The much awaited review that I have been waiting for. Can't decide on this or tammy or GM. Thanks for the great review, Dustin! Looking forward to final verdict.
It is a tough call. Both have their strengths. You probably need to realistically look at your budget and shooting needs and decide which lens actually meets your shooting priorities. They are both good.
Thanks, Dustin for the prompt response. Budget not an issue, just want the best lens of the three. I think 17mm on the tamron is not wide enough and focal range quite limited.
@@eViperRabbit For what it's worth, both lenses are zoom factor 1,6~1,7. So what you lose on the wide end, you gain on the long end in the Tamron. It might come in handy to be able to zoom a little bit closer to get more detail in that exact moment in that time and place, so don't count out the 28mm ability.
Great review Dustin. I really like your reviews. I will like to see one review comparing Sigma 14-24 vs the Sony 16-35mm GM. Also, can you do the review of the new Sony 200-600mm G?
Question1: Is the Flare control on the Sigma better than on the Tamron? Some direct comparisons between them in the final review would be much appreciated. Question2: When you hold the camera and lens with both hands, which lens do you personally feel more comfortable with? Thanks a ton Dustin!
There is very little difference between the two in flare resistance. They are both quite good (which is a good achievement for Sigma, as lenses with rounded front elements can struggle in this area). I feel comfortable with either of them mounted on camera, but remember I use about 2-4 new lenses per month on average, so it's not hard for me to adapt. The Tamron is definitely lighter, but the Sigma is not so heavy as to create any balance issues.
Thanks you very much for this video! You are the only one for the moment who compared those two lens and this is great! I was looking for a video like this one. Be able to see if the 3mm is a big deal is so great!
Amazing video. So in depth, and really appreciated. I'm really torn between: Sony 16-35, tamron 17-28, and this lense. Please compare and give opinion.
He did in this video, for the tamron and sigma atleast. Judging by his pictures the sigma and tamron are actually really close. Corner sharpness is a little bit softer on the tamron, but only wide open. But the tamron isnt really soft, just a touch softer than the sigma. If you choose between these two lenses is actually a pretty simple decision. If you need 14mm take the sigma, if 17mm is wide enough take the tamron, which weighs half and costs 500-600€ less. The boost in image quality you get from the sigma does not justify the weight and price difference.
@@1TheQuickstep I'm not worried about price. Between these two, I would take the Sigma. This is the first review I've seen anyone talking about the perceptible zoom difference. The reason I would choose the Sigma, is for the added 3mm of wide angle. If its not actual there, I would take the Tamron. That's why I would like this Sony 16-35 compared as well.
Comparing the Sony is much harder for me as I don't have a reliable source for loaners at the moment. If I important one from B&H, it costs me several hundred dollars in duties...which isn't a smart business decision. Maybe in the future if things change.
Urban if you do video you'll want to heavily consider going Sony native over third party. If you're just doing photography then all three seem like excellent options depending on what your needs are
Well, in a surprising twist, I think i might go with the Tamron. It’s more affordable, it performs well, and the only major downside is that it doesn’t go out to 14mm-which I am still making my peace with. Man, I wish it were a tad wider. But, honestly, I have been mostly pretty happy with my widest at 24mm, so I’m sure 17 will be worth the money.
Have you ever shot with very wide focal lengths? The reason that I ask is that the wider you go, the more skill it takes in composition. Making great images with, say, 12mm (the widest in my kit), requires a great deal of understanding with what works and what doesn't that wide.
@@DustinAbbottTWI I have not shot with anything wider than 24mm (or 16 for APS- C). But, if I never have the opportunity to practice, then I will never learn.
Awesome IQ breakdown video Dustin. Thank you for the review! Looks to be a great lens for much less $ compared to the Sony 16-35 2.8 GM which I am sure performs equally as good yet I haven't seen much comparisons between them two as the sigma just came out with this mirrorless version.
What’s your opinion of this lens vs the 12-24 and 16-35 f4? I have both and trying to figure out if I can switch to just one. 30% interiors 70% general shooting and landscapes. Thanks!
The wider lenses are going to work better for interiors for you. I haven't tested the 12-24 yet, but I suspect it will be a good interior option if you are shooting from a tripod. The 14-24 is also good.
@@DustinAbbottTWI thank you for your kind answer, but that doesnt sound promissing to me. The Sigma 14-24 ist already proven as a very good alround lens for astro and landscape photographay and it will come to the market for canon rf mount very soon as well. The canon rf 15-35 is almost "untested".
@@DustinAbbottTWI Sure np:) This new Sigma has some advantages against DSLR version such as size and weight, maybe better coma as far as I can see, but distortion and flare seem to be better on DSLR version. Sharpness and contrast I can't honestly judge, both seem identical in my eyes. Sigma certainly hit the nail right on the head with these ultrawide lenses.
I'm afraid that I have neither lens on hand at this point. You can check out Bryan's chart here and play around with it, though: www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1559&Camera=1538&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=2&LensComp=1535&CameraComp=1175&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0
Another fantastic lens from Sigma that is basically unusable because of the size and weight. It's a real shame they never got the mirrorless memo. I've tried over and over to find a suitable replacement for the Zeiss 16-34 f/4. I always think I need more range or something faster - but I always come back to it. I rented this lens for 10 days to try it out and compare it and it's absurd how huge it is.
@@DustinAbbottTWI I may have exaggerated a bit by saying 'unusable' but it just seems that every Sigma lens I've had the opportunity to use has been significantly bigger and heavier than the Sony/Zeiss or Tamron lens of the same focal length/aperture. For handheld video work or use on a gimbal, it really is taxing. Love your stuff, you're a huge help whenever I'm lens shopping. Keep up the great work.
Tnx, as always very useful and thorough. Will you be doing a review of the Canon 15-35 f/2.8 IS on the R mount. It seems like a game changer ; leaving these non-is bulbous front element lenses behind so would be interested to see how it compares. Especially interested in the canon’s star photography abilities.
I'm working at solving the RF problem. At the moment, I have no R body to do reviews on. I've also not had ready access to loaners. I would like to cover more of the new RF lenses, but I have to solve the logistics issues. Sadly most of the third party lens makers are much more proactive about supplying loaners to reviews (like Sigma, for example, who's distributor makes sure that I get access to all new products.)
@@DustinAbbottTWI That's a shame; could we start a petition to Canon to do the same? Surely 1000s of your subscribers must be interested on the Canon offerings. I am yet to see any other source providing more authoritative, thorough, and independent coverage than yours. I hope it works out.
@SwitchRich Which part you do not understand the Sony doesn't go to 15mm and doesn't have image stabilisation. When SONY does come back to me :-))) lol The 82mm front thread in a 15mm f/2.8 zoom is unheard off and its value is in that allows the use of filters (my point was not in light transmission) but savings in cost, space, weight from not having to carry specialist (read very large) filters. I never claimed BvS is a lens reviewer but he is somebody who has sufficient experience to know if a wide zoom is sharp or not in the real world. You still haven't reported your source of review that says it is not sharp.
For me, not being able to protect the lens easily properly with a protection filter proves a *huge* risk. The tiniest scratch imposes huge problems. That doesn't warrant the price increase for me at least.
Hmmm, I can understand that concern, but in all of my years of reviewing and using lenses, I can think of one situation where I fell and scratched the front element of a lens.
My daily workhorse is my Sigma 12-24 f/4 (Canon mount, but works great adapted on my Sony). I rarely shoot at f/5.6 or wider but do almost everything at f8 -for real estate photography.
What a great lens. Another good option for Sony shooters and beating Sony to market with a 14-24/2.8 is going to be good for Sigma. Now Sony will have to at least match this lens on IQ to justify their much higher prices.
I bought the Sigma, and now I'm having some hardcore buyer's remorse. No front-mounter filter? What was I thinking.... Anyone in Edmonton wonna trade their Tammy for my Sigma? QQ
1:07 bug on forehead
1:12 bug leaves forehead
doesn't even flinch. masterful work
Around here in summer there are so many bugs that you just have to grin and bear it.
thanks 😂
The much awaited review that I have been waiting for. Can't decide on this or tammy or GM. Thanks for the great review, Dustin! Looking forward to final verdict.
It is a tough call. Both have their strengths. You probably need to realistically look at your budget and shooting needs and decide which lens actually meets your shooting priorities. They are both good.
Thanks, Dustin for the prompt response. Budget not an issue, just want the best lens of the three. I think 17mm on the tamron is not wide enough and focal range quite limited.
@@eViperRabbit For what it's worth, both lenses are zoom factor 1,6~1,7. So what you lose on the wide end, you gain on the long end in the Tamron.
It might come in handy to be able to zoom a little bit closer to get more detail in that exact moment in that time and place, so don't count out the 28mm ability.
Another great detailed review, thanks a lot Dustin!
My pleasure.
Fantastic detailed review! I don't know who else on youtube can explain and show it so candid and clearly. Thank you Dustin!
That's great feedback. Thank you.
Great review Dustin. I really like your reviews. I will like to see one review comparing Sigma 14-24 vs the Sony 16-35mm GM. Also, can you do the review of the new Sony 200-600mm G?
I can’t promise the comparison video, but I definitely have plans to review the 200-600
*by the way what camera and lens did you use to film this video?*
Sony a7RIV and Samyang AF 85mm F1.4. BTW, that information is always at the end of my reviews.
@@DustinAbbottTWI *i did look at your description and noticed that its Tamron so i had to double check cause the quality is insanely good!*
Thanks for your work. Waiting for final verdicts.
Next week!
Thank for a review. Sharpness and coma look great.
You're welcome...and yes, they do.
Question1: Is the Flare control on the Sigma better than on the Tamron?
Some direct comparisons between them in the final review would be much appreciated.
Question2: When you hold the camera and lens with both hands, which lens do you personally feel more comfortable with?
Thanks a ton Dustin!
There is very little difference between the two in flare resistance. They are both quite good (which is a good achievement for Sigma, as lenses with rounded front elements can struggle in this area). I feel comfortable with either of them mounted on camera, but remember I use about 2-4 new lenses per month on average, so it's not hard for me to adapt. The Tamron is definitely lighter, but the Sigma is not so heavy as to create any balance issues.
Brilliant review as always!
Thank you. Glad to help out.
Thanks you very much for this video! You are the only one for the moment who compared those two lens and this is great! I was looking for a video like this one. Be able to see if the 3mm is a big deal is so great!
It does help to visualize something like that.
Thanks for the review. I think I'm going to go Tamron for the weight savings when I travel.
It's a great lens in that aspect. Very compact, very light, and yet still very sharp.
Amazing video. So in depth, and really appreciated. I'm really torn between: Sony 16-35, tamron 17-28, and this lense. Please compare and give opinion.
He did in this video, for the tamron and sigma atleast. Judging by his pictures the sigma and tamron are actually really close. Corner sharpness is a little bit softer on the tamron, but only wide open. But the tamron isnt really soft, just a touch softer than the sigma. If you choose between these two lenses is actually a pretty simple decision. If you need 14mm take the sigma, if 17mm is wide enough take the tamron, which weighs half and costs 500-600€ less. The boost in image quality you get from the sigma does not justify the weight and price difference.
@@1TheQuickstep I'm not worried about price. Between these two, I would take the Sigma. This is the first review I've seen anyone talking about the perceptible zoom difference. The reason I would choose the Sigma, is for the added 3mm of wide angle. If its not actual there, I would take the Tamron. That's why I would like this Sony 16-35 compared as well.
Comparing the Sony is much harder for me as I don't have a reliable source for loaners at the moment. If I important one from B&H, it costs me several hundred dollars in duties...which isn't a smart business decision. Maybe in the future if things change.
What would be your choice between these 3?
Urban if you do video you'll want to heavily consider going Sony native over third party. If you're just doing photography then all three seem like excellent options depending on what your needs are
Thanks! The sigma is very impressive lens, i hope that will be release a new 24-35 f2 art FE.
That would be interesting...though it might be unlikely. I don't think that lens sold very well.
Thanks for the review! :)
You're welcome.
Well, in a surprising twist, I think i might go with the Tamron. It’s more affordable, it performs well, and the only major downside is that it doesn’t go out to 14mm-which I am still making my peace with. Man, I wish it were a tad wider. But, honestly, I have been mostly pretty happy with my widest at 24mm, so I’m sure 17 will be worth the money.
Have you ever shot with very wide focal lengths? The reason that I ask is that the wider you go, the more skill it takes in composition. Making great images with, say, 12mm (the widest in my kit), requires a great deal of understanding with what works and what doesn't that wide.
@@DustinAbbottTWI I have not shot with anything wider than 24mm (or 16 for APS-
C). But, if I never have the opportunity to practice, then I will never learn.
Awesome IQ breakdown video Dustin. Thank you for the review! Looks to be a great lens for much less $ compared to the Sony 16-35 2.8 GM which I am sure performs equally as good yet I haven't seen much comparisons between them two as the sigma just came out with this mirrorless version.
I haven't used the GM yet, either.
This is seriously in-depth! Any chance of following up with a comparison with the GM and your awesome testing chart?
I'll probably get to the GM lens at some point, but I won't necessarily have the Sigma at the same time.
The sigma seems to have excellent sharpness across the frame, I wonder how compares to the Sony 16-35/2.8GM?
I do hope to make that comparison at some point.
What’s your opinion of this lens vs the 12-24 and 16-35 f4? I have both and trying to figure out if I can switch to just one. 30% interiors 70% general shooting and landscapes. Thanks!
The wider lenses are going to work better for interiors for you. I haven't tested the 12-24 yet, but I suspect it will be a good interior option if you are shooting from a tripod. The 14-24 is also good.
it will be great if it can be compared with the sony 16-35 GM
I agree, though not everything can become a multi-lens comparison. I have neither the time nor money to do that.
@@DustinAbbottTWI anyway thank you so much for the great job you've done. quite a lot useful information
I’m definitely interested in the video performance. The 14mm distortion bothers me a bit for that .
Video distortion is corrected if you enable it in camera.
Great review Mr. Abbott.
One question please.
When will you review the canon 15-35 f2.8 for canon RF?
I don't have the answer to that. It depends on when Canon has a loaner available for me. They are sending me the RF 85mm next.
@@DustinAbbottTWI thank you for your kind answer, but that doesnt sound promissing to me. The Sigma 14-24 ist already proven as a very good alround lens for astro and landscape photographay and it will come to the market for canon rf mount very soon as well.
The canon rf 15-35 is almost "untested".
How's this compared to the 14 F1.8? Especially in terms of optical for astro at widest?
It won't suck in as much light, but it is close in terms of coma performance at similar apertures.
Dont suppose youve co pared it to the sony f4 16 -35 or even the g master across the shared focal lengths?
I haven't. I've been working on a getting a better supply for Sony loaners. Their infrastructure in Canada hasn't been great.
Thank you for this upload. I swear you read minds!
Awwww...not for DSLRs
Watch my review on the DSLR version from last year. That's the one you want: th-cam.com/video/7YsIcBpXedM/w-d-xo.html
Thanks for making this video!
You're welcome.
A great comprehensive review, Dustin. I'd love to see a comparison between this model and the DSLR art version. Would that be possible?
a short answer, the mirrorless version is better
Probably not, Tomas, I've already sent the loaner back.
Maybe. I kind of felt the original version had a little more microcontrast.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Sure np:) This new Sigma has some advantages against DSLR version such as size and weight, maybe better coma as far as I can see, but distortion and flare seem to be better on DSLR version. Sharpness and contrast I can't honestly judge, both seem identical in my eyes. Sigma certainly hit the nail right on the head with these ultrawide lenses.
hi, can you compare this sigma at 14mm woth sony 14 gm at 2.8?
I'm afraid that I have neither lens on hand at this point. You can check out Bryan's chart here and play around with it, though: www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1559&Camera=1538&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=2&LensComp=1535&CameraComp=1175&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0
@@DustinAbbottTWI o, thanks, i read your review of the 20mm 1.8, is powerfull lens. I think will get the sony.
How do you feel it compares to the GM?
I haven’t used the GM lens, so I can’t speak to that yet.
Another fantastic lens from Sigma that is basically unusable because of the size and weight. It's a real shame they never got the mirrorless memo. I've tried over and over to find a suitable replacement for the Zeiss 16-34 f/4. I always think I need more range or something faster - but I always come back to it. I rented this lens for 10 days to try it out and compare it and it's absurd how huge it is.
I didn't find it ridiculously large, myself, but there's no question that photographers have different tolerances for that kind of weight.
@@DustinAbbottTWI I may have exaggerated a bit by saying 'unusable' but it just seems that every Sigma lens I've had the opportunity to use has been significantly bigger and heavier than the Sony/Zeiss or Tamron lens of the same focal length/aperture. For handheld video work or use on a gimbal, it really is taxing.
Love your stuff, you're a huge help whenever I'm lens shopping. Keep up the great work.
Shame about the lack of filter compatibility on the Sigma. I'll probably swap my Zeiss 16-35 f4 for the Tamron.
That's always the challenge when you go wider than 16mm with a zoom (at least most of the time).
Tnx, as always very useful and thorough. Will you be doing a review of the Canon 15-35 f/2.8 IS on the R mount. It seems like a game changer ; leaving these non-is bulbous front element lenses behind so would be interested to see how it compares. Especially interested in the canon’s star photography abilities.
I'm working at solving the RF problem. At the moment, I have no R body to do reviews on. I've also not had ready access to loaners. I would like to cover more of the new RF lenses, but I have to solve the logistics issues. Sadly most of the third party lens makers are much more proactive about supplying loaners to reviews (like Sigma, for example, who's distributor makes sure that I get access to all new products.)
@@DustinAbbottTWI That's a shame; could we start a petition to Canon to do the same? Surely 1000s of your subscribers must be interested on the Canon offerings. I am yet to see any other source providing more authoritative, thorough, and independent coverage than yours. I hope it works out.
SwitchRich do you know of another 2.8 is that has an 82 front filter thread?
As for sharpness watch BvS field report ; he must have said sharp dozens of times. Where did you get the idea that it wasn’t sharp?
@SwitchRich Which part you do not understand the Sony doesn't go to 15mm and doesn't have image stabilisation. When SONY does come back to me :-))) lol The 82mm front thread in a 15mm f/2.8 zoom is unheard off and its value is in that allows the use of filters (my point was not in light transmission) but savings in cost, space, weight from not having to carry specialist (read very large) filters. I never claimed BvS is a lens reviewer but he is somebody who has sufficient experience to know if a wide zoom is sharp or not in the real world. You still haven't reported your source of review that says it is not sharp.
For me, not being able to protect the lens easily properly with a protection filter proves a *huge* risk. The tiniest scratch imposes huge problems. That doesn't warrant the price increase for me at least.
Hmmm, I can understand that concern, but in all of my years of reviewing and using lenses, I can think of one situation where I fell and scratched the front element of a lens.
that cat
He's a sweet one.
Add "comparison with Tamron 17-28 2.8" somewhere in the video title. Not only it would be more helpful for people, it would give you much more views!
Thanks for the input.
Focus inconsistencies?
Focus seemed pretty solid.
thx Dustin
You're welcome.
Sony 12-24 not even worth a mention because it is f4?
it's expensive for Dustin to get Sony lenses where he is
I don't yet have a reliable source for Sony loaners, and I don't have the time or money to make every review a comparison series.
My daily workhorse is my Sigma 12-24 f/4 (Canon mount, but works great adapted on my Sony). I rarely shoot at f/5.6 or wider but do almost everything at f8 -for real estate photography.
Hello Dustin, Thank for the review.
I love Sigma but have 16-35 Gm in my hands.
That's a pretty good consolation prize ;)
Sell it.😁
14-24mm is more useful focal length compared to 17-28.
I agree...though that isn’t the only consideration.
What a great lens. Another good option for Sony shooters and beating Sony to market with a 14-24/2.8 is going to be good for Sigma. Now Sony will have to at least match this lens on IQ to justify their much higher prices.
Valid point, and the 14-24mm focal length is a very versatile one.
Wait this is Indianapolis?!
Yes, I was in Indy for a good part of this review.
I bought the Sigma, and now I'm having some hardcore buyer's remorse. No front-mounter filter? What was I thinking.... Anyone in Edmonton wonna trade their Tammy for my Sigma? QQ
I'd be willing to do that trade, though I'm not in Edmonton (I'm in Ontario)
you can buy Haida gel filter for sigma 14-24