A&P Tamron 28-75 Di 2.8 vs. Sigma 28-70 2.8 Df

Discussion in 'Lifestyle' started by Dnepr, May 8, 2005.

  1. Dnepr

    Dnepr Guest

    :x:


    They cost about the same. I hear horror stories about Tamron being not sharp.


    Im buying everything locally so that isnt the problem i guess, i can just keep replacing them. Anyways:

    Which one has better built?
    Which one is sharper?
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 8, 2005
  2. The_Eagle_Has_Landed

    The_Eagle_Has_Landed New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2005
    Messages:
    2,371
    Likes Received:
    0
    i have a sigma and the construction is solid, the attachments are metal not plastic, i never tried tha tamron but my sigma is sharp, but the sigma 300mm fully extended is just a bit soft, but my 28-70 is very sharp
     
  3. Dnepr

    Dnepr Guest

    +1 for the sigma :big grin:
     
  4. mucky

    mucky .

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2001
    Messages:
    44,972
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have my eyes on these two also for a purchase a month or two away. I'm leaning towards the Sigma because of the better build quality. What's the cheapest place have you seen this for? Lowest I can find is $280.
     
  5. Dnepr

    Dnepr Guest

    Im having trouble finding a place carrying DF, almost all have DG's



    Local store has em for around 350~


    Where did you find 280? Thats pretty cheap.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 8, 2005
  6. mucky

    mucky .

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2001
    Messages:
    44,972
    Likes Received:
    0
    What's the difference between the DF and DG? I had assumed the DG was a newer model of the DF. :confused:


    Here's where I found the DG for $280 new.

    http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=4687&item=7510212027

    Yeah, yeah, I know...ebay. :)
     
  7. Dnepr

    Dnepr Guest


    Im stupid.

    You are right.

    BH has it for 360. Ill either get it from them or just drive down to local store and buy it there.
     
  8. hash browns

    hash browns lolcathlon champion OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2004
    Messages:
    95,387
    Likes Received:
    84
    Location:
    Manhattan Beach, CA
    Sigma... Sigma "Zen" finish on all the newer EX lenses is top notch, better than most < $2k Canon L lenses in handling.
     
  9. sony

    sony Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2004
    Messages:
    112,721
    Likes Received:
    11
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    hes not talking about the 24-70 :slap:
     
  10. sony

    sony Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2004
    Messages:
    112,721
    Likes Received:
    11
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    :noes: :noes:
     
  11. sony

    sony Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2004
    Messages:
    112,721
    Likes Received:
    11
    Location:
    Los Angeles
  12. Dnepr

    Dnepr Guest

    :ugh: 24-70?
     
  13. sony

    sony Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2004
    Messages:
    112,721
    Likes Received:
    11
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    Wait wtf. :confused:
     
  14. sony

    sony Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2004
    Messages:
    112,721
    Likes Received:
    11
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    First off like I said above, the Sigma 28-70mm f/2.8 isn't a good lens. Sigma recently came out with a better version of the lens which is 4mm wider and a whole lot better. If you're comparing the Tammy to the 28-70, by all means get the Tamron if you care about your pictures AT ALL. The lens you want to get if you're going to swing Sigma's direction is the Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 MACRO.

    Anyway, heres my take on it. Apparently I'm the only person here who has used both of them. :mamoru:

    Let's get the most obvious things out of the way first. The Sigma is 4mm wider than the Tamron and the Tamron is 5mm longer than the Sigma. You'll probably hear the Sigma refered to as the "MACRO" version because this version is a LOT better than the previous version of the lens. Don't expect this lens to replace a dedicated macro lens. I think the ratio is something like 1:4. If you're considering minimum focusing distance, the Tamron is actually labeled macro too :mamoru: and has a closer minimum focusing distance by something like 3.5" (which could matter or could not matter).

    Size. The Sigma is hefty (which could help its reputation of feeling better built; most heavy things feel.. well, sturdier). It has a 82mm front filter and compared to the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8, it is like a brick and the Tamron is like a feather. :noes: Now, this all becomes really subjective. Some people love lugging things around and love the "feel" of this and the "feel" of that, so I won't really comment on which is better. If you want the heavier lens, go for it, if you want the lighter lens get that. Keep in mind the 82mm filter means you'll spend quite a bit of $$ on filters.

    Cost. The Sigma is more expensive. If you factor in long term costs - filters and such, the Sigma starts to hurt you a little bit more. Price means NOTHING in the long term though, so I wouldn't let this be a deciding factor in whether or not you buy a lens.

    The following is completely subjective.
    Now which is sharper? :mamoru: When I was granted the opportunity to measurebate, the Tamron won, but you have to wonder if I got a good copy of the Tamron and a bad copy of the Sigma. QC is a pretty big issue in both camps. Tamron has a longer warranty and will recalibrate your lens to what many consider is "very sharp, even wide open" for free. A lot of people who have received bad Tamron copies have gone this route. Me personally, mine was sharp out of the box.

    The Sigma, in my hands, felt awkward. It does feel very well built. It is heavy and solid. The Tamron isn't a light weight, but compared to the Sigma it feels like one. One thing that bothers me about the Sigma is the zoom ring. It's right up on the lens mount. If you have a grip on your camera, it becomes doubly awkward as the grip gets in the way of you zooming. To make matters worse, the zoom ring is about an inch long, meaning.. well, you can get like a finger on it. If this doesn't bother you, then .. well, :dunno: The focusing on both is speedy on my 20D. I'm sure if you could measure the AF locking on both one would be a little bit faster than the other, but I don't see the point in finding out if one lens is milliseconds faster than the other :confused:

    Which one should you get? I don't know. I hear they are both good. You'll probably get good results with either. The situation falls under .. Sigma :dunno: Tamron :dunno: analysis paralysis. IMO, the Tamron is a winner. It's lighter, sharper (maybe), cheaper (definitely), smaller (word up) and as a whole its build quality isn't too poor. It IS a solid lens even though the hood isn't.

    THE CHOICE IS YOURS :eek3: But theriously guyths, if you're deciding between the 28-70 vs the Tamron 28-75, forget even considering the Sigma. :eek4:
     
  15. Dnepr

    Dnepr Guest

    :dunno:

    I asked about 28-70 :coolugh: :hsugh:
     
  16. Dnepr

    Dnepr Guest

    BTW thanks for write up :cool:

    Ill check both out, if i get sharp tammy ill keep that.
     
  17. sony

    sony Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2004
    Messages:
    112,721
    Likes Received:
    11
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    The Sigma 28-70 isn't that good compared to the rest. :o
     
  18. sony

    sony Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2004
    Messages:
    112,721
    Likes Received:
    11
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    You can always send it in to get calibrated. They come with 6 yr warranties now or something.
     
  19. Dnepr

    Dnepr Guest

    Overall are you satisfied with tamron?
     
  20. sony

    sony Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2004
    Messages:
    112,721
    Likes Received:
    11
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    I still own it, don't I? :cool:

    to put things in perspective, I usually add a bit of moderate sharpening to my photos after resizing them, since it gets a bit aliased, but on my usual settings the tamron halos because it's already so sharp :noes: :noes: :noes: :noes:
     
    Last edited: May 9, 2005

Share This Page