I stay with my Tamron 35-150mm F2-2.8. And when needed, I pair it wirh my second body and the tiny Sony 16-35mm F4 G lens! But cool to get more options.
Actually, you don't need to remember to unlock the Lock Zoom button. Because it will unlock itself when you turn the zoom ring, but you can't pull the zoom ring yourself when you hold it at the end of the lens pulled out. Try it, it's a good feature of Sigma.
If you're using 2 bodies, with a 16-35 and a 24-70 which you now want to upgrade to a 28-105 and reduce the overlap ... you know, there's an even better alternative: the Tamron 35-150! and it's f2 at 35mm, and at 55mm you're still at only f2.2!
I absolutely think the same. He is talking like there is no alternative, but the 35-150mm F2-2.8 is lens to compete to. The 28-100mm is not short enough, so you can get around the 16-35mm etc and not long enough, to touch that allround titel. Tamron placed theire lens way better, and for this high price, the Sigma is the last option to go for.
The only problem with using a Tamron zoom on one body with a canon zoom on the other body, is the zoom direction is the opposite so it can really mess with your ability to get the shot quickly
I had the 35-150 and I sold it. It's a great lens but it's not the fastest focusing lens (not compared to the 70-200 f/2.8 from Sony I replaced it with at least) and it's just so damn heavy. I haven't missed it since I let it go.
Overlap or no overlap is meaningless, each lens works for a particular subject and shooting situation. Both 16-35 and 24-70 are very useful in many scenarios, while 28-105 doesn't fit well in any.
The Sigma will have better image quality, focus faster, be significantly lighter. I have a few Sigma lenses and I had (and sold) the Tamron. The biggest sins of the Tamron are it's a slower focuser and it being so damn heavy meant I rarely wanted to take it out, even when I knew it'd do a good job.
@@TheOnceAndFutureDougI have a file between these two. I tested both today and fell in love with Sigma’s colors. I keep saying everyone say they are keeping their Tamron for the range. I currently own the Sony 135gm
Great review! For more casual shooting, the best travel lens imho is still the Tamron 28-200. Lighter than the 24-70, still a good aperture brightness, very versatile.
This is a fantastic new offering from Sigma! I am impressed at its performance displayed here. If I had an L mount or Sony camera, this is a lens I would have in my kit at all times.
A little large for a walkaround lens but for events it looks great. I have a few G-Master lenses but Sigma have become the first brand I check out for a particular lens before anyone else. I just picked up the 85mm f1.4 after seeing the reviews of the new G-Master 85mm MkII. Equivalent build quality and 95%+ of the performance at literally half the price (here in the UK at least). Sony had a few years to blow the Sigma out of the water, and they really didn't, which says a lot about where Sigma are at. It's just very impressive what they're doing lately for price vs performance. Good for them. Competition can only be a good thing, although Sigma are probably a big reason Canon won't open up their full frame mount... I wouldn't be buying high priced RF glass.
Hi Sir. Thanks for your nice video. I need a suggestion. Do you recommend Sigma 28-105 or Samyang 35-150? Which one will be the best for weddings photography? Thank you 🙏 again. Waiting for your reply.
@@brianbracherphotography It's almost like every full frame Sony mirrorless camera has IBIS and double the light/half the noise in a challenging lighting situation can make a big difference Crazy how not everyone shoots in the same style and situations that you do.
@@patrickgilmour1221 I agree that it will depend on your use. IMHO, If you use a lens for video and use Sony Active Stabilisation you end up with a cropped image and so lose the benefits of the wide end. A Sony lens with IS works with the camera inbuilt stabilisation giving you the option to shoot at even lower shutter speeds and lessens the need for a gimbal. Also, this lens weighs almost 1kg so you again further risk of shake, and a sore neck after carrying around for a day. Finally, I do not agree that 2.8 is best, we keep being told this, but again depends on use and If you want the ‘best’ then don’t use zooms but get a prime with 1.8 or 1.4 which are optically better and faster.
Not for me, The wider 24 is more important to me, I much prefer the Sony 24-70 mk2 after testing the Sigma. Also on Sony the frames per second are limited.
This lens is just one feature away from being a must buy. If it had OS, or was 24mm, or was lighter, it would been a day one purchase. Same with the 28-45mm 1.8, they’re so close to being incredible. I know creating full frame lens are more difficult and compromise are needed, but the trade offs aren’t worth it 😅
I still use a converted Sigma 24-35 f2 for full frame, the 28-45 f1.8 would be great if it became available for Canon, but I don’t know if I could give up the wide end of 24mm!
24-70 is very useful range suitable for many situations especially since it's small and light. Both 28-45 and 28-105 are a lot less useful, don't fit any scenario well.
Enjoyed the video and glad to have another extremely good option but out of all the influencer reviews on this released today no one mentions the Tamron or Samyang 35-150 f/2-2.8 - what am I missing because I don’t understand that it’s not even mentioned anywhere. A 16-35 plus a 35-150 and you’re done as far as events are concerned. At 24 or 28mm I’d be afraid I’m going to have to stitch venue photos or group shots because it’s not wide enough or I don’t have enough space to get further back which means I’d have to carry a wider option anyway.
After shooting the Tamron 35-150 for a couple years, it’s really hard to shift back to the 24-70 and 70/200 combo. It’s just really hard to give up getting wide and long in one lens rather than having to jump off at 70. I have the 70-200 GM II and even though it’s a freakin amazing lens, I still have a hard time giving up the flexibility to the mid range unless I have a specific scenario suited to the 70-200.
24-70 and 70-200 better option , I have the Tamron 35 150 and sold it yesterday even though it was a workhorse but can't really compete with Sony lenses
@@pierrenj79 it’s just different, I really don’t think you can say one is better or worse. The 24-70 and 70-200 are both better in their respective ranges. The 35-150 has great quality and focuses very well on its own, although I know my GMII technically outperforms it, I get great results out of the Tamron. It’s like wedding photographers saying using a 35 mm prime and an 85mm prime is better than a 24-70. They really aren’t comparable, it’s just a different option.
I'm a bit surprised Tony didn't compare this Sigma to the old Sony 24-105mm G lens. I have that lens. Not so sharp. Easy target for Sigma to beat up on. However, I also have the A9iii, and this Sigma is a no go for me. I do have the Sigma 14-24mm wide angle zoom and love it. No plans to shoot it at more than 15 fps. Generally, I use it in single shot mode on my A7Rii.
I still cant pick this over the tamron 35-150 . You just get much more. As a pro photographer and someone who shoots in studio and mainly on location, the Tamron is still the best bet. After having that 35mm on the low end and constant aperture all the way to 150mm, Tamron invented the best zoom lens on the market right now.
For travel I would prefer Tamron 20-200 f2.8-5.6. Lighter and more compact and with much more reach. For weddings and events Samyang or Tamron 35-150 for me is king
5:09 fascinating. (not Howard Sterns mini, but kudos sir) 105mm with an 8x crop on an a7RV still looks better than most 100-ish mm "zoom" lenses on smartphones.
Since you are going to be carrying a 16mm to 35mm lens doesn't the Tameron 35mm to 150mm give you a much better range. Can you compare the Tameron to the Sigma as to sharpness. If you are doing a wedding you must likely have 2 camera bodies with both lenses mounted to each camera body
At last one manufacturer did something to fix the "standard zoom" problem. Standard means equally wide and tele: not a whacky 24mm on one side and a measly 70mm on the other! They will sell a TON of these!
There’s a better way to wear this lens with a camera: cross-body with attachments on one clip ring and on the tripod mount. That way the lens is pointing down. I put a hand strap on the other clip ring. This setup is much more comfortable for me than having the camera strap around my neck.
To me the question isn't Sony 24-70 vs. Sigma 28-105. It's Sigma vs Sigma. If I'm looking at the Sigma lenses do I go 24-70 or 28-105? That, I feel, is a much harder question to answer.
Re Prices. Everyone quotes RRP.on Sony but I've never paid RRP. There are always discounts, promos, cashbacks etc if you are patient. There are never discounts on Sigma until lenses are old, so the price differential is misleading. Re weight, you ought to make % comparisons. This Sigma is 50% heavier that the 24-70mm GMII. A lot of the market is now for smaller cameras (A7CII/A7CR etc). My interest is in high IQ but small/light lenses.
I think you're getting the 2 body thing wrong. If you shoot 2 Bodies take a 16-35 and 35-150 it's gonna give you more range, less overlap and f2 at 35. This lens is meant to give you enough versatility in one lens so you don't have to take a 2nd body with you but obviously theres some compromises in both directions here
It's not even remotely comparable, though. That Tamron 17-70 f/2.8 on APS-C gives you, for all intents and purposes, basically the same performance as a 24-105 f/4 on full frame.
@TechnoBabble And no, the Tamron is sharper and faster and has a closer focus distance. The Sony FE 24-105 F4 oss came out in 2017. While the Tamron 17-70mm F/2.8 came out in 2021. The Tamron is way better. Please do your homework before you speak. You just said they are the same lmao I hate people who just want to fight instead of doing the homework before sounding dumb.
@@HagaishiSama I didn't say anything about any particular 24-105 f/4 in comparison. I said that that's about what it's equivalent to. It's not remotely, in any possible way, comparable to a 28-105 f/2.8 on full frame. End of story.
If you’ll opt for shooting crop sensor (and dismiss the blatherings of the “sensor snobs”) you’ll have waay more options in lenses; like the Tamron 11-20 2.8 and the 17-70 2.8. I also have the 35-150 2.0/2.8, but I rarely use that because it’s a “tank” who’s weight sorta gets annoying after a 8 hour wedding shoot. Likewise, I see no need for another “ponderous” lens like the 28-105. Sometimes I wonder if the lens manufacturers take into consideration that some photographers are working (solo!) for a living … 🙄
The difference is that your smaller sensor is giving you objectively worse image quality in challenging lighting scenarios. Those f/2.8 zooms on APS-C are, for all intents and purposes, equivalent to f/4 zooms on full frame. Not everyone shoots in the same style/situations as you and not everyone has the same standards of quality.
@@TechnoBabbleAt the plane-of-focus, the image is precisely the same - all else being equal - regardless of sensor size. What (I think) you are referring to is bokeh. Focus accurately, and there won’t be any problems with your clients. I must say that all the “challenging” lighting situations I’ve found myself in weddings over the years were met quite handily with 2 or 3 off-camera photo or radio slaved strobes. I’ve spent enough time hauling photo equipment around to know that weight becomes a major factor about 3 hours into the shoot. As a photographer, you must be “like Jack:” - nimble and quick. … I say, “leave the boat anchors behind.”
@TechnoBabble If you knew anything you would know that F/2.8 on a full frame is F/1.8 on a apsc body. But your breaking your neck trying to bully people who's on apsc. And now you say F/2.8 on apsc is F/4 on Full Frame lmao 🤣 😂 😆 💀
@@flitetym Percicely the same, huh? So APS-C sensors don't produce more noise at the same settings compared to a full frame sensor? They don't have deeper focus at a given aperture? Also, Bokeh is the quality of the out of focus area, not the amount of background and foreground blur.
Important thing to consider is that the range between 28mm and 35mm is not a big as between 24mm and 28mm. So for this lens to be a more viable option than the Tamron 35-150mm it would’ve had to start at 24mm. So essentially the Tamron is a much better buy considering that it starts at f/2, as well as the extra reach at 150mm. Because ultimately both these lenses would require a wide zoom or prime to cover a more complete range.
The comments on this video are hilarious. 1. This clearly wasn't made to be a dedicated cine/camcorder style lens (like the Canon 24-105 f/2.8) for cameras that don't have IBIS, it was made for hybrid shooters. 2. No, your APS-C camera with it's f/2.8 zoom is not even remotely comparable to something like this. 3. You are not the center of the universe, just because a particular product doesn't work perfectly for what you shoot doesn't mean it's useless. Photo/video pros and enthusiasts, on average, have to be some of the most insufferable, close minded people I have ever interacted with.
Blah, dejavu. Same as the Canon 24-105 2.8 .... already have 24-70, and a very small 85mm f1.8, every image you take can crop to an equivalent of 105 at f2.2 if need to! Also a cheap Tokina 16-28 f2.8, has better corrected, very sharp 24mm f2.8 lens than any 24-XXX zoom variant, and the Sigma is only 28mm. But Sigma price, awesome. If this is a first lens purchase, yeah. Good job Sigma, make me wish I have a Sony.
Ahh more gear that doesn’t sell. The photo business is dying and less and less gear is selling. Hate to break it to you geniuses. I bet your viewership has gone down too.
Since you are going to be carrying a 16mm to 35mm lens doesn't the Tameron 35mm to 150mm give you a much better range. Can you compare the Tameron to the Sigma as to sharpness. If you are doing a wedding you must likely have 2 camera bodies with both lenses mounted to each camera body
Since you are going to be carrying a 16mm to 35mm lens doesn't the Tameron 35mm to 150mm give you a much better range. Can you compare the Tameron to the Sigma as to sharpness. If you are doing a wedding you must likely have 2 camera bodies with both lenses mounted to each camera body
I stay with my Tamron 35-150mm F2-2.8. And when needed, I pair it wirh my second body and the tiny Sony 16-35mm F4 G lens!
But cool to get more options.
yesssss
I agree
yep, both 35-150 and 16-35 are very useful focal ranges, which can't be said about 28-105
Yes. I have that 16-35 F4 G PZ and love it.
Actually, you don't need to remember to unlock the Lock Zoom button. Because it will unlock itself when you turn the zoom ring, but you can't pull the zoom ring yourself when you hold it at the end of the lens pulled out. Try it, it's a good feature of Sigma.
If you're using 2 bodies, with a 16-35 and a 24-70 which you now want to upgrade to a 28-105 and reduce the overlap ... you know, there's an even better alternative: the Tamron 35-150! and it's f2 at 35mm, and at 55mm you're still at only f2.2!
I absolutely think the same. He is talking like there is no alternative, but the 35-150mm F2-2.8 is lens to compete to. The 28-100mm is not short enough, so you can get around the 16-35mm etc and not long enough, to touch that allround titel. Tamron placed theire lens way better, and for this high price, the Sigma is the last option to go for.
The only problem with using a Tamron zoom on one body with a canon zoom on the other body, is the zoom direction is the opposite so it can really mess with your ability to get the shot quickly
I had the 35-150 and I sold it. It's a great lens but it's not the fastest focusing lens (not compared to the 70-200 f/2.8 from Sony I replaced it with at least) and it's just so damn heavy. I haven't missed it since I let it go.
Overlap or no overlap is meaningless, each lens works for a particular subject and shooting situation. Both 16-35 and 24-70 are very useful in many scenarios, while 28-105 doesn't fit well in any.
On my a7iv, my favorite pair of lenses is the Tamron 35-150 2.0 - 2.8 and a Sigma 16-28 2.8. For an everyday catch all lens it's a Tamron 28-200.
Can you compare the sigma 28-105 vs tamron 35-150
The Sigma will have better image quality, focus faster, be significantly lighter. I have a few Sigma lenses and I had (and sold) the Tamron. The biggest sins of the Tamron are it's a slower focuser and it being so damn heavy meant I rarely wanted to take it out, even when I knew it'd do a good job.
@@TheOnceAndFutureDougI have a file between these two. I tested both today and fell in love with Sigma’s colors. I keep saying everyone say they are keeping their Tamron for the range. I currently own the Sony 135gm
if you're going with 2 lense solution, then 35-150 must be a better choice
Great review!
For more casual shooting, the best travel lens imho is still the Tamron 28-200. Lighter than the 24-70, still a good aperture brightness, very versatile.
3:13 The zoom lock will unlock itself when you turn the zoom ring. It is a feature present even in the Sigma 24-70 DG DN Mark I.
This is a fantastic new offering from Sigma! I am impressed at its performance displayed here. If I had an L mount or Sony camera, this is a lens I would have in my kit at all times.
A little large for a walkaround lens but for events it looks great.
I have a few G-Master lenses but Sigma have become the first brand I check out for a particular lens before anyone else. I just picked up the 85mm f1.4 after seeing the reviews of the new G-Master 85mm MkII. Equivalent build quality and 95%+ of the performance at literally half the price (here in the UK at least). Sony had a few years to blow the Sigma out of the water, and they really didn't, which says a lot about where Sigma are at. It's just very impressive what they're doing lately for price vs performance. Good for them.
Competition can only be a good thing, although Sigma are probably a big reason Canon won't open up their full frame mount... I wouldn't be buying high priced RF glass.
Hi Sir.
Thanks for your nice video.
I need a suggestion.
Do you recommend Sigma 28-105 or Samyang 35-150?
Which one will be the best for weddings photography?
Thank you 🙏 again.
Waiting for your reply.
interesting. i still prefer my tamron 35-150 F2.0 - F2.8
بكل تأكيد 👍
I agree
Thank you for the review it was great tony!🌻
This or the Tamron 35-150mm f2-f2.8?
I have the Sigma 24-70 f2.8 and 105 f2.8 macro for My Panasonic S5 and S5 MKII is it worth picking up this lens?
Tony my Sony 24-105mm is vertualy bolted to my camera, how dose the Sony 24-105mm compair with Sigma 28-105 ?
I have that Sony lens....not so sharp, so I'm not sure I want to know how poorly it compares to the new Sigma!!!
@@evenhandedcommentor6102 oh dear my 24-105mm brilliant .
i was looking for this type of camera for ages, plus its more advance 👌ima save this to media wallet so i could come back to this video later
I prefer 24-105 F4 over this, it's lighter, wider, stabilized. I do wish they release a mark 2.
100% agree - I can’t believe this lens is getting so much positive hype when it is so heavy but doesn’t have IS!
@@brianbracherphotography It's almost like every full frame Sony mirrorless camera has IBIS and double the light/half the noise in a challenging lighting situation can make a big difference
Crazy how not everyone shoots in the same style and situations that you do.
You have sony ibs in modt bodies, you dont need ibs on the lens. F4 is not as good as 2.8
@brianbracherphotography
💯 agree with you. I want a 24-105mm to put on an A7CR. This is a brick like the Tampon 35-150.
@@patrickgilmour1221 I agree that it will depend on your use. IMHO, If you use a lens for video and use Sony Active Stabilisation you end up with a cropped image and so lose the benefits of the wide end. A Sony lens with IS works with the camera inbuilt stabilisation giving you the option to shoot at even lower shutter speeds and lessens the need for a gimbal. Also, this lens weighs almost 1kg so you again further risk of shake, and a sore neck after carrying around for a day. Finally, I do not agree that 2.8 is best, we keep being told this, but again depends on use and If you want the ‘best’ then don’t use zooms but get a prime with 1.8 or 1.4 which are optically better and faster.
Sigma's zoom lock button has its unique feature. It can unlock by itself when you turn the zoom ring but not by pulling out at the lens's end.
Not for me, The wider 24 is more important to me, I much prefer the Sony 24-70 mk2 after testing the Sigma. Also on Sony the frames per second are limited.
I think they’re sharpness test is highly suspect as well as other sharpness tests from elsewhere give Sony the edge
This lens is just one feature away from being a must buy. If it had OS, or was 24mm, or was lighter, it would been a day one purchase.
Same with the 28-45mm 1.8, they’re so close to being incredible. I know creating full frame lens are more difficult and compromise are needed, but the trade offs aren’t worth it 😅
I still use a converted Sigma 24-35 f2 for full frame, the 28-45 f1.8 would be great if it became available for Canon, but I don’t know if I could give up the wide end of 24mm!
if it were 24-135/2.8-4 it would have been an instant buy for me, but 28-105 is not interesting in the least, and 28-45 is just useless.
Sigma are cool. 24-70 mark II, 28-45 f1.8 and now 28-105 f2.8. Those are all welcoming.
24-70 is very useful range suitable for many situations especially since it's small and light. Both 28-45 and 28-105 are a lot less useful, don't fit any scenario well.
Tony were you guided not to compare the lens to an obvious competitor, the Tamron 35-150 F2-2.8?
Love the Porsche shot in front of Otto!!
This would be great on the RF mount.
Waiting for 3rd party lenses for Full frame RF 💀💀💀💀
Enjoyed the video and glad to have another extremely good option but out of all the influencer reviews on this released today no one mentions the Tamron or Samyang 35-150 f/2-2.8 - what am I missing because I don’t understand that it’s not even mentioned anywhere. A 16-35 plus a 35-150 and you’re done as far as events are concerned. At 24 or 28mm I’d be afraid I’m going to have to stitch venue photos or group shots because it’s not wide enough or I don’t have enough space to get further back which means I’d have to carry a wider option anyway.
After shooting the Tamron 35-150 for a couple years, it’s really hard to shift back to the 24-70 and 70/200 combo. It’s just really hard to give up getting wide and long in one lens rather than having to jump off at 70. I have the 70-200 GM II and even though it’s a freakin amazing lens, I still have a hard time giving up the flexibility to the mid range unless I have a specific scenario suited to the 70-200.
24-70 and 70-200 better option , I have the Tamron 35 150 and sold it yesterday even though it was a workhorse but can't really compete with Sony lenses
@@pierrenj79 it’s just different, I really don’t think you can say one is better or worse. The 24-70 and 70-200 are both better in their respective ranges. The 35-150 has great quality and focuses very well on its own, although I know my GMII technically outperforms it, I get great results out of the Tamron. It’s like wedding photographers saying using a 35 mm prime and an 85mm prime is better than a 24-70. They really aren’t comparable, it’s just a different option.
@@greggeis918cant argue with that
Whаt do you think - sigma 28-105 F2.8 - is this parfocal lens?
For group shots, 24 mm would have been proper. Why they skipped 4mm, no idea, cost saving?
24-70 (or 28-105) is great for shooting basketball - which is very demanding on AF. Would have been cool to see that tested.
I love it. I have it rn. But it is incredibly heavy for what you get. Almost worth carrying two prims at that point
I'm a bit surprised Tony didn't compare this Sigma to the old Sony 24-105mm G lens. I have that lens. Not so sharp. Easy target for Sigma to beat up on. However, I also have the A9iii, and this Sigma is a no go for me. I do have the Sigma 14-24mm wide angle zoom and love it. No plans to shoot it at more than 15 fps. Generally, I use it in single shot mode on my A7Rii.
I still cant pick this over the tamron 35-150 . You just get much more. As a pro photographer and someone who shoots in studio and mainly on location, the Tamron is still the best bet. After having that 35mm on the low end and constant aperture all the way to 150mm, Tamron invented the best zoom lens on the market right now.
For travel I would prefer Tamron 20-200 f2.8-5.6. Lighter and more compact and with much more reach. For weddings and events Samyang or Tamron 35-150 for me is king
Would this be a perfect combination with the Sony 20-70 mm F4?
5:09 fascinating. (not Howard Sterns mini, but kudos sir) 105mm with an 8x crop on an a7RV still looks better than most 100-ish mm "zoom" lenses on smartphones.
5:07 Missed the license plate there!
So Tony would you use this Sigma lens as a studio lens?
Since you are going to be carrying a 16mm to 35mm lens doesn't the Tameron 35mm to 150mm give you a much better range. Can you compare the Tameron to the Sigma as to sharpness. If you are doing a wedding you must likely have 2 camera bodies with both lenses mounted to each camera body
At last one manufacturer did something to fix the "standard zoom" problem. Standard means equally wide and tele: not a whacky 24mm on one side and a measly 70mm on the other! They will sell a TON of these!
Thanks Good Review
It would make more sense for you to use a 35-150 2-2.8
why would I want that over the 35-150??
Do either of them have stabilization ?
There’s a better way to wear this lens with a camera: cross-body with attachments on one clip ring and on the tripod mount. That way the lens is pointing down. I put a hand strap on the other clip ring. This setup is much more comfortable for me than having the camera strap around my neck.
To me the question isn't Sony 24-70 vs. Sigma 28-105. It's Sigma vs Sigma. If I'm looking at the Sigma lenses do I go 24-70 or 28-105? That, I feel, is a much harder question to answer.
Too big and heavy - use the 24-105 F4 or the 24-70 F2.8 and crop
3:15 Apparently if you move the zoom ring with the lock on it will unlock on its own
Re Prices. Everyone quotes RRP.on Sony but I've never paid RRP. There are always discounts, promos, cashbacks etc if you are patient. There are never discounts on Sigma until lenses are old, so the price differential is misleading.
Re weight, you ought to make % comparisons. This Sigma is 50% heavier that the 24-70mm GMII.
A lot of the market is now for smaller cameras (A7CII/A7CR etc). My interest is in high IQ but small/light lenses.
I hate that they force their zoom lenses to end their ranges at standard numbers. Why not have a 25.5-116mm lens?
I think you're getting the 2 body thing wrong. If you shoot 2 Bodies take a 16-35 and 35-150 it's gonna give you more range, less overlap and f2 at 35. This lens is meant to give you enough versatility in one lens so you don't have to take a 2nd body with you but obviously theres some compromises in both directions here
Thank you :)
this with my a6700 would be sick
Why does nobody compare it to the Sony 24-105 ????
That has to be the TRUE comparison, right ? Despite f/4 vs f/2.8
The zoom lock will automatically disengage if you start zooming in.
I will just stay with my 24-105 f4.
I think it's so cool full frame has the same thing now like how apsc users had for awhile now.
The aka Tamron 17-70mm F/2.8
Awesome video too
It's not even remotely comparable, though. That Tamron 17-70 f/2.8 on APS-C gives you, for all intents and purposes, basically the same performance as a 24-105 f/4 on full frame.
@@TechnoBabble That's what I just said🤷🏿♂️🤷🏿♂️🤦🏿♂️
@TechnoBabble And no, the Tamron is sharper and faster and has a closer focus distance. The Sony FE 24-105 F4 oss came out in 2017. While the Tamron 17-70mm F/2.8 came out in 2021. The Tamron is way better.
Please do your homework before you speak. You just said they are the same lmao
I hate people who just want to fight instead of doing the homework before sounding dumb.
@@HagaishiSama I didn't say anything about any particular 24-105 f/4 in comparison. I said that that's about what it's equivalent to.
It's not remotely, in any possible way, comparable to a 28-105 f/2.8 on full frame. End of story.
needs to be 24, 28 is inconvenient
Then there's the RF 24-105 f/2.8 L IS Z lens from Canon. Twice the price, but......unless the Siggy will come in an RF mount...........
If you’ll opt for shooting crop sensor (and dismiss the blatherings of the “sensor snobs”) you’ll have waay more options in lenses; like the Tamron 11-20 2.8 and the 17-70 2.8. I also have the 35-150 2.0/2.8, but I rarely use that because it’s a “tank” who’s weight sorta gets annoying after a 8 hour wedding shoot. Likewise, I see no need for another “ponderous” lens like the 28-105.
Sometimes I wonder if the lens manufacturers take into consideration that some photographers are working (solo!) for a living … 🙄
The difference is that your smaller sensor is giving you objectively worse image quality in challenging lighting scenarios. Those f/2.8 zooms on APS-C are, for all intents and purposes, equivalent to f/4 zooms on full frame.
Not everyone shoots in the same style/situations as you and not everyone has the same standards of quality.
@@TechnoBabbleAt the plane-of-focus, the image is precisely the same - all else being equal - regardless of sensor size. What (I think) you are referring to is bokeh. Focus accurately, and there won’t be any problems with your clients.
I must say that all the “challenging” lighting situations I’ve found myself in weddings over the years were met quite handily with 2 or 3 off-camera photo or radio slaved strobes.
I’ve spent enough time hauling photo equipment around to know that weight becomes a major factor about 3 hours into the shoot. As a photographer, you must be “like Jack:” - nimble and quick.
… I say, “leave the boat anchors behind.”
@TechnoBabble If you knew anything you would know that F/2.8 on a full frame is F/1.8 on a apsc body.
But your breaking your neck trying to bully people who's on apsc. And now you say F/2.8 on apsc is F/4 on Full Frame lmao 🤣 😂 😆 💀
@@HagaishiSama Are you ok? Those two statements are the same thing. I think you are very confused and need to take a second to breath.
@@flitetym Percicely the same, huh?
So APS-C sensors don't produce more noise at the same settings compared to a full frame sensor? They don't have deeper focus at a given aperture?
Also, Bokeh is the quality of the out of focus area, not the amount of background and foreground blur.
You should've compared it against the Tamron 35-150mm f/2-2.8, not this!
Important thing to consider is that the range between 28mm and 35mm is not a big as between 24mm and 28mm. So for this lens to be a more viable option than the Tamron 35-150mm it would’ve had to start at 24mm. So essentially the Tamron is a much better buy considering that it starts at f/2, as well as the extra reach at 150mm. Because ultimately both these lenses would require a wide zoom or prime to cover a more complete range.
The comments on this video are hilarious.
1. This clearly wasn't made to be a dedicated cine/camcorder style lens (like the Canon 24-105 f/2.8) for cameras that don't have IBIS, it was made for hybrid shooters.
2. No, your APS-C camera with it's f/2.8 zoom is not even remotely comparable to something like this.
3. You are not the center of the universe, just because a particular product doesn't work perfectly for what you shoot doesn't mean it's useless.
Photo/video pros and enthusiasts, on average, have to be some of the most insufferable, close minded people I have ever interacted with.
Blah, dejavu. Same as the Canon 24-105 2.8 .... already have 24-70, and a very small 85mm f1.8, every image you take can crop to an equivalent of 105 at f2.2 if need to! Also a cheap Tokina 16-28 f2.8, has better corrected, very sharp 24mm f2.8 lens than any 24-XXX zoom variant, and the Sigma is only 28mm. But Sigma price, awesome. If this is a first lens purchase, yeah. Good job Sigma, make me wish I have a Sony.
late but latest lol
When it comes to zooms, Tamron is usually the market leader and Sigma is just a mediocre follower.
Unfortunately, it has an even number of aperture blades. I don't like the look of the bokeh.
It has nothing to do with bokeh quality - You are probably thinking about sun stars.
@@80-80. I said that in addition. I know that, but thanks.
24-105 f/2.8 would have been better!
Not good for traveling, judging by the size.
Ahh more gear that doesn’t sell. The photo business is dying and less and less gear is selling. Hate to break it to you geniuses. I bet your viewership has gone down too.
Definitely needed IS. It’s worthless without for video.
Fourth in comment section 🔥
28mm? Really? Useless for club work
Since you are going to be carrying a 16mm to 35mm lens doesn't the Tameron 35mm to 150mm give you a much better range. Can you compare the Tameron to the Sigma as to sharpness. If you are doing a wedding you must likely have 2 camera bodies with both lenses mounted to each camera body
Since you are going to be carrying a 16mm to 35mm lens doesn't the Tameron 35mm to 150mm give you a much better range. Can you compare the Tameron to the Sigma as to sharpness. If you are doing a wedding you must likely have 2 camera bodies with both lenses mounted to each camera body