Sigma or Tamron

[colin_mangan]

<p>So which is better for wedding photography in terms of sharpness the Sigma 24-70 f2.8 or the Tamron 28-75 f2.8? Either of them come anywhere close to the Nikon 24-70 f2.8 in terms of quality?</p>

[josephbraun]

<p>If I were you I'd get the Tamron... but a good place to check reviews is Amazon.com.</p>

[stillbound]

<p>the last question is the most important depending on your needs and that one is a NO<br>

between the other two sigma has a new one coming out that none of us have seen with a higher price (list at least). Based on the older ones I'd take the Tamron but with the qualifier of the above answer...<br>

I'm a canon shooter that shot a d700 with a 24-70 2.8 for three months while I waited for my 5DII to come in and I can't say enough good things about that lens. It is one of the few things about Nikon that I will truly miss. It was simply amazing...<br>

JC</p>

[bruce_margolis]

<p>Haven't used either one but here are some review thoughts......<br /><a href="http://www.popphoto.com/cameralenses/646/lens-test-sigma-24-70mm-f28-ex-dg-af-page2.html">http://www.popphoto.com/cameralenses/646/lens-test-sigma-24-70mm-f28-ex-dg-af-page2.html</a><br /><br /><a href="http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/291-tamron-af-28-75mm-f28-sp-xr-di-ld-aspherical-if-nikon-lab-test-report--review">http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/291-tamron-af-28-75mm-f28-sp-xr-di-ld-aspherical-if-nikon-lab-test-report--review</a></p>

<p>The Tamron received a real nice review from Photozone. The only thing that would bother me is the 28mm minimum focal length. Maybe not a real big deal for full frame but with a cropped sensor, this is kind of a weird FL and maybe something to consider depending on what other lenses you use. For a cropped sensor, I would prefer their 17-50 f/2.8 which received an outstanding review.</p>

<p>Will either come close to the Nikkor 24-70? Depends on how you define close. Nikon's lens may be their finest right now so is it fair to expect a lens that costs 1/3 the price to be highly competitive? You will notice the build difference immediately but optically? That depends on how demanding you are but I suspect if you tried them out side by side, you would see a great difference, especially in the corners, contrast, sharpness, etc.</p>

[hans_janssen]

<p>What camera? On a crop I prefer something like a 17-55 2.8, so a Tamron 17-50 2.8 would be great.</p>

[colin_mangan]

<p>ill be using it on a d300</p>

[beartooth1]

<p>I have the Tamron...so I certainly recommend it....the Sigma's I have used in the past (way past) were not very sharp or very well built...Although I've read they are producing a pretty good product now. Anyway back to the Tamron...it is very sharp and the focus is fast on my D300.... There are several pics in my port done with that lens, your welcome to have a look.....</p>

<p>2 more pennies spent......</p>

 

[bruce_margolis]

<p>IMO, the Tamron 17-50 instead of the 28-75 is a no brainer for weddings with the D300. Yes, it is a DX lens but unless you already have something like the Nikkor 17-35, you will appreciate the wide angle for so many shots.</p>

<p>FWIW, I have a Nikon 24-85 f/2.8-4 zoom (which I think is better than the Tamron 28-75) but it hardly gets any use because the FL just doesn't work well on the D300. The only reason I keep it is because I keep saying one day I will go full frame and that's where this range really shines.</p>

<p>Try out both of them if you can but for event photography, I would definitely want something wider.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>bruce, if you havent used the tamron 28-75 as you stated above, how do you know the nikon 24-85 is "better"? just wondering...</p><div></div>

[bruce_margolis]

<p>To be fair, Eric, I didn't say I know it's better, only that I think it's better. As I said before, the 28-75 has received great reviews and I am sure it is one heck of a nice lens. Maybe one day I'll be lucky enough to try out both of them side by side.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>"To be fair, Eric, I didn't say I know it's better, only that I think it's better."</p>

<p>really? and why would you think that? based on what?</p>

<p>my point, bruce, is that you have no way of knowing if its better if you've never used one. so with all due respect, it really doesnt matter what you think because you are purely speculating without any hands-on experience comparing the two. therefore, your comments are to be taken with a grain of salt since there is no basis for your value jugement. i'm sure the nikkor is nice, but for me, the tamron's constant aperture and great IQ is more than enough validation.</p>

[dangin]

<p>i have the nikon 24-70 f/2.8, tamron 28-75 f/2.8 and 17-50 f/2.8 lenses and can say that the tamron does not measure up to the nikon. but what do you expect for the price difference? :) between the tamron and sigma; as i have shot the sigma, it feels better but the quality is questionable. i'd recommend getting the tamron as i did.<br>

like hans mentioned, i too, would suggest for a DX body, that you consider the tamron 17-50 f/2.8 if you are using this as a primary lens for wedding photography. the focal length just makes more sense than the 28-75 which is not as ideal for wide, group or landscape shots.</p>

[martin_aspeli]

<p>I haven't used the Sigma or the Nikon, but I have the Tamron (and a D300) and I really like it. It's light, versatile and I'm generally very pleased with the pictures I take with it. I don't think you'll be disappointed, at least, taking price into account.</p>

[bruce_margolis]

<p>Eric, I apologize to you. In hindsight, it was indeed a worthless comment since I have no direct experience with the Tamron lens. I certainly didn't mean to offend you, though it's interesting you have <em>'enough validation'</em> despite no experience with the Nikon lens. :-)</p>

<p>Tell you what, let's get together sometime, have a fun shootout and compare lenses. Loser buys the beer.</p>

 

[eric_arnold]

<p>ok, cool. Miller or Bud?</p>

[kohanmike]

<p>Bruce, what is the FL you refer to on the 24-85? I use it with a D70s and find to be an excellent lens.</p>

[stephen_asprey2]

<p>My people are telling me the Tokina ATX Pro 16-50 2.8 (effective 24-80) is a lot better in build and quality that the Sigma or Tamron. None came close to the Nikon. The Nikon is tack sharp at 2.8 all through the zoom range. The others are not sharp until f4...so whats the point?<br>

The pros scorecard in order of quality: Nikon, Tokina, Sigma, Tamrom. (now I will have stirred a hornets nest...just watch!)<br>

Its the same with the 80-200 2.8s from all these guys. If I am going to pay more for the faster lens, I want it sharp. My advice is to look out for a used Nikon and be happy.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>@bruce: i didnt even consider the nikon 24-85 because i needed constant 2.8. like i said i'm happy with the tamron.</p>

<p>@colin: the 24-70 is one of nikon's best and for that price it'd better be. havent used the 24-70 sigma but it's about to be replaced. some folks prefer the discontinued sigma 24-60, cameta had them on closeout for a while but i think they're all gone now. the 28-75 tamron would be better on a FX body than a DX one for weddings, but its FL is perfect on APS-C for concerts.</p>

<p>@stephan: actually, the tamron 17-50 is pretty sharp at 2.8. maybe a nick or two better than the 28-75 wide open (btw the 28-75 shot up above is @2.8). with the 17-50, there's a bit of distortion at 17mm, but not a dealbreaker. the build isnt better than tokina, but the IQ is up there with the nikkor (according to thom hogan). the light weight is a plus IMO, though AF-S would be nice. not a lens you'd use to intimidate folks with, but it gets the job done.</p>

<p>honestly, i dont know how much stock i'd put in your scorecard. the tamron(s) come up a lot on PN, not so much the 16-50 tokina and 18-50 sigma. with sample variation being rampant, plus the confusion of two different tamron 17-50 models (i have the older screw-drive), i'd be much more pursuaded by an actual scientific test over a non-scientific, subjective opinion based on hearsay. you'd also have to list your criteria for quality, as build quality and image quality arent always reflective of each other-- tokina is known for high CAs for instance. it is somewhat revealing, however, that in the photozone tests of all three, the tamron 17-50 outperformed the 16-50 and 18-50 at 2.8 at all focal ranges, particularly on the long end where the sigma and tokina drop off fairly severely. your "people's" experience may differ, of course, but i find photozone to be fairly spot-on in their reviews most of the time.</p>

 

[bruce_margolis]

<p>Michael, I agree with you that the 24-85 is an excellent lens. Indeed, it is a far better lens than Tamron's 28-75. [That's a joke, Eric. Ouch ouch ouch]</p>

<p>The OP was asking about a lens for wedding photography. For large events like weddings, you give up a lot in the wide angle range with either of the above lenses on a DX body. That can be very limiting if you have a large group or space is limited and you can't back up enough to get a shot.</p>

<p>Even though Eric and I may not agree on a type of beer (loser decides), one thing we share in common is the Tamron 17-50 lens. Just an aside, I have tested it against my copy of a Nikkor 17-35 and I am stunned by the quality of the Tamron lens. Maybe my copy of the 17-35 needs an adjustment but the fine detail from the Tamron lens is excellent. Most important, a lens with that range works so much better with large groups on a DX body.</p>

<p>By no coincidence, Nikon came out with the 24-70 lens when they released the D3. If you think about it, the new lens is almost identical in equivalent focal length to the 17-55 Dx lens. </p>