- All right, nice fresh cuts, nice fresh coffee.
Let's do this thing.
I am an absolute sucker for a good, fast,
mid-range zoom lens.
Call me basic if you want, but I love a lens
that I can leave on my camera 95% of the time.
So, when Sigma announced that they were releasing
a 28-70 f/2.8 Contemporary lens for Sony E-mount,
I was like, "Really?
Don't you already have that spot filled with a 24-70 f/2.8?"
But as it turns out, there is a good reason
for having this new lens,
so secure the cup and let's get into it.
(smooth music)
What is up, people?
Dunna here, and today we're gonna be comparing
three mid-range zoom lenses for Sony full frame cameras.
We've got the brand new Sigma 28-70 f/2.8 Contemporary lens,
the big old Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 Art lens,
and we've got the budget favorite, the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8.
Links for all these lenses are in the description
if you wanna pick one up,
or if you want more information than I can give here,
but we're gonna talk about specs, price, image quality,
focusing, sharpness, and more, so let's get into this
or it will very quickly become a 20-minute video.
First things first, there's price.
The Sigma 24-70 is the most expensive at $1,100 US,
the Sigma 28-70 comes in $200 cheaper at $900 US,
and the Tamron sneaks in as the least expensive at $880 US.
Of course we have a bit of a difference
in focal ranges here,
as the Art lens goes as wide as 24 millimeters,
with the other two only hitting 28 millimeters.
Then we also have the Tamron going just a bit longer
and stretching out to 75 millimeters
instead of the 70 like the other two.
Honestly, I notice a big difference
in the wide end between 24 and 28,
but the difference between 70 and 75
really isn't a huge one.
And I know that can seem confusing,
but try to think of it in terms of percentages
instead of terms of millimeters.
One of the biggest things about the new Sigma lens,
pun intended, is just how small it is.
The Sigma 28-70 comes in
at 101.5 millimeters, or four inches,
the Tamron is 117.8 millimeters, or 4.64 inches,
and the Sigma Art lens is 122.9 millimeters, or 4.84 inches.
They all have extending barrels as well,
but they pretty much extend the same amount.
The width difference
between the Sigma Contemporary and the Tamron
is less than a millimeter,
whereas the Sigma Art lens is about 16 millimeters wider.
That means we've got filter thread sizes
of 67, 67, and 82 millimeters respectively.
And as far as weight goes, again, the new Sigma comes in
at the least burden in your camera bag
at 470 grams, or 1.04 pounds,
the Tamron coming in next at 550 grams, or 1.21 pounds,
and the Art lens, without surprise, is a huge difference,
coming in at 835 grams, or 1.84 pounds.
That is a big lens.
Honestly, I have to say how impressed I am
at the compact size of the Sigma 28-70.
I generally don't worry too much
about the size of my lenses,
and even kinda prefer a bigger lens a lot of the time,
but it's awesome what they were able to do with this thing
in such a small package.
Let's talk about the build quality and features.
All three of these lenses are weather-sealed to some extent
and have a gasket on the mount.
The Sigma Art lens definitely has
the most premium feel to it,
with more solid materials, a Focus Mode switch,
custom button, as well as a lock
to keep the heavy zoom from extending on its own.
The focus and zoom ring both feel amazing,
and definitely the most enjoyable to use of the bunch,
in my opinion.
The Sigma 28-70 still has the Focus Mode toggle,
but it's not as rugged-feeling as the Art lens.
It doesn't feel cheap by any means,
but it's not quite the same as the big one.
The zoom ring feels very similar to the Art lens,
but the focus ring feels a bit cheaper
and like there's some plastic on plastic rubbing
instead of that nice, smooth resistance
we get with the more expensive lens.
The Tamron feels the cheapest to me.
Again, not saying that it's bad, but it just doesn't have
the same premium materials kind of vibe
that I get from the others.
We don't have any buttons or switches on this one.
The focus ring lacks that nice, smooth resistance as well,
and sometimes has that plastic on plastic feel.
The zoom ring also has a bit
of a plastic rubbing resistance to it.
Also, the position of the zoom and focus rings
are reversed from normal on the Tamron,
and the zoom direction is opposite
from the Tamron to the others as well.
This never really bugs me,
but some people seem to have a pet peeve about it,
so I figured I might as well bring it up.
Manual focusing on these lenses
is slightly different between them.
The Sigma lenses are both what I call nearly linear,
so it makes doing repeated focus pulls a lot easier,
which is nice for video work.
The Tamron, on the other hand,
has accelerated manual focusing,
so the faster you move the focus ring,
the further it will focus.
This has pros and cons.
If you wanna change your focus drastically,
you can move it quickly and it will go far for you,
and then if you move it slowly after that,
you can get the super fine adjustments to your focus.
But if you want to do repeated focus pulls,
that's gonna be tough.
That really comes down to personal preference in my opinion.
Okay, so that gets all the outside stuff out of the way,
but what about the image quality
and what's going on inside the lens?
Which of course brings us to everyone's favorite part:
sharpness tests.
Quick disclaimer, all of these lenses have good sharpness,
good enough for most situations
where you might be pulling out a mid-range zoom like this.
What we're about to do is pixel peeping,
and most definitely splitting hairs in a lot of cases.
Sounds like fun. Let's do it.
I took shots on all three lenses
at their widest focal length, 35 millimeters,
50 millimeters, and their longest focal length.
Then at each of those focal lengths, I took shots
at f/2.8, f/4, f/5.6, f/8, f/11, f/16, and f/22.
And I also repeated all of those tests
with and without the in-camera lens corrections turned on.
But we'll get back to that later.
So in total, I took 168 sharpness test shots,
so let me summarize what I found.
All of these lenses were the sharpest
at their widest focal length,
and got progressively less sharp
as you increase the focal length.
Another commonality was that
they would clean up from f/2.8 to f/4,
and then from f/8 through f/22
would get progressively softer,
f/8 being just barely softer than f/5.6.
At their widest focal length in the center,
the two Sigmas were very close,
and the Tamron was just a little bit behind.
And on the edges, the Sigmas held up pretty well,
with the Tamron still falling a bit behind.
When the Tamron did have a lack of sharpness,
you also noticed a little bit more color fringing too.
At 35 millimeters, the only difference was that
the Sigma Contemporary seemed to handle corner sharpness
just a bit better than the other two, to me.
At 50 millimeters, we actually see
the Sigma Art lens softening up a bit at f/5.6,
the Sigma Contemporary had the best corner sharpness
at this focal length,
and the Tamron was pretty soft in the corners.
And at their longest focal length, wide open,
the Sigma Art is still the best,
the Tamron takes the second spot,
and the Sigma Contemporary falls a little bit behind.
When you stop down to f/4,
the Tamron and the Contemporary even out.
Interestingly enough, after f/5.6 at this focal length,
the Tamron holds its sharpness the best in the center,
but the edge sharpness always goes
Art, Contemporary, Tamron, from best to worst.
Like I said, as we get longer in the focal lengths,
all these lenses got softer.
The Tamron got the least worse,
but started out the worst at the wide end,
so it's like the worst player on the team
getting Most Improved.
The Sigma 28-70 ended up being
the least sharp at the long end,
which I noticed right away
when I tried to take these couple portraits and noticed
the 24-70 and the Tamron looked pretty darn sharp,
but the Contemporary didn't quite stand up.
I even went back and took a couple extra shots
to double check that I hadn't just mis-focused on this one.
And one more time for good measure,
all these lenses have good sharpness,
especially the Sigma Art lens,
so just keep that in mind with these results.
I mentioned that I also shot all of these tests
without the in-camera corrections on.
Here's what I saw from that.
For some reason,
the Tamron has very little distortion at any focal length,
which seems kinda weird to me,
almost like there's still corrections
being applied in-camera,
but color me impressed.
Both Sigmas showed barrel distortion at the wide end
and pincushion distortion from 35 millimeters and longer,
getting worse as you got to longer focal lengths.
All three lenses had
a reasonable amount of vignetting at wide open
that clears up when you stop down.
And just to be clear, the distortion and the vignetting
is fixed with the in-camera corrections turned on.
So before you even get your photos off the card,
they're already fixed.
All right, what about the color?
Honestly, they're really, really close.
The Contemporary maybe looks
a tiny bit cooler than the other two,
but it's really hard to see a difference.
So how about...
- [Computer Voice] Bokeh.
- To my eye, the Sigma 28-70
looks like it has the most pleasing...
- [Computer Voice] Bokeh.
- [Dunna] In this reasonably flat portrait setting.
Both the Sigma Art and the Tamron
have some artifacts going on,
and the Tamron probably looks the least smooth to me.
And when we take a look at some...
- [Computer Voice] Bokeh.
- Light balls, we see that they all have a bit
of chromatic aberration going on.
The Sigmas both have blue color fringing,
whereas the Tamron was on the other side of the spectrum
but a little bit closer to neutral.
The Sigma Art lens and the Tamron were pretty minimal,
and the Contemporary was definitely the most noticeable,
with a tiny amount of cat's eye effect going on
with its circles as well.
As far as lens flaring goes,
they all control it pretty reasonably,
but I'd say I noticed the most problems
with the Sigma Art lens.
All three of these lenses have
ridiculously close minimum focusing distance,
to the point where I kept
casting shadows on my little bear with the lens.
The Sigma art is 180 millimeters, or 7.09 inches.
The other two are both 190 millimeters, or 7.5 inches,
though in real life, I found that the Tamron
may have even got a little closer than that.
All right, autofocus.
Well, honestly, they all did great.
I did some photography autofocus tests
where I just wanted it to snap as fast as possible,
and the accuracy was awesome
and the speed was fantastic too.
I did some tests for video
where I set it to a slow, smooth setting at first,
then I cranked up the speed to see how they would respond.
And guess what? Still smooth and great, just faster.
And all three lenses are virtually silent.
I also did a face-tracking test to see how they would do
with the face and eye tracking in video mode,
and I didn't run into any issues.
Again, I did it on slow and fast speeds
without any problems.
Focus breathing was also super minimal on all three lenses,
and didn't bug me in the least.
So the question is, who wins?
Which one should you buy
if you're in the market for a fast mid-range zoom?
But before I give you the recap and my personal verdict,
pause this video, head down to the comments,
and let me know what you think of all these lenses.
And if you're finding this helpful or valuable,
hit that Like button and subscribe.
Okay, you did it? You're a new subscriber now?
Awesome.
Okay, here's where we're at.
The Sigma 24-70 Art lens is undeniably my favorite.
It's got the best build,
the most features, it's the best feeling,
and has the best overall image quality to my eye.
And one of the biggest reasons for getting this one
is the extra width in focal length.
Again, the difference between 24 and 28 has been big for me.
The difference between 70 and 75, not so much.
But it is really big and heavy,
so for some people that might be an issue.
It's also about $200 more expensive than the other lenses,
so that might make it not an option for some people as well.
But if size isn't an issue,
and you're okay spending a little bit more,
I would definitely still suggest this one.
Then we have the other two.
Let me be honest. They're basically the same price.
That $20 doesn't trick us, does it?
And as far as image quality goes,
we're pretty close there too.
The Sigma 28-70 was a bit stronger at the wide end,
and the Tamron was a bit stronger at the long end.
That being said, I think the Sigma wins
in both build quality as well as being more compact.
For me, it was a more enjoyable lens to use.
So out of the more budget-friendly options,
I'd have to go with the Sigma 28-70.
And then there was one.
The Tamron is still a great and versatile lens,
and if you're someone who's going to be shooting
a decent amount of portraits with your mid-range zoom
and need better sharpness at the long end,
that may be a reason for you
to go with this one over the Contemporary.
Again, I'd love to hear your thoughts,
so make sure to leave a comment down below,
and on your way down there
hit that Like and Subscribe button,
and hit the bell notification
so you don't miss out on future reviews and tutorials.
Thank you so much for watching, and I'll see you next time.
Oh, and one more thing
for those who have stuck around this long,
I am now part of the CUTS Ambassador team,
one of their creators on the crew.
So if you head down to the description,
there is a link down there
that will hit you up with a discount
if you're looking at getting some stylish cuts.
Okay, now I'm actually going. Okay, bye.
(smooth music)