Another reason to choose the Tamron is that both Tamron and Sigma own 28-70(75) with 67mm filter threads. However, the Sigma 16-28 filter thread size is 72mm while the Tamron has the standard 67mm one, so it would be less of a hassle to deal with inconsistent filter sizes if you choose the Tamron
Thoughts on: 1. flare control? 2. focus breathing for video? 3. AF noise? 4. What is MFD at 28mm with Tamron? 5. At 20mm are either of these optically superior to the Sony 20mm f1.8 in your opinion? Good tight review/comparison.
Thank you very much for this review! Many other Sigma 16-28 reviews don't even mention the elephant in the room, which is Tamron, so I've been looking forward to comparison review as I'm in the market for cheap wide angle zoom lens. Now, couple of notes. Lack of the last front glass on Tamron can be compensated to certain extend just by adding circular filter. In theory, Sigma having one extra layer of glass could result in more image distortion, but in practice we could see it's not the case. Since I mentioned filters - I think you forgot to mention filter size difference. 67 mm for Tamron vs 72mm for Sigma. Another minor test I would like to see in this test would be comparison between these two on wider apertures. Naturally most common use for these will be landscape photography, so it would be nice to see how they perform somewhere in f8-f16 range. To me personally the biggest selling point for Sigma would be that extra 1mm on the wide end, but is it enough to justify buying it over used Tamron? thank you again for this great review!
Thanks! I bought the Tamron used in new condition for under 600$. I used it for a project on architecture & it gave me very good results - also in terms of sharpness & detail. From your video there seems to be minor variance as is to be expected as both lenses have similar principles. A slightly larger zoom range at the cost of a bit more distortion & vignette would be expected. As usual a very precise comparison as compared to many reviewers who are saying that the sigma is sharper with more contrast. I think both companies are giving us fine lenses at great value.
You can convert the Tamron 17-28 f/2.8 to an internal zoom lens: if you add a 67mm filter to the Tamron, all moving parts are sealed (like the Sigma 16-28 f/2.8)
I recently picked up the Tamron 17-28mm used for $700. I was curious about the Sigma, and it looks good, but for $300 less I think the Tamron was the better value.
I recently bought a tamroon last week for $650 new! I also pick the tamroon because of the 67mm filter thread so it's definitely a better value for me :)!
@@jackhkf1419 Same. Since I own a tamron 28-75mm with that filter thread size, makes more sense to go for 17-28mm as well and match the sizes. Same would be if i owned the sigma 28-70mm, but it's not the case
I bought the Tamron to save money, but I have other sigma lenses that work great with the a7sIII. I actually like both lenses for different reasons and depends on your budget and needs either lens is a good choice and can produce professional grade images and video.
Thanks Dustin, another great video targeting a question many of us have. Thanks for the details. Can I add another ergonomic point for each: 1. The Sigma zooms the opposite way to Sony (which some find annoying), and 2. The Tamron has the zoom and focus rings reversed (which some find annoying, maybe less than the zoom direction). Still I agree with your overall conclusion that both are likely winners and ultimately choice is great for the open Sony lens mount.
Would it be safe to say that the Tamron would be a better choice or someone who frequently works outdoors and has a higher likelihood of inclement weather conditions?
As far as the basic weather sealing, I would say that's probably accurate. The Sigma has one advantage there, though, and that is that it is more internally zooming and focusing than the Tamron.
Thanks for this video. I thought I had my ultra wide zoom lens choice narrowed down to either the Sigma 16-28 f2.8 or the new Sony 16-35 f4 G PZ. Now I have to take another look at the Tamron :-) I had been very interested in the Sigma 14-24mm f2.8, but ruled it out because of its heft, its cost, and it doesn't take front lens filters. Thanks again for the video even though you've complicated my decision
If price wasn't an issue, in your position I would definitely reconsider the 14-24mm. It's a gem of a lens and pretty comparable to the 12-24mm GM and there are workarounds for the filter issue. I can definitely recommend it and those 2-3mm definitely do make a difference. Good luck choosing.
I have the sigma 14-24 f2.8 and I speak very highly of it. Very sharp, low flaring, and clean sun stars. The Haida filters work very well if you are concerned about being able to use filters. I understand the drawbacks of size and price, but I think the extra cost and weight are well worth the image quality the lens gives you
I also have the Haida filters and they are indeed excellent. You might want to use a circular polarizer which is definitely a concern but as I already stated, there are some (costly) workarounds. I hate having to compromise but image quality and AF performance are way up top on my priorities and the 14-24 f2.8 delivers on both regards. Don't dismiss it just yet because in the long run you might regret not getting it. I know it sounds like I'm a Sigma rep but I'm definitely not. I'm just a happy owner who wants to share the joy this lens has given me on a professional and personal level and I know that for my own purposes (landscape photography and real estate videography) and I would've regretted getting any other Lens (apart from the super expensive 12-24 GM).
I used to have Sony 16-35 GM but the size and weight are too much for me. Besides at focal length 35mm, it is quite soft and I rarely use it. Mostly I take portrait photo so I just need very wide angle lens sometime for creative perspective of portrait photo. So I don't want to carry Sony 16-35 all days to take just few pictures. Now I have Tamron 17-28mm. It serves me well. It is very light and small. It is also useful for video sometime. Right now what I am waiting for is new Sony 16-35mm GM II. I believe that it will follow the concept of new 24-70 and 70-200 GMii, smaller, sharper, and lighter. I hope the 16-35mm GMII is coming up soon to complete the line of Trio lens GMII. Thank you for nice and informative review. It is helpful to keep me waiting to see new Sony 16-35mm without hesitation 😁
How about flare resistance? How about the contrast shooting into the sun? How about coma resistance? These are critical details that are very important to real-life photography.
Both of those things are covered in the individual reviews of these lenses. This isn't an exhaustive review, but rather a highlight of things that stand out on one lens or the other. Both lenses are pretty close in those areas.
I dislike the fact sigma make it 72mm filter size. Their 28-70 is 67mm and all tamron popular lens are 67mm. It is good to use same filter size for most used lens.
This is the issue that I hang up on as well! I want to get the sigma but all my nice filters are in 67mm. I wonder if you could use a step down ring on the sigma without it showing at 16mm. I haven’t seen anyone test that though
The big question I always have is the consistency from one sample of a lens to another. If the manufacturers supplied the lenses for your tests, then they will have been selected to be the best. I have had three Tamron 16-300s and they varied quite a bit from one to the next, especially on the edges where two were quite dreadful for softness even at f11. So, do you ever check for repeatability by getting several samples of a given lens from different sources and who supplies you with the lenses? Thanks.
Hi Mick, in the case of the Tamron, I've reviewed one copy and then purchased one for myself. I always test my own copy of lenses for the very reason you suggest, and I've found that I always get very similar results. Sometimes my copy is marginally better, sometimes the review copy was marginally better, but I've never seen anything outside the margin of error.
@@DustinAbbottTWI I've had mostly good experiences from Tamron on different mounts and some bad experiences with Sigma wide-angles two bad experiences with Sony (135GM, 24-105G). The Sigma and Sony had tilting issues (uneven/poor performance in one or more corners). All are superb when you get a good copy. My sample size is very limited so my advice is try, then buy if you can.
If you’re like many who transitioned from a canon DSLR to a Sony A7 and already own a good quality canon EF to E-mount adapter, I HIGHLY recommend you consider the tamron 17-35mm EF lens instead of these two in this video. It’s a f2.8-f4 lens, which is still pretty good, optically it’s amazingly sharp, and it’s significantly cheaper at $599 new when I got it, now $400-$500 on the used market. Being able to use the 35mm focal length is critical for an ultra wide, it makes it incredibly versatile in a way that 28mm just doesn’t. I can pretty much leave a 16-35mm style lens on my camera all day for almost any purpose… with a 17-28 I’d be constantly swapping lenses with something else to grab details, portraits etc.
@@DustinAbbottTWI yep, you save money because it’s not using the advanced computer driven autofocus like the newer Sony native lenses have.. that said, I have a 5 year old son, and in continuous autofocus mode it has no trouble keeping up (with an A7iii)
In the last bokeh test with leaves, the Tamron image seems REALLY much more brighter (and settings showing on screen were the same as the Sigma), so from your test i do suspect that the Tamron has waaaaay more transmission then the Sigma, to my eye looks like definitely more then half stop, almost two thirds. Basically except the close focus IQ (and i don't think anyone buy a wide-angle zoom for macro purpose), Sigma has worse sharpness in the most part of the image, worse distortion, worse vignette, worse bokeh, cost more, and has only marginal better fringing. On its own looks like a nice lens, but compared to the Tamron seems like a big hole in the water for Sigma.
I still have my 17-28 and will always keep it. It’s my video lens for my gimbal. I have the 70-300 but reserve this one for Animal, portrait, landscape, outdoor sport. I use the apsc mode to get 42mm from the 17-28 and it is good in low light with Sony a7c at f2.8. After 3 years, it is like brand new, and i registered it for 6 years warranty here in Canada.
Great video as always. There was a rumor saying Tamron was getting a "G2" version of the 17-28/2.8, but yet to be materialized. What do you think if putting the Sony PZ 16-35/4 G into the mix? I shoot landscapes mostly so F2.8 or F4 is not a big concern for me (already have the Sony 20/1.8 but sometimes wish I can go wider). Thanks!
I woldn't be surprised to see a G2 version of the 17-28mm, as I think it has done well for Tamron. I haven't reviewed the PZ lens, so I don't have an informed opinion to give.
Thanks Dustin, so very thorough and professional as always. I love the Sigma lens I use Sigma Art 24-70mm f2.8 DG DN and Sigma Art 85mm f1.4 DG DN, but I also love my Tamron 17-28mm f2.8 and your review and comparison leads me to keep the Tamron for now. Thanks
@@DustinAbbottTWI I meant the Tamron. I’m planning to buy a Sony a7iv for videos. I already own Canon 6D mk2 with Sigma 12-24 f4 (thanks for your honest reviews) for photography. I need a lens for videos but also allow filters, prime or zoom, doesn’t matter, but should be wide enough. Thank you!
Great comparison, Dustin! I’ve been following your channel a while and just recently got a Sony A7IV (from a Canon EOS R), and thus far I haven’t bought a lens without checking out one of your reviews on it first. 👍🏻
I got the new Sigma recently. I didn't like Tamron rendering, Sigma rendering looks much better to me. But the AF on Tamron is superior. I have problems with Sigma AF pulsating trying to acquire focus, perhaps it's just defective or might be the problem with all lenses.
@@DustinAbbottTWI ok great, thinking of getting the sigma for vlogging was worried about he distortion and vignetting, but in camera correction should fix this and be unnoticeable I think. Thanks !
Hi Dustin. thks for the video. Quick question. Lightroom doesn´t have a lens correction profile for this lens. How can i make adjustments and save them for future pictures or can i use another similar profile or what is your opinion? i appreciate if you take minute to help me out. Have a good one :)
If you look at my individual reviews, I typically give what I used for manual corrections. You can save that as a preset, though at this stage you should be able to get a lightroom profile for either lens.
@@DustinAbbottTWI thanks a million for your reply. I actually contacted adobe yesterday and they confirmed me that there is no profiles for this lens model. I´ll look up the reviews you mean. Greetings from Germany
It’s been a while since I watched this one, it’s worth rewatching. How do you think the Tamron would hold up next to the 16-35 gm 1 or 2 I own the Tamron for the it’s really worth the money it’s a little of lens. 11:01 thanks
Dang making Tammy look pretty good here. I’m eventually looking to upgrade from my iPhone 13 pro, once I find out what lens I want to pair with the Sony a7iv I’m going to get. The iPhone honestly is a tough competition depending on the content. Right now it seems to be able to get very close to my objects. I’m not sure the specifications, but I’m wondering if even Tamron could get this close at a 24mm. Everything just looks so sharp on the iPhone. It’s just that the depth of field is way too shallow for what I’m doing.
Decided to keep my Tamron 17-28 f2.8 and the new Sony PZ 16-35 f4. I was so close to selling the Tamron and going for the Sigma, but I don't need the extra 1mm. Thanks for the comparison！
These lenses are ideal if you switch between APS-C and full-frame. A 16-28 becomes a 24-42 equivalent when used on an APS-C camera, and that is a very useful focal range. Add on the Tamron 28-75mm f2.8, and you're really off to the races.
Hey Dustin, Love your reviews. I was wondering, have you ever done a recommendation on the Trinity of lenses (Wide, Mid-Rande & Telephoto Zooms) in Sony vs Tamron vs Sigma? Perhaps you can recommend which is a better kit or would it be better to have a mix of the brands that is best for the job? Certainly, the Sony would be the most expensive but would the savings from Sigma and Tamron prove to be a deciding factor for professionals.
There's always tradeoffs, for sure. At the moment Sigma has not yet completed its trinity for Sony (surprising). Tamron is a very good value proposition, with my favorite Tamron lens at the moment being the 35-150mm F2-2.8 VXD. An incredibly good, incredibly useful lens.
Comparison i didn't need but was interested to see since they are so similar. I would buy sony 16-35gm still but the second in that range would go sigma. I wish some sony normal zoom range lens would be internally zoomed too. But tamron is not bad too. Because I am used for barel to extend when going to wider side (16-35 gm) so it would be a bit weird for me to use normal range zoom
@@acouragefann i didn't know it before this video that this new lens is not fully weather sealed! sigma has some weird hate towards weather sealing. Its not the first time. Anything they released recently is with half baked weather sealing. It kinda feels sigma is not as good as it was 4-5 years ago with its awesome price performance releases Being fully honest I think any lens should have weather sealing. Its mandatory. We try to protect not just the lens but our expensive camera along the way. I was extremely stresed when I had not weather sealed samyang 24mm 2.8. Got rid of it as fast as I saved for 16-35gm and now I can film calmy not to be interrupted by an unexpected rain
Eh, the early art series lenses had no weather sealing at all - they only started full weather sealing for non-sports series lenses around the time they brought out the 28/40/105. It seems to be reserved for the Sports series or, at this point, the Art series. So arguably, even just adding the gasket is an improvement, as 5 or 6 years ago, there was no weather sealing at all on most of their (non-sports) lenses. I had considered buying one of the new I-series lenses (small, nice IQ, great handling) but every time the lack of full weather sealing has put me off. I'm sure they did some research and crunched the numbers and found that the lack of weather sealing does not sufficiently impact sales to bother with it for the contemporary series, but it does seem like an oversight when all the new samyangs (even their tiny from the 35mm 1.8 onwards) and all the tamrons are fully weather sealed at this point.
Basically this is a great rundown of each lens. In real life, every test shown is going to be thrown out the window and we will get great images from each lens. We will not be testing these lens on images on a wall or worrying about out of focus images. Most of us will be shooting pictures of our family, gathering, pets, garden, etc. Either lens will be great and fans of one brand will support the brand of choice. One note is that the Tamron doesn't seem to be a true internal zoom and you are right, it may suck in dust, where the Sigma is totally internal zoom and most likely will not suck in dust. But I don't know how they are working internally and if the Sigma has a vacuum sucking problem like the Tamron may have. Also I don't really care about that premium feel as a point for choosing a lens. The Tamron does zoom the same way as the Sony, and that may be a real point of interest. The Sigma is opposite and can cause confusing to a die hard Sony zoom user. Overall, I would be happy to have either because it fits a spot that I feel is really needed. I have the Sigma 14-24 and 24-70. But I don't have a lens that goes from 16-28, that middle spot where I will be shooting from most of the time. These fit in a nice spot for gatherings where an ultrawide zoom or a moderate wide to tele zoom just doesn't work.
Clash of titans for affordable Wide zoom. I somehow feel warm tint on my Tamron lenses. Native sony or even Viltrox colors are neutral. Tamron is giving flat 15%off at Henry's
In some of the example shots, I can clearly see Tamron being a bit brighter, although exposure settings are same for both lenses. But not in a good way, it looks like Tamron loses some of the details in those highlighted areas.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Thanks for your reply. I would like to be a bit more precise. I think about picture @10:27, in the right part of the Tamron photo. I was very curious about this, because I've experienced something similar with Tamron 70-200 G2.
I bought the Tamron to save money, but I have other sigma lenses that work great with the a7sIII. I actually like both lenses for different reasons and depends on your budget and needs either lens is a good choice and can produce professional grade images and video.
@@DustinAbbottTWI You know, there's a way to measure that, and it something I'd really like people to start doing. Very few people have measured the actual focal length, and when they do, they just do it on a lens or two. For ex, I remember that the Sony 20mm f1.8 was actually around 19.3mm.
So thankful for this review. I have the Tamron but ive been hearing good stuff about the Sigma. No sense in selling the already excellent Tamron for the Sigma.
i was amongst first ones to buy from B&H. I wanted to like the lens a lot. But it vignettes too bad at 16mm. I think I am going to return and go either Laowa 15mm or go with Tammy 17
Great video! I heard that the Tamron suffers from green colour cast in the corners, is that something you noted? Also does the sigma have this issue as well?
As always, very precise and useful comparison, Dustin, appreciate! Looks, now, owners of the Tamron WA have no real reason to change to the Sigma, as they are quite neck to neck.
As usual quality review and content!!!🙌🏻. I would suggest to try shooting stars at night if possible and sunstar quality so for landscape photographers like me wouldn’t have to look at other videos
Both of those things are covered in the individual reviews of these lenses. I don't cover everything in the comparisons as it would take too much time.
The 72mm filter thread takes some shine off the sigma for me.. it would have been nice to pair with my Sony 20mm & 35mm which are both 67mm filter threads. Conversely the build quality of the tamron puts me off...
Tamron coming down to $600 USD and Sigma at $850. A significant price drop but I'm really waiting if there'd be G2 version of Tamron 17-28 in the works. If not I'd still settle for the Tamron .
I very selsom need wider than 24 and I already own the Sigma 20 f2. Canon have a small 16 f2.8. If Sony or Sigma comes with something like that I would buy it. So small you can put it in the bag wherever you go. I don't care about shallow depth of field in an ultrawide lens.
Interesting to see how well the Tamron performs, considering the Sigma is brand new and the Tamron's not. One thing to also note is that the Sigma has a 72mm filter thread and the Tamron 67mm. Would the IQ comparison result change if stopped down from f/2.8 to, say, f/5.6-f/11? Guess the Sigma at least would brighten up in the corners. The "worst" thing with the Sony eco system is that there now are so many great lenses to choose from :D Thanks for a another very good comparison video!
Looks like the zoom rings go opposite directions. If you're used to shooting with Tamron then your muscle memory is going to appreciate staying with the brand.
I have the Sigma, but honestly, I don’t like it. The distortion is horrible. However, I hate Tamron’s colors and look too. So I don’t like any of these.
@@imboredDB Honestly, it's because "lens colours" are such an irrelevantly small detail unless you shoot exclusively JPEG. It usually comes down to minute differences in white balance that no one other than us pixel peeping photographers pay attention to. Distortion and serious vignetting is a bigger issue because they affect DR and correction limitations.
With all due respect, I have both lenses, Sigma by far is a superior lens, in comparison to Tamron, Sigma is ridiculously sharper, but since you always like Tamron, I knew that you would find a way, to make Tamron a winner, maybe you work for Tamron who knows, but thanks for your review.
Hmmm, ridiculously sharper based on what, exactly? Not MTFs, not my results, not other reviewers. You are making accusations without any supporting evidence.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Based on my own experience and many reviews all over TH-cam, and other platforms, Tamron is a cheap product in comparison to Sigma no doubt about that, anyway this is your channel, it's your call to praise whatever you believe is best, the test results you provided, the first Fuji pocket size, made in 2000, will do better than this lens, according to your test results, you may probably used a bad copy.
looks like sigma IQ is lower than i expected, i have tam 17-28 really good lens i bought it used for 650€ ,, i liked idea to have one extra mm on sigma, but now i m not sure if its worth
Another reason to choose the Tamron is that both Tamron and Sigma own 28-70(75) with 67mm filter threads. However, the Sigma 16-28 filter thread size is 72mm while the Tamron has the standard 67mm one, so it would be less of a hassle to deal with inconsistent filter sizes if you choose the Tamron
That's true if you own both lenses.
I'm hoping Tamron give their 17-28 the G2 treatment this year, or release a something to 35mm wide zoom lens.
That would be nice, for sure.
The vxd g2 is rumoured.
Thoughts on:
1. flare control?
2. focus breathing for video?
3. AF noise?
4. What is MFD at 28mm with Tamron?
5. At 20mm are either of these optically superior to the Sony 20mm f1.8 in your opinion?
Good tight review/comparison.
Thank you very much for this review! Many other Sigma 16-28 reviews don't even mention the elephant in the room, which is Tamron, so I've been looking forward to comparison review as I'm in the market for cheap wide angle zoom lens. Now, couple of notes.
Lack of the last front glass on Tamron can be compensated to certain extend just by adding circular filter. In theory, Sigma having one extra layer of glass could result in more image distortion, but in practice we could see it's not the case.
Since I mentioned filters - I think you forgot to mention filter size difference. 67 mm for Tamron vs 72mm for Sigma.
Another minor test I would like to see in this test would be comparison between these two on wider apertures. Naturally most common use for these will be landscape photography, so it would be nice to see how they perform somewhere in f8-f16 range.
To me personally the biggest selling point for Sigma would be that extra 1mm on the wide end, but is it enough to justify buying it over used Tamron?
thank you again for this great review!
At smaller apertures (F5.6 and beyond), the two lenses are going to be very similar optically in terms of sharpness.
Thanks! I bought the Tamron used in new condition for under 600$. I used it for a project on architecture & it gave me very good results - also in terms of sharpness & detail. From your video there seems to be minor variance as is to be expected as both lenses have similar principles. A slightly larger zoom range at the cost of a bit more distortion & vignette would be expected. As usual a very precise comparison as compared to many reviewers who are saying that the sigma is sharper with more contrast. I think both companies are giving us fine lenses at great value.
That's a fair assessment.
You can convert the Tamron 17-28 f/2.8 to an internal zoom lens: if you add a 67mm filter to the Tamron, all moving parts are sealed (like the Sigma 16-28 f/2.8)
That's roughly true.
I recently picked up the Tamron 17-28mm used for $700. I was curious about the Sigma, and it looks good, but for $300 less I think the Tamron was the better value.
It would be hard to argue that much of a price difference.
I recently bought a tamroon last week for $650 new! I also pick the tamroon because of the 67mm filter thread so it's definitely a better value for me :)!
@@jackhkf1419 Same. Since I own a tamron 28-75mm with that filter thread size, makes more sense to go for 17-28mm as well and match the sizes. Same would be if i owned the sigma 28-70mm, but it's not the case
I bought the Tamron to save money, but I have other sigma lenses that work great with the a7sIII. I actually like both lenses for different reasons and depends on your budget and needs either lens is a good choice and can produce professional grade images and video.
Thanks Dustin, another great video targeting a question many of us have. Thanks for the details. Can I add another ergonomic point for each:
1. The Sigma zooms the opposite way to Sony (which some find annoying), and
2. The Tamron has the zoom and focus rings reversed (which some find annoying, maybe less than the zoom direction).
Still I agree with your overall conclusion that both are likely winners and ultimately choice is great for the open Sony lens mount.
Both valid observations
Would it be safe to say that the Tamron would be a better choice or someone who frequently works outdoors and has a higher likelihood of inclement weather conditions?
As far as the basic weather sealing, I would say that's probably accurate. The Sigma has one advantage there, though, and that is that it is more internally zooming and focusing than the Tamron.
Thanks for this video. I thought I had my ultra wide zoom lens choice narrowed down to either the Sigma 16-28 f2.8 or the new Sony 16-35 f4 G PZ. Now I have to take another look at the Tamron :-) I had been very interested in the Sigma 14-24mm f2.8, but ruled it out because of its heft, its cost, and it doesn't take front lens filters. Thanks again for the video even though you've complicated my decision
If price wasn't an issue, in your position I would definitely reconsider the 14-24mm. It's a gem of a lens and pretty comparable to the 12-24mm GM and there are workarounds for the filter issue. I can definitely recommend it and those 2-3mm definitely do make a difference. Good luck choosing.
I have the sigma 14-24 f2.8 and I speak very highly of it. Very sharp, low flaring, and clean sun stars. The Haida filters work very well if you are concerned about being able to use filters. I understand the drawbacks of size and price, but I think the extra cost and weight are well worth the image quality the lens gives you
I also have the Haida filters and they are indeed excellent. You might want to use a circular polarizer which is definitely a concern but as I already stated, there are some (costly) workarounds.
I hate having to compromise but image quality and AF performance are way up top on my priorities and the 14-24 f2.8 delivers on both regards. Don't dismiss it just yet because in the long run you might regret not getting it.
I know it sounds like I'm a Sigma rep but I'm definitely not. I'm just a happy owner who wants to share the joy this lens has given me on a professional and personal level and I know that for my own purposes (landscape photography and real estate videography) and I would've regretted getting any other Lens (apart from the super expensive 12-24 GM).
I had the Sigma 14-24 and liked it, but just too heavy to carry around all the time. It is a beast of a lens. So sold it, but do enjoy the Tamron.
The Sigma 14-24mm is the killer lens of the group if you don't mind the heft and cost. I use the Haida rear filter system and it works well.
I used to have Sony 16-35 GM but the size and weight are too much for me. Besides at focal length 35mm, it is quite soft and I rarely use it. Mostly I take portrait photo so I just need very wide angle lens sometime for creative perspective of portrait photo. So I don't want to carry Sony 16-35 all days to take just few pictures. Now I have Tamron 17-28mm. It serves me well. It is very light and small. It is also useful for video sometime. Right now what I am waiting for is new Sony 16-35mm GM II. I believe that it will follow the concept of new 24-70 and 70-200 GMii, smaller, sharper, and lighter. I hope the 16-35mm GMII is coming up soon to complete the line of Trio lens GMII. Thank you for nice and informative review. It is helpful to keep me waiting to see new Sony 16-35mm without hesitation 😁
I wouldn't be surprised to see a MK II of the 16-35 GM, though it will probably be pricey.
Hi Justin... Please compare IQ/sharpness of both lenses at F 5.6 which is an important aperture for a wide-angle-lens. Thx.
You should be able to see that in their respective reviews.
Exactly the video I was waiting for since the release of the Sigma. Thx Dustin!
Glad to help!
How about flare resistance? How about the contrast shooting into the sun? How about coma resistance? These are critical details that are very important to real-life photography.
Both of those things are covered in the individual reviews of these lenses. This isn't an exhaustive review, but rather a highlight of things that stand out on one lens or the other. Both lenses are pretty close in those areas.
I dislike the fact sigma make it 72mm filter size. Their 28-70 is 67mm and all tamron popular lens are 67mm. It is good to use same filter size for most used lens.
I agree on the 72mm filter size. There's a LOT of lenses with a 67mm filter size.
This is the issue that I hang up on as well! I want to get the sigma but all my nice filters are in 67mm. I wonder if you could use a step down ring on the sigma without it showing at 16mm. I haven’t seen anyone test that though
I would assume it's to avoid vignetting as it is a wider lens.
Get over it lol. Get a step up ring with larger filters. Easy fix.
The big question I always have is the consistency from one sample of a lens to another. If the manufacturers supplied the lenses for your tests, then they will have been selected to be the best. I have had three Tamron 16-300s and they varied quite a bit from one to the next, especially on the edges where two were quite dreadful for softness even at f11. So, do you ever check for repeatability by getting several samples of a given lens from different sources and who supplies you with the lenses? Thanks.
Hi Mick, in the case of the Tamron, I've reviewed one copy and then purchased one for myself. I always test my own copy of lenses for the very reason you suggest, and I've found that I always get very similar results. Sometimes my copy is marginally better, sometimes the review copy was marginally better, but I've never seen anything outside the margin of error.
@@DustinAbbottTWI I've had mostly good experiences from Tamron on different mounts and some bad experiences with Sigma wide-angles two bad experiences with Sony (135GM, 24-105G). The Sigma and Sony had tilting issues (uneven/poor performance in one or more corners). All are superb when you get a good copy. My sample size is very limited so my advice is try, then buy if you can.
This video has a feel of being in a photography class, love it!
That's awesome!
If you’re like many who transitioned from a canon DSLR to a Sony A7 and already own a good quality canon EF to E-mount adapter, I HIGHLY recommend you consider the tamron 17-35mm EF lens instead of these two in this video. It’s a f2.8-f4 lens, which is still pretty good, optically it’s amazingly sharp, and it’s significantly cheaper at $599 new when I got it, now $400-$500 on the used market. Being able to use the 35mm focal length is critical for an ultra wide, it makes it incredibly versatile in a way that 28mm just doesn’t. I can pretty much leave a 16-35mm style lens on my camera all day for almost any purpose… with a 17-28 I’d be constantly swapping lenses with something else to grab details, portraits etc.
The 17-35 was good optically, though the autofocus was not very impressive.
@@DustinAbbottTWI yep, you save money because it’s not using the advanced computer driven autofocus like the newer Sony native lenses have.. that said, I have a 5 year old son, and in continuous autofocus mode it has no trouble keeping up (with an A7iii)
In the last bokeh test with leaves, the Tamron image seems REALLY much more brighter (and settings showing on screen were the same as the Sigma), so from your test i do suspect that the Tamron has waaaaay more transmission then the Sigma, to my eye looks like definitely more then half stop, almost two thirds. Basically except the close focus IQ (and i don't think anyone buy a wide-angle zoom for macro purpose), Sigma has worse sharpness in the most part of the image, worse distortion, worse vignette, worse bokeh, cost more, and has only marginal better fringing. On its own looks like a nice lens, but compared to the Tamron seems like a big hole in the water for Sigma.
Part of that difference could be vignette, too, rather than light transmission.
I still have my 17-28 and will always keep it. It’s my video lens for my gimbal. I have the 70-300 but reserve this one for Animal, portrait, landscape, outdoor sport.
I use the apsc mode to get 42mm from the 17-28 and it is good in low light with Sony a7c at f2.8. After 3 years, it is like brand new, and i registered it for 6 years warranty here in Canada.
Fair enough.
Would you suggest one over the other for Real Estate Photography?
Probably the Tamron for lower distortion.
@@DustinAbbottTWI I went with the Sigma for that extra reach. Thanks for your input and review
The comparison we all needed! Thanks Dustin
My pleasure, Alex
Great video as always. There was a rumor saying Tamron was getting a "G2" version of the 17-28/2.8, but yet to be materialized. What do you think if putting the Sony PZ 16-35/4 G into the mix? I shoot landscapes mostly so F2.8 or F4 is not a big concern for me (already have the Sony 20/1.8 but sometimes wish I can go wider). Thanks!
I woldn't be surprised to see a G2 version of the 17-28mm, as I think it has done well for Tamron. I haven't reviewed the PZ lens, so I don't have an informed opinion to give.
Thanks Dustin, so very thorough and professional as always. I love the Sigma lens I use Sigma Art 24-70mm f2.8 DG DN and Sigma Art 85mm f1.4 DG DN, but I also love my Tamron 17-28mm f2.8 and your review and comparison leads me to keep the Tamron for now. Thanks
Hi Gerald, I'm glad this comparison helped.
@@DustinAbbottTWI thanks so much, Cheers
In the 16mm vs 17mm comparison, was the barrel distortion corrected beforehand? There seems to be a bit more distortion on the Sigma there.
I think I show both corrected and uncorrected in that sequence if you look carefully.
I see only uncorrected photos and the Sigma is horrible. Would go for Sony G20 f1.8!!
Many thanks! Great video indeed. Would you recommend it for real estate videography?
Which one? Lower distortion is better for real estate, obviously, so there are some primes that beat both these zooms.
@@DustinAbbottTWI I meant the Tamron. I’m planning to buy a Sony a7iv for videos. I already own Canon 6D mk2 with Sigma 12-24 f4 (thanks for your honest reviews) for photography. I need a lens for videos but also allow filters, prime or zoom, doesn’t matter, but should be wide enough. Thank you!
Great comparison, Dustin! I’ve been following your channel a while and just recently got a Sony A7IV (from a Canon EOS R), and thus far I haven’t bought a lens without checking out one of your reviews on it first. 👍🏻
That's a high compliment. Thank you.
I got the new Sigma recently. I didn't like Tamron rendering, Sigma rendering looks much better to me. But the AF on Tamron is superior. I have problems with Sigma AF pulsating trying to acquire focus, perhaps it's just defective or might be the problem with all lenses.
Interesting. What camera body? I didn't experience the pulsing issue.
Hey! Great review.
Regarding the lens distortion and vignetteing section, was this with the in camera lens correction turned on or off ?
I do the comparisons with RAW images, so no corrections.
@@DustinAbbottTWI ok great, thinking of getting the sigma for vlogging was worried about he distortion and vignetting, but in camera correction should fix this and be unnoticeable I think. Thanks !
Hi Dustin. thks for the video. Quick question. Lightroom doesn´t have a lens correction profile for this lens. How can i make adjustments and save them for future pictures or can i use another similar profile or what is your opinion? i appreciate if you take minute to help me out. Have a good one :)
If you look at my individual reviews, I typically give what I used for manual corrections. You can save that as a preset, though at this stage you should be able to get a lightroom profile for either lens.
@@DustinAbbottTWI thanks a million for your reply. I actually contacted adobe yesterday and they confirmed me that there is no profiles for this lens model. I´ll look up the reviews you mean. Greetings from Germany
It’s been a while since I watched this one, it’s worth rewatching. How do you think the Tamron would hold up next to the 16-35 gm 1 or 2 I own the Tamron for the it’s really worth the money it’s a little of lens. 11:01 thanks
The GM lens is better, of course, but arguably not $1000 more.
@ my thoughts exactly 👍
Dang making Tammy look pretty good here. I’m eventually looking to upgrade from my iPhone 13 pro, once I find out what lens I want to pair with the Sony a7iv I’m going to get.
The iPhone honestly is a tough competition depending on the content. Right now it seems to be able to get very close to my objects. I’m not sure the specifications, but I’m wondering if even Tamron could get this close at a 24mm. Everything just looks so sharp on the iPhone. It’s just that the depth of field is way too shallow for what I’m doing.
The iPhone 13 pro is fairly strong. You can do more with mirrorless cameras, obviously, but for certain functions the iPhone does very well.
Decided to keep my Tamron 17-28 f2.8 and the new Sony PZ 16-35 f4.
I was so close to selling the Tamron and going for the Sigma, but I don't need the extra 1mm.
Thanks for the comparison！
Glad to help out.
These lenses are ideal if you switch between APS-C and full-frame. A 16-28 becomes a 24-42 equivalent when used on an APS-C camera, and that is a very useful focal range. Add on the Tamron 28-75mm f2.8, and you're really off to the races.
Fair enough.
For aosc better go with Tamron 17-70 f2.8
Hey Dustin, Love your reviews. I was wondering, have you ever done a recommendation on the Trinity of lenses (Wide, Mid-Rande & Telephoto Zooms) in Sony vs Tamron vs Sigma? Perhaps you can recommend which is a better kit or would it be better to have a mix of the brands that is best for the job? Certainly, the Sony would be the most expensive but would the savings from Sigma and Tamron prove to be a deciding factor for professionals.
There's always tradeoffs, for sure. At the moment Sigma has not yet completed its trinity for Sony (surprising). Tamron is a very good value proposition, with my favorite Tamron lens at the moment being the 35-150mm F2-2.8 VXD. An incredibly good, incredibly useful lens.
Alguém pode me informar qual dessas lentes o desempenho melhor no autofoco
Comparison i didn't need but was interested to see since they are so similar. I would buy sony 16-35gm still but the second in that range would go sigma. I wish some sony normal zoom range lens would be internally zoomed too. But tamron is not bad too. Because I am used for barel to extend when going to wider side (16-35 gm) so it would be a bit weird for me to use normal range zoom
I feel like a landscape lens approaching the 1000$ mark should really have full weather sealing (the Sigma does not).
@@acouragefann i didn't know it before this video that this new lens is not fully weather sealed!
sigma has some weird hate towards weather sealing. Its not the first time. Anything they released recently is with half baked weather sealing. It kinda feels sigma is not as good as it was 4-5 years ago with its awesome price performance releases
Being fully honest I think any lens should have weather sealing. Its mandatory. We try to protect not just the lens but our expensive camera along the way. I was extremely stresed when I had not weather sealed samyang 24mm 2.8. Got rid of it as fast as I saved for 16-35gm and now I can film calmy not to be interrupted by an unexpected rain
Interesting feedback. Thanks!
Eh, the early art series lenses had no weather sealing at all - they only started full weather sealing for non-sports series lenses around the time they brought out the 28/40/105. It seems to be reserved for the Sports series or, at this point, the Art series. So arguably, even just adding the gasket is an improvement, as 5 or 6 years ago, there was no weather sealing at all on most of their (non-sports) lenses. I had considered buying one of the new I-series lenses (small, nice IQ, great handling) but every time the lack of full weather sealing has put me off. I'm sure they did some research and crunched the numbers and found that the lack of weather sealing does not sufficiently impact sales to bother with it for the contemporary series, but it does seem like an oversight when all the new samyangs (even their tiny from the 35mm 1.8 onwards) and all the tamrons are fully weather sealed at this point.
Basically this is a great rundown of each lens. In real life, every test shown is going to be thrown out the window and we will get great images from each lens. We will not be testing these lens on images on a wall or worrying about out of focus images. Most of us will be shooting pictures of our family, gathering, pets, garden, etc. Either lens will be great and fans of one brand will support the brand of choice. One note is that the Tamron doesn't seem to be a true internal zoom and you are right, it may suck in dust, where the Sigma is totally internal zoom and most likely will not suck in dust. But I don't know how they are working internally and if the Sigma has a vacuum sucking problem like the Tamron may have. Also I don't really care about that premium feel as a point for choosing a lens. The Tamron does zoom the same way as the Sony, and that may be a real point of interest. The Sigma is opposite and can cause confusing to a die hard Sony zoom user.
Overall, I would be happy to have either because it fits a spot that I feel is really needed. I have the Sigma 14-24 and 24-70. But I don't have a lens that goes from 16-28, that middle spot where I will be shooting from most of the time. These fit in a nice spot for gatherings where an ultrawide zoom or a moderate wide to tele zoom just doesn't work.
I agree that both lenses are capable of very good results.
Curious about your thoughts about either lens for astrophotography?
I’ve covered that for both lenses in their individual reviews. Both are more similar than different in their coma performance
Clash of titans for affordable Wide zoom. I somehow feel warm tint on my Tamron lenses. Native sony or even Viltrox colors are neutral.
Tamron is giving flat 15%off at Henry's
Viltrox glass has gotten a lot better in that regard in the last year
In some of the example shots, I can clearly see Tamron being a bit brighter, although exposure settings are same for both lenses. But not in a good way, it looks like Tamron loses some of the details in those highlighted areas.
Interesting.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Thanks for your reply. I would like to be a bit more precise. I think about picture @10:27, in the right part of the Tamron photo. I was very curious about this, because I've experienced something similar with Tamron 70-200 G2.
Thanks for a great review! IMO it clearly showed that the Tamron is a better lens for probably 90% of the people out there.
I bought the Tamron to save money, but I have other sigma lenses that work great with the a7sIII. I actually like both lenses for different reasons and depends on your budget and needs either lens is a good choice and can produce professional grade images and video.
Thanks for the info. The 16mm doesn't seem as wide as I would expect. I'd be curious to see it compared to a Sony 16mm.
Hmmm, I would say it is pretty much accurate at 16mm
@@DustinAbbottTWI You know, there's a way to measure that, and it something I'd really like people to start doing. Very few people have measured the actual focal length, and when they do, they just do it on a lens or two. For ex, I remember that the Sony 20mm f1.8 was actually around 19.3mm.
So thankful for this review. I have the Tamron but ive been hearing good stuff about the Sigma. No sense in selling the already excellent Tamron for the Sigma.
i was amongst first ones to buy from B&H. I wanted to like the lens a lot. But it vignettes too bad at 16mm. I think I am going to return and go either Laowa 15mm or go with Tammy 17
That's tough.
Great video! I heard that the Tamron suffers from green colour cast in the corners, is that something you noted? Also does the sigma have this issue as well?
I don't think I've noticed a green cast myself.
How does the autofocus speed compare on both these lenses?
There's not really an appreciable difference. The Sigma might be a hair faster, but both lenses focus quickly and smoothly
were both tested with in camera corrections off? That sigma distortion at 16 is almost a deal breaker for me
That's correct.
And there is no real full in-camera correction for vignetting and distortion!😢😢😢
As always, very precise and useful comparison, Dustin, appreciate! Looks, now, owners of the Tamron WA have no real reason to change to the Sigma, as they are quite neck to neck.
My pleasure.
Thanks for the review (s) Dustin! Always well done
Thank you.
Love this! Awesome VS video. New sub!
Welcome on board.
As usual quality review and content!!!🙌🏻. I would suggest to try shooting stars at night if possible and sunstar quality so for landscape photographers like me wouldn’t have to look at other videos
Both of those things are covered in the individual reviews of these lenses. I don't cover everything in the comparisons as it would take too much time.
@@DustinAbbottTWI appreciate the quick reply.
Sigma review link in description is missing :)
Thank you. I've fixed it.
For me , better distortion and overall sharpness of tamron is winner . Thanks so much for good review .
this is not true. The sigma is much sharper than the tamrom! See other tests and comparison pictures. This guy here has no idea.
You’re welcome
The 72mm filter thread takes some shine off the sigma for me.. it would have been nice to pair with my Sony 20mm & 35mm which are both 67mm filter threads. Conversely the build quality of the tamron puts me off...
I don’t love the 72mm filter size, either
Tamron coming down to $600 USD and Sigma at $850. A significant price drop but I'm really waiting if there'd be G2 version of Tamron 17-28 in the works. If not I'd still settle for the Tamron .
It's true that the 17-28mm is probably the most logical Tamron lens to get the G2 treatment.
Based on the photos from your test, it seems to me that the Sigma is sharper. Is that really the case?
Especially at 28 in the center mm you can clearly see the advantage of Sigma. At least that's how it can be seen in the photo you showed
There is some give and take between the two, depending on what focal length and where you look in the frame.
I loved this video btw thank you and great work.
Glad to hear it.
It is the best comaprsion, with well chosen examples, thank you!
But they are so similar and it’s hard to choose between them even after this review
That's very true.
I very selsom need wider than 24 and I already own the Sigma 20 f2.
Canon have a small 16 f2.8. If Sony or Sigma comes with something like that I would buy it. So small you can put it in the bag wherever you go.
I don't care about shallow depth of field in an ultrawide lens.
Samyang has a compact 18mm F2.8 that's quite inexpensive.
@@DustinAbbottTWI I know and I feel that the difference between 20 and 18 is not very big. That's why I would prefer 16 mm
Thank you. I can now continue to be happy with my Tamron in peace.
And sometimes that's all you need.
Distortion is a big concern for ultra wide zoom
Unfortunately a pretty common issue for wide angle zooms.
Interesting to see how well the Tamron performs, considering the Sigma is brand new and the Tamron's not. One thing to also note is that the Sigma has a 72mm filter thread and the Tamron 67mm. Would the IQ comparison result change if stopped down from f/2.8 to, say, f/5.6-f/11? Guess the Sigma at least would brighten up in the corners. The "worst" thing with the Sony eco system is that there now are so many great lenses to choose from :D Thanks for a another very good comparison video!
They are more similar than different at smaller apertures
Just a real shame that Sigma don't really put weather sealing on the Contemporary range.
There is a rear gasket, but not necessarily internal seals.
@@DustinAbbottTWI It does not have internal seals. You need to pay for the Sport or Art range for that. So the lens is just not usable for me sadly.
I was worry my Tamron is not good enough. Now I fell much better to keep it.
I'm glad this helped, then.
Perfect review, as usual 😊
Thank you very much.
Great review as always. One of the best reviewers on TH-cam for Sony. You and Frost.
Appreciate that
If you want to use Filters then that swings to Tamron as well
Because of the common filter sizes?
Thanks for the review, your work is awesome
Thank you very much
Been waiting for this video all week! Decided to go for the Tamron literally last night bc I saw a used one with a good price 😂
Good things come to those who wait ;)
Looks like the zoom rings go opposite directions. If you're used to shooting with Tamron then your muscle memory is going to appreciate staying with the brand.
That's true. Sigma is actually opposite to Sony as well.
Very helpful video… again. Thanks!
Glad it was helpful!
Great video Dustin!
Thank you, Stephen.
I have the Sigma, but honestly, I don’t like it. The distortion is horrible. However, I hate Tamron’s colors and look too. So I don’t like any of these.
You might want to consider either the Sony 20-70mm F4 as a zoom, or look at the Viltrox AF 16mm F1.8. It's an amazing prime and an amazing value.
Weird none of the reviews state this, now im confused what to get 😮
@@imboredDB Honestly, it's because "lens colours" are such an irrelevantly small detail unless you shoot exclusively JPEG. It usually comes down to minute differences in white balance that no one other than us pixel peeping photographers pay attention to. Distortion and serious vignetting is a bigger issue because they affect DR and correction limitations.
@OmgMustafa I'm shocked, both the reviews and results I've seen on Utube have been awesome.
Great video brother
Much appreciated
Nice review Mr. Abbot.
Glad you liked it!
Thanks for a nice review.I have both at home now.Sigma go bavk.The distortion is😢
That can definitely be an issue
7 months later Sigma 16-28 is cheaper (only by equal 40 US$) than Tamron 17-28 where I live.
That's interesting. Markets can be really inconsistent with pricing from one to the other.
Team Tamron all the way! (Of course i'm biased though......loved 'em since the mid 80's...)
That’s going back a ways
Hmm my conclusion is get whichever one is cheaper second hand at the time? 😂
Fair enough.
With all due respect, I have both lenses, Sigma by far is a superior lens, in comparison to Tamron, Sigma is ridiculously sharper, but since you always like Tamron, I knew that you would find a way, to make Tamron a winner, maybe you work for Tamron who knows, but thanks for your review.
Hmmm, ridiculously sharper based on what, exactly? Not MTFs, not my results, not other reviewers. You are making accusations without any supporting evidence.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Based on my own experience and many reviews all over TH-cam, and other platforms, Tamron is a cheap product in comparison to Sigma no doubt about that, anyway this is your channel, it's your call to praise whatever you believe is best, the test results you provided, the first Fuji pocket size, made in 2000, will do better than this lens, according to your test results, you may probably used a bad copy.
Good job, earned a sub from me... Thank you.
Thanks for the sub!
You look like a younger, American version of Richard Tatti
Interesting. That's a new one for me.
looks like sigma IQ is lower than i expected, i have tam 17-28 really good lens i bought it used for 650€ ,, i liked idea to have one extra mm on sigma, but now i m not sure if its worth
I'm not sure it is lower than expected, as the Tamron was already very good.
You don't say anything about stability
Neither lens has optical stabilization, so both rely on the IBIS in the camera.
In every test on the internet, the tamrom is worse. Especially with sharpness etc.. Only not here.... dubios
I can only report what I find, and since I reviewed it before any other reviews were out, I certainly wasn’t influenced by anyone else
FUCK TAMRON MN....SIGMA WHUT WHUT
Fanboy 😂
The fact that you categorize tamron as a leader in anything and putting it in the pro category means you’re in no way qualified to give any advice. 😂
Based on your vast experience having reviewed hundreds of lenses? Oh wait, that's me.
When the results are not pleasing certain persons, they often tend to just disqualify everything, but that includes their biased opinion 🤣
No nightsky / lowlight comparison :(
You can find that information in my reviews of either lens. There was no clear advantage for one or the other.
That living room is perfectly set up for interventions.
Not sure what that means, but, thanks ???