I always have high expectations when going to this channel for a lens review. And I'm never left disappointed. Looking forward to the more detailed comparison with the Tamron!
Hi Dustin. Thank you for another great review. Also great job for noticing and commenting on Sigma’s reverse zoom action. It is a thing that puts me off (I have some Sigma primes but no zooms so far, largely because of that too), so I hope that people at Sigma are watching and taking notes :)
@@NoahLoveladyAllen I understand that, it seems they just messed up from the beginning because same as they might upset some existing customers (even though those might have Sony lens(es) too, on the other hand they will lose other potential buyers. Reverse zoom was the single exclusive reason why I went with Tamron’s 28-75 instead of Sigma 24-70 Art. I prefer Sigma’s features and build quality, filter size is not a problem since I use 82mm already, added weight was not a problem too, I own a 35mm 1.2, Sony 135 1.8GM and Sony 200-600 just as an example that I don’t mind the weight over Tamron. I didn’t buy it only because of having a lens that is gonna throw me off when I change between that one and other Sony zooms. And it would, as I tried my friend’s 24-70 when deciding which standard zoom to buy.
Thanks for the review, Dustin! I really like the build quality of Sigma lenses and would have loved the 1mm more on the wide end but the lack of weather sealing is a deal breaker for me as a landscape photographer. Cannot understand such a poor move from Sigma tbh. It's gonna be the Tamron. (Again.) 🤷🏻♂
Great review, you're doing an amazing work! I'm wondering if the amount of cropping to correct the distortion at 16mm diminishes the advantage over the 17mm Tamron 🤔
Great review! After using both the Sigma 14-24 and the 16-28, which lens would you recommend if price wasn’t an issue? Where I live the 14-24 is only 200CAD more
I was surprised that many reviewers were not talking about the distortion etc. so I thought I would wait for your thorough review to ascertain if it were the case. Software profile is now integral to most compact lenses. For Sigma this software profile is built into their design. combined with its color & contrast rendering which gives it a signature punch. Your comparison with the tamron promises to be very interesting as to the minute differences. My feeling is both lenses will have advantages & disadvantages.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Actually your review brings out much more insight into lens design & the role of software - which choices are made in lens design vis a vis ergonomy - value - software correction that allows other aspects of the lens to succeed. I suspect Sigma got some negative feedback regarding their 20mm so they developed the lens profile in advance. These are very interesting questions. There is also a tremendous amount of sensory intelligence in specific lens design. Anyways thanks for your integrity at many levels
I ended up getting the Tamron 17-28 because it paired perfectly with my 28-75 G2. But this lens does look nice, I saw another review stating, with images, that the Sigma was overall better in the corners at every F-stop at every focal length. But not enough for me to worry about as I am not a corner guy and usual don't care about the corners, specially for Video.
Good review as usual !!!. While the Vignette and distortion is a bit high, but it's pretty easy to correct in PP, so that's no an issue, the main issue I have with lens like that is the short focal range. FOR ME, the only reason to go for a zoom is the convenience and flexibility, but a short range zoom lens like this totally defeats that purpose, that means I will be at least carry one extra or two lenses with it all the time, whether is the 14mm, or/and 35mm, so may as well just use the 14GM, 20G, 35GM combo, at least with the two or three primes combo I got the much image quality and much larger maximum aperture. With that being said, FOR ME, this is definitely not the lens I am remotely interested in. the light weight 14-35/16-35 would get my $$$.
Regarding Focus, Keep in mind E-Mount is open so Sigma has ALL/FULL specifications/licence. Reason why focus from Sigma/Tokina/Tamron can be as good (or sometimes better) than Sony native glas. This will NEVER be/never was the case for Canon/Nikon.
I would say this was a bit more ambitious then 28-70mm. At least it is a bit zoom not like tamron 17-28 which is very limiting and is essentially prime with a bit of zoom
I'm not sure one extra mm is a radical difference over the Tamron, but I agree that at least they are offering more than the competition rather than less.
Hi there, thanks for the video, may I know the detail of night sky sample photo in this video? The coma performance seems quite good, but which focal length did you use for this sample photo? Was this 16mm? I am looking forward to your reply, thank.
Although Sigma gives an additional ONE degree of zoom [which I would prefer] I feel that 90% of the photos that I would take with the Tamron would be of a higher quality image. Since that means that 90% of the photos taken with the Sigma would look better if I had the Tamron. That leaves the choice to be Tamron in my book.
![[TF2] The Russian Bear Trap](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YFNSwz2_rOA/mqdefault.jpg)
This video is sponsored by Fantom Wallet. Visit store.fantomwallet.com and use code DUSTIN15 to get 15% off
I always have high expectations when going to this channel for a lens review. And I'm never left disappointed. Looking forward to the more detailed comparison with the Tamron!
Great to hear!
Hi Dustin. Thank you for another great review. Also great job for noticing and commenting on Sigma’s reverse zoom action. It is a thing that puts me off (I have some Sigma primes but no zooms so far, largely because of that too), so I hope that people at Sigma are watching and taking notes :)
The thing is, if they change it now, they’ll upset existing customers who have multiple Sigma zooms
@@NoahLoveladyAllen I understand that, it seems they just messed up from the beginning because same as they might upset some existing customers (even though those might have Sony lens(es) too, on the other hand they will lose other potential buyers. Reverse zoom was the single exclusive reason why I went with Tamron’s 28-75 instead of Sigma 24-70 Art. I prefer Sigma’s features and build quality, filter size is not a problem since I use 82mm already, added weight was not a problem too, I own a 35mm 1.2, Sony 135 1.8GM and Sony 200-600 just as an example that I don’t mind the weight over Tamron. I didn’t buy it only because of having a lens that is gonna throw me off when I change between that one and other Sony zooms. And it would, as I tried my friend’s 24-70 when deciding which standard zoom to buy.
I do think that Sigma really did make a misstep with that, and Noah is right, they've kind of painted themselves into a corner, too.
Awesome review. We find honesty in your voice itself :)
I appreciate that!
Thanks for the review, Dustin! I really like the build quality of Sigma lenses and would have loved the 1mm more on the wide end but the lack of weather sealing is a deal breaker for me as a landscape photographer. Cannot understand such a poor move from Sigma tbh. It's gonna be the Tamron. (Again.) 🤷🏻♂
The Sigma does have a bit of weather sealing (a gasket).
@@DustinAbbottTWI Yep, and since it zooms internally it might work out. Would have still loved to see a better overall sealing though.
Great review, you're doing an amazing work! I'm wondering if the amount of cropping to correct the distortion at 16mm diminishes the advantage over the 17mm Tamron 🤔
That will get covered in a VS episode next week.
I’d love to see a comparison of Tamron 17-28, the new Sony 16-35 f4, this Sigma, and… the Sony 20mm G lens.
You'll get half of your wish list - I've got a video already filmed that compares the Tamron and Sigma and will be released next Friday.
Great review! After using both the Sigma 14-24 and the 16-28, which lens would you recommend if price wasn’t an issue? Where I live the 14-24 is only 200CAD more
If you don't mind the extra size and weight, I'd go with the 14-24 all day.
Thank you so much for the review!! Always have appreciated your work!!
Thank you very much.
I was surprised that many reviewers were not talking about the distortion etc. so I thought I would wait for your thorough review to ascertain if it were the case. Software profile is now integral to most compact lenses. For Sigma this software profile is built into their design. combined with its color & contrast rendering which gives it a signature punch. Your comparison with the tamron promises to be very interesting as to the minute differences. My feeling is both lenses will have advantages & disadvantages.
I find it very strange that certain reviewers just completely overlook certain aspects of lens design/flaws
@@DustinAbbottTWI Actually your review brings out much more insight into lens design & the role of software - which choices are made in lens design vis a vis ergonomy - value - software correction that allows other aspects of the lens to succeed. I suspect Sigma got some negative feedback regarding their 20mm so they developed the lens profile in advance. These are very interesting questions. There is also a tremendous amount of sensory intelligence in specific lens design. Anyways thanks for your integrity at many levels
Dustin your reviews are the best!
I appreciate that!
I was waiting for your review!!
Hope you enjoyed it!
I ended up getting the Tamron 17-28 because it paired perfectly with my 28-75 G2. But this lens does look nice, I saw another review stating, with images, that the Sigma was overall better in the corners at every F-stop at every focal length. But not enough for me to worry about as I am not a corner guy and usual don't care about the corners, specially for Video.
I'm not sure that's entirely true, but I do have some comparisons in my reviews.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Yes, I saw your review and trust your opinion, I just picked up the 17-28 and will hopefully get it today. Thanks!!
Thanks Dustin, well done as usual. Cheers
Thanks a lot, Gerald, and thanks for always promoting the videos.
how do you expose yourself when shooting alone using such a long lens?
i like your compressed shot, totally over kill but looks cool haha
I set the camera in AV mode and adjust to taste via Exposure Compensation. The camera can then make minor adjustments as needed.
Good review as usual !!!.
While the Vignette and distortion is a bit high, but it's pretty easy to correct in PP, so that's no an issue, the main issue I have with lens like that is the short focal range.
FOR ME, the only reason to go for a zoom is the convenience and flexibility, but a short range zoom lens like this totally defeats that purpose, that means I will be at least carry one extra or two lenses with it all the time, whether is the 14mm, or/and 35mm, so may as well just use the 14GM, 20G, 35GM combo, at least with the two or three primes combo I got the much image quality and much larger maximum aperture. With that being said, FOR ME, this is definitely not the lens I am remotely interested in. the light weight 14-35/16-35 would get my $$$.
That's a fair point.
Do you think we'll get a 70-200 f2.8 Art lens from Sigma?
I'm shocked we haven't already.
Regarding Focus, Keep in mind E-Mount is open so Sigma has ALL/FULL specifications/licence. Reason why focus from Sigma/Tokina/Tamron can be as good (or sometimes better) than Sony native glas. This will NEVER be/never was the case for Canon/Nikon.
That's very true.
witch one do you recommended for you video? taproom 17-70 2.8 or sigma 16-28. 2.8???
One of those lenses (Tamron) is only for APS-C, while the Sigma is a full frame lens. They aren't really comparable.
How does the Sigma 16-28 compare to Sony 20 1.8 optically? Really torn between the two!
The prime will be a bit sharper. You have to choose between the relative strengths of each lens and what your actual needs are.
I would say this was a bit more ambitious then 28-70mm. At least it is a bit zoom not like tamron 17-28 which is very limiting and is essentially prime with a bit of zoom
I'm not sure one extra mm is a radical difference over the Tamron, but I agree that at least they are offering more than the competition rather than less.
Hi there, thanks for the video, may I know the detail of night sky sample photo in this video? The coma performance seems quite good, but which focal length did you use for this sample photo? Was this 16mm? I am looking forward to your reply, thank.
Yes, it was taken at 16mm
@@DustinAbbottTWI Thank you so much, I think it can replace my Samyang 14mm for the night sky shots perfectly.
"Have a great day" you too!
Thank you!
would you recommend it for VIdeography on an sony a7 IV ?
It should work pretty well for that purpose.
thanks for your throrough review of this Sigma lens , I like it a lot despite its limitations....
My pleasure!
the bokeh is insane in your sitting on the rock talking headshot
I suppose he's using the 135 gm for that scene.
It was the 135mm F1.8 GM for that shot.
Although Sigma gives an additional ONE degree of zoom [which I would prefer] I feel that 90% of the photos that I would take with the Tamron would be of a higher quality image. Since that means that 90% of the photos taken with the Sigma would look better if I had the Tamron.
That leaves the choice to be Tamron in my book.
That's the challenge. I do have a comparison video between the two lenses coming next week.
@@DustinAbbottTWI cant wait! Im thinking of keeping my tamron 17-28