, I dunno if there’s enough to make me choose this over the tamron. I’m sure some brain at sigma knows something that I don’t. I guess this is why I don’t work in product design lol.
I think there's some truth to what you are saying, for sure. The size advantage is most notable compared to any options on L-mount. It is definitely smaller than the Tamron, but probably not in a life-changing kind of way.
The good reputation of that tamron is quite the hill to climb. I couldn’t say much else until we can say sigma is planning on 2 more lesser priced trinity zooms also. I do like the idea of these zooms, and competition is always a great thing.
@@kodefashmodefa the bokeh and the smal size Wins it for me. But thats because the outlining on the tamron is a dealbreaker for me. I Will wait a bit for the Price to drop a bit though. Because i Think et Will become a bit cheaper pretty fast
@@kodefashmodefa no it’s hard edges in the background blur. Things in the background have really sharp edges that display a lot of extra contrast only around the edges of the background obstacles. To me that’s a dealbreaker. It makes things that are out of focus pop. And the only thing that supposed to pop is the things that are in focus. For some it might not mean something. But for me it’s a dealbreaker.
It just sucks that Sigma isn't doing anything for the RF mount. I'm guessing because of having to reverse engineer the lenses. Canon doesn't provide the resources like Sony
200 dollars more and you get a much better 24-70. 200 is less the cost of a wide angle prime. This would make sense if you was 100 or 50 dollars less than the Tamron.
The sigma 28-70 has a bit weak image quality at 70mm F/2.8 than sigma 24-70 f/2.8 and has serious problems at close-up image quality(70mm f/2.8). But when it comes to bulid quality, bokeh , size and weight, the 28-70 has many pros. Also it delivers sharp images when stopped down. I would rather buy sigma than tamron 28-75. It is nice for users to have more choice. Thanks for the review!
@@EFFTEEZEE In practice, if you do some shopping around, the Tamron will be significantly cheaper. If you buy via Greentoe, I'm sure you can get it for around $750 (new "buy it now" price on Ebay). Even if the warranty has already started ticking, Tamron's warranty is 5 years to Sigma's 4. The used market will be even cheaper as Amazon ran a 25% cash back promotion around Black Friday, so there are bound to be people willing to let theirs go for that price.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Anyone who wanted a compact F2.8 standard zoom on E-mount has already bought the Tamron, especially since Amazon ran a 25% cashback offer (making the lens $650) around Black Friday. The only people interested will be people coming into the system for the first time.
I own this lens and I can tell you: it's incredible. Light, bright, crisp, fun - and zero dust issues. Highly recommended.
I’m glad you enjoy it.
Just bought it. I was stressing that the new Sigma 24-70mm f2.8 II was "so much better" for only about $300 more, but it just isn't from an image quality perspective. I don't need faster AF or weatherproof construction, and my gimbal will appreciate the smaller, lighter size.
@@mediamannaman Does the Sony ZV E1 fix the lens distortion of the Sigma 28-70 for video?
I have seen footage from this lens that had pretty bad lens distortion. Either there isn't a way to correct the lens distortion in the latest Sony cameras for video, or the lens correction feature wasn't turned on.
@@thatchinaboi1 Sorry, I don’t know. I’m a Panasonic LUMIX shooter and I’m not familiar with Sony gear. Sigma makes the 28-70 lens for L-mount, and that is how I got my experience with it.
As always, another great, thorough and thoughtful review. You are my go-to reviewer because you discuss all the important details, inevitably compromises and also put them in context. Great Job!
I appreciate that!
Great thorough review. The amount of work you put into your reviews is admirable and appreciated. Thank you.
My pleasure!
100k subs! Well deserved, keep up the good work Dustin
Thank you very much!
Thanks for that nice review. As always, I really appreciate your calm and non-exaggerating way!
I appreciate that!
Congrats on 100k subscribers though you deserve WAY more! By far my favorite reviews on youtube are by you so thank you Dustin. And yes I do agree the lens needs to be priced lower to be more compelling. For just $200 more it is an easy win for the 24-70 2.8 dg dn lens which I bought and absolutely love. I think I use it more than anything else.
Thanks for the congrats, and yes, from a value perspective I think the 24-70 makes a stronger argument for itself.
DG/DN versions of 35/1.4, 50/1.4, 70-200/2.8 are more pressing holes in my opinion. However, this new 28-70/2.8 DG/DN is also a welcome, compact, light alternative to the others.
I'm with you 100% on all points.
24-105 f/4 or 28-200 f/4 DG/DN will also be welcomed. Sigma has little better IQ & build quality than Tamron.
Enjoyed the review and glad to see Sigma continue to release lower cost lenses but wish it had been cheaper than the Tamron. At the same price, I still think Tamron is the winner of these two.
That's a fair point. I think a price point at something more like $799 would have made it a more attractive lens on the market.
Thanks. Is this a dust magnet like the Sigma 24-70 2.8? Im a bit scared of Sigma zoom after that lens. Got dirt on my sensor very first use. Returned it the next day. Was leaning more towards the Tamron 28-75 G2 but like the size and weight of this.
Unfortunately I don't have most lenses long term, so it's hard for me to comment on their long-term reliability in dust sealing. I didn't have problems over my review period, but that's typically only 2-3 weeks.
Congratulation on the 100k Subs Sir. Well deserved!
Thank you very much!
The Tamron, for what it is pricing wise, if freaking amazing. Glad to have it.
Agreed. It has been an incredibly reliable, useful tool for me for the past two+ years
Great review. Prefer the Tamron (less vignetting & distortion, cheaper).Still, a 20-60 2.8 would make much more sense for me.
A zoom that goes as wide as 20mm and still reaches into 60mm would be an engineering challenge, for sure, and definitely wouldn't be this size.
@@DustinAbbottTWI I know it's for APSC Tamron made 17-70 and sigma made a 24-60mm in the past for Nikon. Surely a compact 20 or 24-60 could be made in this day and age... would be great to see for e-mount
@@scampifingers apsc and full frame focal ranges are two different things lmao tf u talking about
Congratulations on 100,000 subscribers. 👍
Thank you very much!
Thanks for this review Dustin, especially with comparisons to the Tamron lens
Glad it was helpful!
I'm really not seeing much on the 28-70 that really makes me pick it over the 28-75, let alone spending more on the 24-70 and getting its benefits.
It's not a bad lens. Very, very far from it. But I've really been feeling that they should maybe release lenses that is maybe perhaps needed more like the long-awaited 70-200 f/2.8 DG DN Art.
@Oh hi Which was my thoughts when I first heard of this lens.
It's most definitely an L-Mount focused release since there is no direct equivalent on there. They just released it on E-Mount as well because they can.
I do think that this was designed with Leica in mind above Sony, for sure. And yes, we need that 70-200!
The appeal to me was the size. On an A7c, this is a really well balanced lens. The image quality is more than enough for sharp 4K. The AF eye tracking works great enough, and the price is also affordable ($800 now). There is NO better lens for the A7c in this zoom range. 24-70 is big. 28-75 is still big. the 28-70 is perfect.
I am interested in this lens. Does the ZV E1 fix the lens distortion for video?
Yes it does.
Having a cuppa ☕ with my buddy Dustin on a beautiful morning talking lenses and such. 😀
Sounds great!
Hi Dustin, did you have a chance to compare it against the G2 version of the 28-75 Tamron?
No. The Sigma came out first and I didn't have one on hand when reviewing the Tamron G2
If you go back to the days of film the 28-70 f2.8 was very popular way before the 24-70 f2.8, plus the fact that many people have switched to mirrorless in pursuit of a lighter more compact system it's not hard to work out Sigma's reason for releasing this lens
Definitely.
You have exactly 100k subscribers right now !
I've actually got about 100,400, but they round up or down on the public counts.
I noticed you often mention with new Lenses, that there is not yet a RAW profile.
This is true, but only for Adobe Lightroom/Photoshop. If you open those images in Sonys Imaging Edge (or if you have an SIGMA with Sigma Photo Pro), the correction profile is there.
That's true, I'm sure, but since I review lenses from so many brands and on so many different cameras systems, I cannot go to each individual piece of software to do my reviews. It eliminates any common platform for doing comparisons.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Thats true, beside the fact that most people use LR/PS anyway, so thats relevant information for them. But as you're mostly reviewing on Sony, it might be a nice addition to show how it will look with the profile applied (with the disclaimer, that its not from LR/PS)
@@Vamp898 IIRC, the profile that Imaging Edge pulls comes from the lens itself and is embedded into the RAW files. Capture One will use that profile if Capture One doesn't provide one themselves. However, it's worth noting that that the in-built profile often doesn't fully correct for issues, especially for lenses with a lot of vignetting and distortion. I'm not sure what Adobe does for lens it doesn't recognize.
@@siyangqiu1 I use SPP and there the Profiles are all loaded but i can still adjust how strong they are. So for example for vignetting, i can increase the profile applied strength.
Great review, as always. Maybe I missed that part, but which lens would have an edge in the bokeh department, if we compare Sigma vs Tamron 28-75 F2.8?
I think the Sigma has a bit smoother bokeh.
Nice video! I'd love to buy this lens for video. But I'm really concerned about the DUST issue the 24-70 had. And also about the focusing speed, especially when fastly chamging focal length (to punch in or out for a dinamic effect)
Thanks!
That's fair. I would personally recommend the new Tamron 28-75mm G2. It's an amazing lens and has both superior focus and better weather sealing.
I’m thinking of upgrading from the A7C kit lens, what should I get between the 3?
This lens is a bit more compact, if that is your priority. In terms of overall performance, I think I still slightly favor the Tamron due to better up close and center performance.
Jut got mine ! Took me sometime to get past that E, L Mount crap ! Canon uses FD ! Im using this basically for Sunset and Sunrises !!! My Nifty 50 will hold up the latter ! Yet there loads of room for what this lens can do ! The sharpness and color look good so far (with my T.V test (Snicker))
I'm glad you are enjoying it.
good review. Thank you for your hard work and integrity. regards, Dan
My pleasure!
It would be really nice to know the aps-c performance. On the B&H page, it notes an aps-c coverage of 36-105 and that it's good for gimbal use. If I remember correctly, you have an a7riii or iv, which does video better in aps-c mode than full frame. So goes 4k performance on the crop setting for the a1, or likely any high megapixel body sony offers with an aps-c crop. Moreover, from your excellent review you noted its better in the corners and edges at 28mm (and 36mm on crop), and pretty darn good across the frame stopped down a few. At the portrait end, it sounds like it's maybe as soft as vintage glass wide open? Maybe a bit sharper. I'd love to see this at 105 on crop with an a7r series vs the 24-105 on the a7c or somesuch suitably equal comparison point.
What all that leads me to wonder is, what would this be like as a portrait and video lens you can slap on your gimbal. Imagine taking it to a wedding with the idea that you would get your wideshots at 28mm for stills and mostly 36mm for video ultrasharp and crispy (like in 8k on the a1, but definately also 4k crop on the A7r), and then on the long end get that dreamier portrait look. I mean, how many clients went to the old canon 85 f1.2 dslr lens portrait shooter and said you know, I love the emotion and composition of this image but I just can't stand that the micro poors in my skin are not visible at 200 percent (which is something I think you point out - living with the lenses' compromises)?
If you could share any thoughts you may have on what living with the lenses compromises might be like if it lived on your a7riii/iv, for stills and video capture, on and off gimbal, in the context of portraiture (the kind that gets the whole face/head in focus vs. an eyelash), wedding photography and wedding videography.
I think your video footage would look great. No problems there.
I'm late to this video. But, congratulations Dustin for 100k! Quite a benchmark in YT. I had been watching how it went like 99.7,99.8,.... And finally 💯
I was excited to hit that benchmark, for sure. Next stop, 250K :)
@@DustinAbbottTWI Soon!
One thing I noticed at 2;13 Sigma is less longer than Tamron at 28mm this might give a little wide view. I observed that in Sony's 85 f/1.8 is wider when compared to 85 GM due to compact size.
I don't think there was a comparison that would show that, actually. I did show the difference at 70mm vs 75mm, but there was no direct comparison at 28mm that would measure that.
Is video auto focus similar to the tamron? Or does sigma now have slight edge?
Tamron is a bit better as Tamron has access to Sony algorithms. Sony has a small financial stake in Tamron.
Ive seen another review where it shown that the manual focusing of the tamron lens is not that smooth, linear as of the sigma 28-70. What do you think about that?
They have no competition for a lightweight compact zoom for the l mount cameras including their own Fp camera. I think dimensionwise they have it right as the tamron lenses are bulkier - primes too. So carrying them in small pouches is much easier and combining it with their own 24 i series prime. Perhaps they will take out a lightweight UW zoom as well. The weight difference between this and the 65mm f2 is less than 100grams only the optics & ergonomy of the 65 is way ahead. So it is very interesting their compact zoom and prime designs.
I do think that this lens was designed more with L mount in mind.
Got the Tamron 28-75mm last year because of the weight over Sigma ART and now this... The compact size and bokeh is what I wanted, im regretting...
That's always a risk with the market, though I continue to be very happy with my Tamron 28-75 that I have owned since its launch.
Great review! Thanks!
Glad it was helpful!
Hi, I am subscribed to the channel and I always follow your reviews and tests, always very technical.
I have a Sony A7R III A and I would like to buy the igma 28-70 C. It is suitable for 42 mpx and does not limit the sensor in image quality.?
I saw that you use the same car as me too.
Thanks
The Sigma is sharp enough for your camera.
I am so concerned with center sharpness at 70mm F2.8 on the Sigma. Is it good enough for sharp portraits? The Art is to heavy for me.
I think it should work fine for that.
Daaamn the lack of proper weather sealing. Do you still think light splashes from pool photoshoots will be fine? :((
I would think so. Those are rarely penetrating anyway.
i would really appreciate f4 full frame e mount zooms
A 28-135 F4 lens would be wonderful. Especially if it had a zoom-lock that you could activate at any focal length.
I've heard that from a few people.
@@OccultDemonCassette yes man, but also the trinity
Thanks for great review
Glad it was helpful!
Interesting that the price difference in US dollars is so small. Its MSRP in Euro is 849, while the 24-70 is at 1200, which is also the street price at the moment. So over here the new lens is roughly two thirds of the price of the bigger brother, which makes a lot more sense. Still, the Tamron has a street price of 700 euros currently, so that would still be my choice today. I own the Tamron for two years now and I am very satisfied with it. It's out in the rain, it's out in heavy snow and it never once had me worried.
But I only have the A7 III and I seem to be a lot more satisfied with all my lenses than people owning the A7R. Must really be a huge difference in perceived sharpness. Never had a moment where I thought the Tamron doesn't cut it.
You've brought up a point that I raise in the text review - real world market prices almost always favor a lens that has been out for a while. You can get the Tamron for close to $150 cheaper here in Canada at current prices due to discounts. That's going to be significant hurdle for Sigma to climb.
Will it be available on Canon EF-M for M6 & M50?
It's unlikely. This is a lens designed for full frame, and, if anything, it would show up for RF, not EF-M
Both these 2 lenses needs to reviewed by fitting them on to A7C.
I'm curious - why? The A7C doesn't have a new sensor or new focusing technology that would change anything in terms of testing. It might be a nice pairing in terms of size, but that doesn't change testing standards at all.
What are your thoughts of this lens vs Sony's own 24-105?
It's been too long since I've reviewed the 24-105 (over three years) for me to really have an informed opinion between these two lenses. The Sigma is obviously much smaller and more compact and has slightly better image quality, but I did find the 24-105 to be a very solid lens. Probably the biggest difference between the two is price, though. Even discounted, the Sony is going to cost considerably more.
Quite surprised the Tamron really is the better choice. It's not that much longer, but overall quality of image and that extra zoom length sold me. But, I have a 24-105 f4 Sony zoom so I won't be getting either. I will look at he super wide zoom offering by these companies.
Overall a great review of the Sigma while comparing it with the Tamron.
We are spoiled by a lot of good choices these day.
Your shutter speeds were slightly different when doing the comparison between the Tamron and Sigma.
They didn't meter the same, but were within one third stop of each other. I balanced the exposures in post.
Can anyone tell me if this lens is linear manual focus on sony? Its 24-70 is (almost) linear but too big for me. The tamron is amazing BUT nonlinear manual focus (and quite strongly ramping up/down) and unusable for manual video work. Would really love to know!
It is not quite linear. I get slightly different results based on speed, though not major.
@@DustinAbbottTWI thank you for taking the time to reply. Would you say its a big difference to the tamron 28-75 or the sigma 24-70 if you can compare to either of them? The 24-70 wasnt perfectly linear but absolutely usable for video. The tamron is just impossible to focus somewhat consistently...
Does it have parfocal ?
I don't think so
You well said the logics at the intro.....who has really asked for this lens Sigma? To be Honest I really like the sigma's understanding's improvement over the mirrorless concept to make it as much as light and compact as possible, but I would rather liked it to be a 24-70 f4! Something is really missing in E-mount third party lenses or why not something more innovative like an 35-85 f2.8 if it's going to be 2.8 that was a better move to compete with tamron while many already have the Sony 16-35 lenses. And last but not least,where are the big boys sigma? It's been several years wildlife photographers asking for the 150-600.... Now sigma making a lens like this I'm quite curious to see what would be their take on longer ranges? 70-200 2.8 and a light weight 200-500 would be a great option to come next hopefully.
I think the general consensus will be that people like this lens fine but that no one was really asking for it. People definitely ARE asking for longer lenses.
Can you compare the sigma with the new tamron? I would be glad.😊
I'm afraid I don't have either lens on hand anymore. They were both loaners.
Vignetting...While for stills it could be easily corrected in lightroom, but for videos, I had problems trying to remove it. Even though I wanted to love this lens, I ended up returning it just due to a vignetting issue. :(
Hmmm, that should be corrected for in camera. Do you have corrections turned on?
Let’s be honest, this lens is really for Panasonic and eventually Canon. They just happened to also release it for Sony because they can. I’ll be buying the Tamron. That much vignette is enough to really introduce noise at the edges which will negate the slight sharpness advantage plus complex and significant distortion.
Fair enough.
But he fixed the distortion and it was still sharper?
This video is sponsored by Fantom Wallet. Visit fantomwallet.com/ and use code DUSTIN15 to get 15% off.
I've replayed 6.06 ten times. So funny. Thanxxx
Not a very good job of mounting the lens hood, was it? :)
I really wish I loved my tamron, I don’t.
It feels cheap, And I think 4mm is a big deal. Did not expect to feel this way, because the action is good, sharpness acceptable, and focus fast. I can’t deny my shallow love for build quality. I’d trade for the 28-70sig without hesitating.
Interesting, as the Tamron actually has a very durable build and good weather sealing. The Sigma's weather sealing is not at the same level.
Is this smaller then the 18-35 sigma?
Significantly smaller, and weighs a little over half the weight.
Very good review. Thank you.
I'll stick with my Tamron 28-75.
I see no reason, why should switch to the Sigma 28-70.
I feel the same (I own the Tamron as well). The only compelling reason for someone who owns the Tamron to switch would be if they really, really need the smaller size for some reason.
It seem obvious to me that Leica transfer of lens technologies to Sigma was part of the alliance. It seems logical that shrinking FF lens sizes better be a priority or everyone will conclude that something like the new gfx100s might be a better way to go if your willing to carry those gigantic FF mirrorless lenses.
Interesting take.
Personally can't see myself going for this instead of the wider starting point of 24-70mm art lens. Lighter is nice but not critical.
For some the loss of width is a deal breaker, for sure.
great review as always . thank you so much. I think sigma should skip this focal length due to tamron is a very great lenses for this focal. sigma should focus and bring out 70 200 2.8 make it shorter I don't mind if it being front element being bigger lol. 200mm f2 would be epic! . I'm usi.g sony 70 200 gm and not too happy with it sometime. but it is still the best 70 200 for sony.
I suspect that Sigma was thinking more about L mount than E-mount with this lens. And yes, I think a lot of us are eager for a quality 70-200 option from Sigma.
so it's a 28-70 F4.....still good vs zeiss 24-70/4
F2.8, not F4
I meant it have better performance across at F4, consider for landscape, for portrait sure it's good enough at f2.8. And the irregular distortion put me off for video
Would this sum up the differences with Tamron? Other than the AF/MF switch, Bokeh and the outer circle sharpness, Tamron is the better lens? (Weather sealed, better CA control, better flare control, less vignetting and less distortion?)
I would actually say the biggest advantage for the Sigma is the smaller size. Other than that, however, your summary isn't pretty good.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Did you mean "is pretty good"? I am deciding between these two lenses and this summary would be helpful. Thanks.
love to see this vs #Tokina AT-X Pro 28-70mm f/2.6/2.8
I tried to get some tokina loaners, but they never responded to my emails.
@@DustinAbbottTWI hopefully 🙏 someone will call me true
The new Sigma would be attractive if it was priced closer to around $699. $900 is a bit too much considering the plastic body and shorter reach.
I think even $800 would make it more compelling. It needs to undercut the Tamron in price, as on paper Tamron has the edge of an additional 5mm of reach...and a slightly cheaper price.
The 2.8 art is only 200 dollars more. The contemporary is over priced I think they should’ve went with 800
I had a similar thought. They probably should have tried to undercut the Tamron in price.
@@DustinAbbottTWI and with 200 dollars more you can get the art which is almost the equivalent of the Sony GM version 🤷🏻♂️
I’m assuming this was thought up more for L-mount. If I already didn’t own the 28-75, and I was shopping these two lenses, I dunno if there’s enough to make me choose this over the tamron. I’m sure some brain at sigma knows something that I don’t. I guess this is why I don’t work in product design lol.
I think there's some truth to what you are saying, for sure. The size advantage is most notable compared to any options on L-mount. It is definitely smaller than the Tamron, but probably not in a life-changing kind of way.
The good reputation of that tamron is quite the hill to climb. I couldn’t say much else until we can say sigma is planning on 2 more lesser priced trinity zooms also. I do like the idea of these zooms, and competition is always a great thing.
@@kodefashmodefa the bokeh and the smal size Wins it for me. But thats because the outlining on the tamron is a dealbreaker for me.
I Will wait a bit for the Price to drop a bit though. Because i Think et Will become a bit cheaper pretty fast
@@MadsGOlsen what do you mean by outlining? Like chromatic aberration?
@@kodefashmodefa no it’s hard edges in the background blur. Things in the background have really sharp edges that display a lot of extra contrast only around the edges of the background obstacles. To me that’s a dealbreaker. It makes things that are out of focus pop. And the only thing that supposed to pop is the things that are in focus.
For some it might not mean something. But for me it’s a dealbreaker.
It just sucks that Sigma isn't doing anything for the RF mount. I'm guessing because of having to reverse engineer the lenses. Canon doesn't provide the resources like Sony
Agreed. I'm hoping that changes soon.
Anybody else's eyes grow big when he first said a "focus as closely as 0.19cm"? :)
That would NOT be a very useful working distance :)
200 dollars more and you get a much better 24-70. 200 is less the cost of a wide angle prime. This would make sense if you was 100 or 50 dollars less than the Tamron.
I think I agree on the price points.
thumbs up for 10 Deutsche Mark 8:11 :))
I hear that all the time!
Great video but it triggers my OCD that you are placing yourself in the left of the frame and still turning out from the center 😅
Hi Chris...sorry about that, but there's not much I can do now :)
The sigma 28-70 has a bit weak image quality at 70mm F/2.8 than sigma 24-70 f/2.8 and has serious problems at close-up image quality(70mm f/2.8). But when it comes to bulid quality, bokeh , size and weight, the 28-70 has many pros. Also it delivers sharp images when stopped down. I would rather buy sigma than tamron 28-75. It is nice for users to have more choice. Thanks for the review!
And I think that Sigma is banking on there being others like you who have an instinctive bias towards Sigma.
Tamron is the Best forever Tamron!!!!
That's a pretty broad statement!
@@DustinAbbottTWI I consider the Tamron 28-75mm to be sharper, I don't change it for this one.
14mm is significant? Sigma has been on a roll.
It could be the difference between a lens/camera fitting in a messenger bag or not.
I'm so sick of the Top shelf camera bag already.. does anybody get that AD like all the time?
The ads do get repetitive. Ironically I don't watch RUclips videos (maybe one a week, if that!), so I don't see them much.
Sigma looks better than Tamron. Wait for the Sigma 16-28 f2.8
Better in some but not all ways.
Geez the ad was interrupted by another ad.
LOL - how rude!
coming soon, the world's smallest 30-65 F2.8
And then the pancake 45-55 F3.2.
Hmmm, I'm just not sure the market is desperate for that.
Wow. Close up IQ is quite bad.. In 'Normal' focus distances it beats tamron but IT IS more expensive than tamron..
The Tamron is definitely stronger up close. As for being more expensive - in the US market it is only $20 more, which is negligible.
@@DustinAbbottTWIBetter design, bokeh and general IQ for 20 bucks? Thats reasonable
@@EFFTEEZEE In practice, if you do some shopping around, the Tamron will be significantly cheaper. If you buy via Greentoe, I'm sure you can get it for around $750 (new "buy it now" price on Ebay). Even if the warranty has already started ticking, Tamron's warranty is 5 years to Sigma's 4. The used market will be even cheaper as Amazon ran a 25% cash back promotion around Black Friday, so there are bound to be people willing to let theirs go for that price.
@@siyangqiu1 I think this lens is designed to be L-Mount Version of Tamron 28-75mm F2.8 lens. As far as i know L mount does not have this kind of lens
@@EFFTEEZEE I think we are in agreement here.
Bokeh performance of Sigma at 70 looks better than Tamron at 75
I think you're right.
Who asked for this lens? They're overdue a 70-200 2.8 on Sony
I think that will be the prevailing negative view on this lens.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Anyone who wanted a compact F2.8 standard zoom on E-mount has already bought the Tamron, especially since Amazon ran a 25% cashback offer (making the lens $650) around Black Friday. The only people interested will be people coming into the system for the first time.
Your pronunciation of vignette and bokeh is like getting stabbed in the ear.
Nice review though.
That's just silly. They are both accurate pronunciations.
Great review ,thank you!
My pleasure.