Tamron 28-75MM F/2.8 Vs Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8

n30_mkii

n30_mkii

n30_mkii

Associate
Joined
31 May 2005
Posts
2,182
Location
Alfreton,Derbyshire
Looking to buy one of the above for use with my Canon 400d next month, I would get the canon equiv but my pockets are not that deep as a very amature photographer...

I know neither of these have any kind of USM so are quite loud when using AF. I have read a few reviews and am finding the choice difficult...

The sigma has a larger lens diameter meaning larger filters...But has better AF than the Tamron.

Anyone used either of these, who can lend some advice...

This will be my main walkabout lens...Until i can stretch to something better....

Would like to use filters such as ND's and Polarisers which i hear can be a pain with the sigma lens hood...

Any help appreciated
 
Hi, this doesn't really advise on the above lenses, but have you considered the Tamron or Sigma 17-50mm F2.8. It's just that that's what I'd go for because I love the wide angle they give. If you're into landscape or urban photography you should probably go for a wide angle, I know they pretty much exactly replace kit lenses, but you'll get sharper images and F2.8 mean you can zoom in without worrying about camera shake (well I do!). 70mm isn't really any zoom either, remember 50mm is close to the magnification we see at.
 
forgot to mention i am planning to get the sigma 10-20mm lens for wideangle work, this will be my main other lens until i can afford something with a little more reach....
 
Well, I'm not sure that we see at 50mm, but anyway I have the 24-70 F2.8 Sigma and think its pretty good. Its a effectively a 36-105mm on my D50 and I could really do with a wider lens for some things, however I plan to get a 10-20 at some point as well. I think its a pretty well built lens, yes the focus is a little noisy and the 82mm filters size is mad. But I think its a pretty good lens. I only paid 150 squid for mine (second hand) and I got a Sigma EX UV filter and a Sunpak CP filter with it. I bought it as a replacement for the 18-55 Nikon kit lens and its better for me as most of the time I was using it at 55mm and having to move closer to what I was shooting, I would rather have a bit of extra zoom. If I want wide angle I will buy the 10-20 as well!

Dave
 
While you are looking around you might also want to consider the Sigma 18-50 F2.8 DC and also the 24-60. The 24-60 may be a little shorter, but size wise it is much smaller and lighter, and may be a better fit for a 400D.

Of the two you have listed, the one I would choose is the sigma. I can't stand the build quality of the Tamron, and for a lens that you are going to be using all the time, and carrying around all the time, it just is not up to scratch.
 
Another Q to through into the loop is

Should i get the 400d with the lens kit or body only? £40 cheaper without the lens kit....

The lens in the kit is EF-S 18-55 mm f/3.5-f/5.6 II Lens

Not quite what i'm looking for....Should i got for the kit or body only? Anything else in the Kit apart from the lens?

I suppose i could then sell the lens on if needed?

Any suggestions?

I have read a review that seems to place the tamron ahead of the sigma in a few areas...But i think its a close call, would be nice to hear if anyone has opted for the tamron

Review of the two Here
 
n30_mkii said:
Should i get the 400d with the lens kit or body only? £40 cheaper without the lens kit....
Click to expand...
When I bought my 350D, I got it with the kit lens - mainly due to financial reasons. If I were to be buying now, I would get the body only, and put the £40 towards something decent. I haven't used either of those lenses, but if you go into a well known camera store, they will let you try out anything if you seem like your going to buy it.

The kit lens is a mass-production lens, and made to a relatively poor quality. That isn't to say you can't get some decent pictures with it, you just have to stop down to make sure it's sharp (which generally means you have to crank up the ISO).

My 2p, anyway.
 
I have noticed a really great deal for kit....So will go for that and sell the lens i guess, ill see how much they go for on the bay...

So the choice is between the following three lenses now...

Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 EX DG MACRO @ 715g / 82mm Filter Size
Sigma 24-60mm f/2.8 EX DG @ 550g / 77mm Filter Size
Tamron SP AF 28-75mm Di f2.8 @ 510g / 67mm Filter Size

This will be my main walkabout lens and so is 715g going to be too heavy?
Any further help appreciated...
 
If you don't really want the kit lens I would save the 40 squid. Mine lives in the box at home these days. Its not really worth selling it as no one really wants them, usually because they either already have one or have something better. I only keep mine so there wont be a big empty space in my D50 kit box when I come to sell it.

Dave
 
I have the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8, and I love it. My brother has the Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8, and I'm not so keen on it. It's nothing against Sigma lenses (I have the 10-20mm Sigma, and it's a fantastic lens)

The Tamron is great in low light, and I find it quick to autofocus. Still not a patch on the Sigma HSM focussing though :). Although, I got a steal on a 28-200mm Tamron on the 'Bay, and it's my main walkround lens now, though the 28-75 still comes out to play in low light......
 
I'm not sure if I'm allowed to post this, so feel free to tell me off if this is the case, but I may well have a Tamron f/2.8 28-75 up for sale - I just can't afford this and a wide angle so I want something to cover both sides like the Canon 17-85 IS.

Interested at all?
 
n30_mkii said:
indeed i would be, you dont however have any contact info
Click to expand...

I was just checking whether I had it saved or not, I assumed I had, but apparently not.

Anyway, if you wanted to e-mail, then "ocuk-ab1385 'at' alexanddebbie.co.uk" should work :)
 
I have a 28-75 Tamron, never tried the Sigma, so can't comment about differences in quality.
The 28-75 is basically my walkabout lens and get used for a lot of different stuff.
Note that a number of people on the FM forums rate the straight image quality of the Tammy to be VERY close to the Canon 24-70L. Having said that, the Canon has better build quality and apparently MUCH better AF.

Have to say that if I had a 400D, that I'd be looking at a 17-50 Tammy, which I've owned and IMO was slightly better than the 28-75. Unfortunately, the 17-50 is an EF-S mount and won't fit on my 1D.
 
After speaking to reddeathdrinker the other night, i have started to have a look at the Nikon range now also...I had ruled them out thinking that the canon 400d was the be all and end all for entry level cameras....but obviously not....Now having a close look at the d80 too....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom