Fantastic appraisal of both lens Dustin. Both perform really well, but I think the Tamron steals the show overall. I rented it recently for an event and it blew me away. All the best, Mike.
My go to is the Tamron 35-150mm on one body and the Samyang 25mm F1.8 on the other. If I know I'm not going to need wider than 35mm, than I'll have the 50mm f1.4 or 85mm f1.4 for portraits.
Thanks for the great comparison! In Europe both lenses cost about 1650 euros, so no price diference. I shoot weddings so far with the Tamron 28-75 mm 2.8 G2 and often miss more reach on the long end. I had hoped for the 28-105mm 2.8 to be a bit lighter, so below 900g, then it would have been an even more compelling option. My dream would be a 35-85mm 2.0. That should be doable nowadays and would be the perfect portrait and wedding lens.
Agreed! Now I also want to see a comparison of the 28-200 vs the new 28-300. I find it so odd that everyone compares the 28-300 to the 50-300. The 28-x00:s are meant as do it all travel lenses; no one will bring only a 50-300 on a trip, but a 28-200/300 is purpose made for that. From the image samples I have seen so far, the 28-200 is superior optically at all focal lengths except 200-300. But I might be wrong, so would be great to have a pro like Dustin to actually test and show this
@@Wistbacka didn't he do it already? I can remember him saying the 28-200 is league of it's own while the 28-300 is more like a traditional dark super-zoom.
@@sulev111Oh, there is a short about it. Havent watched and Shorts frin Dustin. I expect at least 20 nin quality time with him. Hahaha But thanks for letting me know!
So Tamron works better in the crucial photography metrics. I prefer 35-150 and a 16 mm Viltrox 1.8 for anything wider. Alongwith my sony 200-600, I am more or less covered for almost all situations
@@RazielSchnitzel Yes, I have the 16 mm Viltrox. I am very happy with the performance of it considering this is one of the cheapest wide angle lens. Images are overall very good. Haven't noticed any chromatic aberration so far. Lightroom has profile correction for this lens so that helps. I have noticed both pin cushion and barrel distortion but both are fixable in post. One more thing that took me some time is to just appreciate how wide this focal length is. Because it is a prime lens, I have to physically move around to get the best composition. I haven't tried astrophotography yet but that's next on my list
I had assumed the Sigma would be the sharper lens. A pleasant surprise from a Tamron 35-150 user. I've had some issues with the build quality, though, as the front plastic on the lens that holds the lens hood on has begun to come apart/fall off, and the hood no longer fits properly.
Thank you for this review. Not sure if there is lighting changes or not during the outdoor zoom testing; however, I see that Sigma achieves the same exposure at 1/125s as Tamron at 1/100s at ~105mm f/2.8 ISO 100. Though the 28-35mm would be nice to have in about 5% of my shooting need (according to LR) on an All-In-One lens, the Tamron 35-150mm has been increasable even after upgrading the body 3 times for the past 3 years especially paired with high megapixel models with APS-C mode. When shooting far/close sports events, the center range of the Tamron 35-150mm is about as sharp as my Sony 70-200 GM II thought Sony does gather a bit more light at f/2.8 which is great for sports like indoor hockey. The extra light gathering of f/2.0-f/2.5 has helped me countless times when shooting indoor social events with lower ISO. I do carry a little lightweight Sigma 16-28mm f/2.8 for the 5% wide angle coverages I needed; however, I most likely to replace it with the Tamron 17-28mm f/2.8 not because I.Q. but due to the "opposite direction zoom ring" (also on the 28-105mm) I thought I could get used to but confuses me every time I use it when switching from Sony or Tamron lenses. Tamron's USB-C port is a win and cuts down the cost of buying a Sigma Lens Duck that adds another device in the collection bag or on the desk. I wish Tamron or 3rd party would make a hood with opening option for CPL/V-ND filter as an option for the Tamron 35-150mm. Thanks again for another great review.
I think it completely depends on the person. I've had the Tamron 35-150 for about a year and a half and I have no issue with it. Mostly only use it for jobs and never found an issue with the 35mm on the wide end but really appreciate having the 150mm on the long end.
Great comparison. i just took the 35-150 on a two week Europe trip through Italy and Greece😊. Love the lens overall, buttt I was constantly switching to my 14mm G master, 35 is just a little to tight for a lot of situations. A 24-150 would be soooo sweet. The 135 was really nice to have. The build quality and sharp pictures are great. I will confirm does get heavy carrying it around for several days in a row. BTW love your content.
I can't say for all usage cases. But for event and wedding photography, a 2 camera set up with the Tamron and another camera with a wide angle zoom basically kill the clumpsy traditional 3 lenses formula. Period.
Sigma lens gives me this "digital look" with cooler tones. The Tamron's bokeh and rendering also the warmer color tone looks more pleasing and for video shooters it gives more cinematic look. Also the main key factor here is with the Sigma you still need 2 other lenses if you wanna cover that 16-200mm ish range... 16-28 28-105 and a 70-200 but with the Tamron you can get away carrying 2 lenses a 16-35 and a 35-150 technically and that is why its a game changer. Event, Concert, Wedding, Indoor Sport photo and videographers know exactly what I am talking about. Carrying 2 camera bodies with 2 lenses only is a huge benefit.
Tamron 35-150mm for sure. I already have the sigma 24-70mm, so the 28-105mm is in the same ballpark. Also, if i need the extra tele, i will use aps-c crop mode. For wide angle i have the sigma 14-24 mm. Only need that more tele zoom reach at events.
My guess is the distortion wrecks the edge sharpness of the Sigma. For me the Tamron is the absolute winner between these two. I hope Canon will finally get their act together and open up the full frame market for 3rd party. Didn't know of Sony's limitations there - let Canon have that, most users would not care.
Well most pros would already have some form of 24-70 by the time this 28-105 came out makes the 35-150 more attractive considering how expensive 70-200s are
Love this comparison! Quick question: do you find thst the Lightroom correction for the Tamron is super heavy? With the vignette, I take it from 100 down to about 30 most times, and often even to 0.
I'll take the f2 at 35mm over having a slightly wider 28mm, and plus more reach. If the Sigma was 20-105mm f2.8 or f2 from 28-35mm then maybe I'd prefer it over the Tamron. Tamron also has nicer bokeh across all their lenses than Sigma including these two.
I have a SIGMA 20mm f/1.4 and a 150-600OS. On top of that, if I were to take in the 28-105 or 35-150, which would you recommend? I use them extensively for portraits, landscapes, star systems, etc.
If you've got wide angle covered and think that 35mm would work, I would go for the Tamron as that extra bit of maximum aperture and reach is really useful for a general purpose lens. At the same time, however, you've also got a Sigma kit at the moment, so you might prefer to stick with another Sigma lens if you're comfortable with the brand.
I agonized for weeks over a plan to sell my Sony 24-70 and buy the new Sigma 28-105. I do ballet photo work and needed the extra reach. But would I be sorry about ending up with a 28 instead of a 24? One issue is can I capture the whole ballet stage with the 28mm limit? I finally went to a couple of Venus, finally convincing myself that 28 would be good enough. I received the Sigma 28-105 today and it's as good as the reviews say it is.
Color rendering on Sigma seems to be abit better, you see the greenish Sony look easier on Tamron. But, since I usually apply Kodak film simulations in post, that wouldn't matter to me... Cheers!
@@DustinAbbottTWI i would still pick the Sigma because it's overall more ergonomic, and also the jokes write themselves, alpha sigma funny Greek letters
Sony would be out of business without Sigma and Tamron making high quality cheap glass, they day Canon wakes up and lets them enter the system is game over
THIS. This is the reason I went from Sony to Nikon instead of to Canon when I started shooting more sports. The artificial limitation of 15 fps and lack of body with higher megapixels and a fast sensor under $6500 made me leave Sony, and Canon doesn’t have these 3rd party lenses. Super happy with my Z8! But, I still think about the R5/R5ii regularly for its lighter weight and slightly smaller body.
By your logic Canon should be out of business and to an extent, Nikon. Heck why stop there, Fuji should be out of business as well. Stick to your brand and keep quiet.
This episode is sponsored by Fioboc. Visit Fioboc.com and use code DUSTIN20 for 20% off everything.
Fantastic appraisal of both lens Dustin. Both perform really well, but I think the Tamron steals the show overall. I rented it recently for an event and it blew me away. All the best, Mike.
I've loved it for events.
My go to is the Tamron 35-150mm on one body and the Samyang 25mm F1.8 on the other. If I know I'm not going to need wider than 35mm, than I'll have the 50mm f1.4 or 85mm f1.4 for portraits.
Fair enough.
Thanks for the great comparison! In Europe both lenses cost about 1650 euros, so no price diference. I shoot weddings so far with the Tamron 28-75 mm 2.8 G2 and often miss more reach on the long end. I had hoped for the 28-105mm 2.8 to be a bit lighter, so below 900g, then it would have been an even more compelling option.
My dream would be a 35-85mm 2.0. That should be doable nowadays and would be the perfect portrait and wedding lens.
I'm always reminded when doing these episodes how much price variation there is from market to market.
Agree. I was disappointed when Sigma came out with 28-45 f/1.8 that sits in the middle of nowhere.
@@frankfeng2701 its great for nightlife hybrid work
looks like Sony will announce next week a new 28=70 2.0, hope that Dustin can review this one, I am highly interested if it is under 900 g
Finally the comparison I was waiting to decide :) thanks again Dustin
Agreed! Now I also want to see a comparison of the 28-200 vs the new 28-300.
I find it so odd that everyone compares the 28-300 to the 50-300.
The 28-x00:s are meant as do it all travel lenses; no one will bring only a 50-300 on a trip, but a 28-200/300 is purpose made for that.
From the image samples I have seen so far, the 28-200 is superior optically at all focal lengths except 200-300. But I might be wrong, so would be great to have a pro like Dustin to actually test and show this
@@Wistbacka didn't he do it already? I can remember him saying the 28-200 is league of it's own while the 28-300 is more like a traditional dark super-zoom.
@@sulev111 Did he? I gotta search again.
@@sulev111Oh, there is a short about it. Havent watched and Shorts frin Dustin. I expect at least 20 nin quality time with him. Hahaha
But thanks for letting me know!
Glad to help out.
So Tamron works better in the crucial photography metrics. I prefer 35-150 and a 16 mm Viltrox 1.8 for anything wider. Alongwith my sony 200-600, I am more or less covered for almost all situations
Sounds like a pretty sweet kit.
Hold up, how do you like that 16mm viltrox? I assume you like, hence comment. Any drawbacks?
@@RazielSchnitzel Yes, I have the 16 mm Viltrox. I am very happy with the performance of it considering this is one of the cheapest wide angle lens. Images are overall very good. Haven't noticed any chromatic aberration so far. Lightroom has profile correction for this lens so that helps. I have noticed both pin cushion and barrel distortion but both are fixable in post. One more thing that took me some time is to just appreciate how wide this focal length is. Because it is a prime lens, I have to physically move around to get the best composition. I haven't tried astrophotography yet but that's next on my list
I had assumed the Sigma would be the sharper lens. A pleasant surprise from a Tamron 35-150 user. I've had some issues with the build quality, though, as the front plastic on the lens that holds the lens hood on has begun to come apart/fall off, and the hood no longer fits properly.
That's unfortunate. Did you have some drops?
@@DustinAbbottTWI no drops. But just in and out of my bags a hundred times is all it seems to have taken.
That is definitely something that would be covered under warranty, then. I'd reach out to Tamron.
My shooting style doesn’t require fast 2.8 so I went with the Sony 20-70 F4. Oh man the performance of this thing is out of this world.
Thank you for this review. Not sure if there is lighting changes or not during the outdoor zoom testing; however, I see that Sigma achieves the same exposure at 1/125s as Tamron at 1/100s at ~105mm f/2.8 ISO 100. Though the 28-35mm would be nice to have in about 5% of my shooting need (according to LR) on an All-In-One lens, the Tamron 35-150mm has been increasable even after upgrading the body 3 times for the past 3 years especially paired with high megapixel models with APS-C mode. When shooting far/close sports events, the center range of the Tamron 35-150mm is about as sharp as my Sony 70-200 GM II thought Sony does gather a bit more light at f/2.8 which is great for sports like indoor hockey. The extra light gathering of f/2.0-f/2.5 has helped me countless times when shooting indoor social events with lower ISO. I do carry a little lightweight Sigma 16-28mm f/2.8 for the 5% wide angle coverages I needed; however, I most likely to replace it with the Tamron 17-28mm f/2.8 not because I.Q. but due to the "opposite direction zoom ring" (also on the 28-105mm) I thought I could get used to but confuses me every time I use it when switching from Sony or Tamron lenses. Tamron's USB-C port is a win and cuts down the cost of buying a Sigma Lens Duck that adds another device in the collection bag or on the desk. I wish Tamron or 3rd party would make a hood with opening option for CPL/V-ND filter as an option for the Tamron 35-150mm. Thanks again for another great review.
Some interesting points. I didn't notice a light transmission issue between the two.
When it comes to zooms, Tamron really knows their target audience and has the technical resources to spec it out on a lens at a reasonable price.
Agreed. They've done a lot of great work on zooms, which is nice, as some of the other players like Samyang and Viltrox have focused on primes.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Zoom usually reflects the true technical ability of a lens manufacturer.
35-150mm makes more sense for events. You only need wider than 35mm in only few situation.
That's been my experience.
Thank you very much for all your hard work. It's appreciated by many of us.
You're welcome.
I think it completely depends on the person. I've had the Tamron 35-150 for about a year and a half and I have no issue with it. Mostly only use it for jobs and never found an issue with the 35mm on the wide end but really appreciate having the 150mm on the long end.
That sounds fair.
Great comparison. i just took the 35-150 on a two week Europe trip through Italy and Greece😊. Love the lens overall, buttt I was constantly switching to my 14mm G master, 35 is just a little to tight for a lot of situations. A 24-150 would be soooo sweet. The 135 was really nice to have. The build quality and sharp pictures are great. I will confirm does get heavy carrying it around for several days in a row. BTW love your content.
That's fair.
As usual, great video thanks a lot!! Impressive performance of the Tamron. This lens is GOOD !!
You're welcome.
I always chuckle just a bit when I see you modeling Dustin.
The good thing about me modeling is that I'm always available...and cheap :)
@@DustinAbbottTWI touché! Keep up the great work. Been watching for years.
Very good comparison. Thanks.
Finally, my lens set up, Tamron 20-40/2.8 + Tamron 70-180/2.8 G2 seems to be (for me) the best solution.
Fair enough. That's a nice kit.
I can't say for all usage cases. But for event and wedding photography, a 2 camera set up with the Tamron and another camera with a wide angle zoom basically kill the clumpsy traditional 3 lenses formula. Period.
Agreed.
Sigma lens gives me this "digital look" with cooler tones. The Tamron's bokeh and rendering also the warmer color tone looks more pleasing and for video shooters it gives more cinematic look. Also the main key factor here is with the Sigma you still need 2 other lenses if you wanna cover that 16-200mm ish range... 16-28 28-105 and a 70-200 but with the Tamron you can get away carrying 2 lenses a 16-35 and a 35-150 technically and that is why its a game changer. Event, Concert, Wedding, Indoor Sport photo and videographers know exactly what I am talking about. Carrying 2 camera bodies with 2 lenses only is a huge benefit.
I think this is why these types of videos are valuable, as it allows you to see things side by side.
I've had the Tamron since it came out and it rarely leaves my camera.
Don't blame you. It's been a serious go-to for me, too.
Tamron 35-150mm for sure. I already have the sigma 24-70mm, so the 28-105mm is in the same ballpark. Also, if i need the extra tele, i will use aps-c crop mode. For wide angle i have the sigma 14-24 mm. Only need that more tele zoom reach at events.
Sounds similar to my perspective.
Many thanks for this interesting and diligent review of these great lenses!
My pleasure!
I love unusual focal range zooms. The Tamron would make for an awesome duo paired with a wide angle zoom or even prime.
It really is.
without a doubt my go to Tamron 35-150 best Just it have some dust problem not good weather ceiling.
That's unfortunate. I haven't had any such issues, but my environment is not particularly dusty.
My guess is the distortion wrecks the edge sharpness of the Sigma. For me the Tamron is the absolute winner between these two. I hope Canon will finally get their act together and open up the full frame market for 3rd party. Didn't know of Sony's limitations there - let Canon have that, most users would not care.
I'm glad I could help out.
The Tamron is the 2nd reason I want to get a Nikon. The first one being the Zf.
Fair point.
Hey Dustin, has that Tamron 35-150 getting dust getting inside it? Is there any any way to prevent dust getting inside the zoom lenses?
I haven't had any issues on my copy.
You have validated my purchase of the Tamron although I have found it often failed on autofocus which is not mentioned in this review
It's not mentioned because my AF has always been flawless in my years of use at this point.
@@DustinAbbottTWI I guess the AF is more related to the camera vice the lens. I have the A7 IV, I'm thinking you use the A1
I've used it on at least four Sony cameras, including the a7IV (which my team owns).
Traded in my Tamron 35-150 for new Sigma 28-105mm F2.8 DG DN. Never looked back.
If you're happy, I'm happy.
could share with us the reason for our trade ? what is your use case ?
Well most pros would already have some form of 24-70 by the time this 28-105 came out makes the 35-150 more attractive considering how expensive 70-200s are
非常棒的评测，坚定了我买腾龙的决心，在中国的双十一优惠，腾龙和适马一个价格，但腾龙多送一颗24 2.8的镜头。
Love this comparison!
Quick question: do you find thst the Lightroom correction for the Tamron is super heavy? With the vignette, I take it from 100 down to about 30 most times, and often even to 0.
Hmmm, I don't recall that.
Being able to match (and sometimes surpass) the sharpness of a Sigma lens, Tamron has come a long way.
Review I was waiting for.
Glad to share.
Both great lenses and which is boss is dependent upon need. I would prefer the 7mm at the wide end to the 45mm at the far end.
I got the tamron using your 5% off code, no regret at all. Sold most of my GM primes :)
I'm glad you've enjoyed it.
I'll take the f2 at 35mm over having a slightly wider 28mm, and plus more reach. If the Sigma was 20-105mm f2.8 or f2 from 28-35mm then maybe I'd prefer it over the Tamron. Tamron also has nicer bokeh across all their lenses than Sigma including these two.
You've raised a very interesting point. Some may value the extra 7mm of width on the wide more, while others may prefer the faster maximum aperture.
I have a SIGMA 20mm f/1.4 and a 150-600OS. On top of that, if I were to take in the 28-105 or 35-150, which would you recommend? I use them extensively for portraits, landscapes, star systems, etc.
If you've got wide angle covered and think that 35mm would work, I would go for the Tamron as that extra bit of maximum aperture and reach is really useful for a general purpose lens. At the same time, however, you've also got a Sigma kit at the moment, so you might prefer to stick with another Sigma lens if you're comfortable with the brand.
I agonized for weeks over a plan to sell my Sony 24-70 and buy the new Sigma 28-105. I do ballet photo work and needed the extra reach. But would I be sorry about ending up with a 28 instead of a 24? One issue is can I capture the whole ballet stage with the 28mm limit? I finally went to a couple of Venus, finally convincing myself that 28 would be good enough. I received the Sigma 28-105 today and it's as good as the reviews say it is.
Enjoy your lens!
Color rendering on Sigma seems to be abit better, you see the greenish Sony look easier on Tamron. But, since I usually apply Kodak film simulations in post, that wouldn't matter to me... Cheers!
Thanks for the feedback.
What a great review again!
Glad you liked it!
Does the rear interior glass element (mount side) move freely within the lens when the camera isn't on for the Tamron lens?
There is a floating element in the Tamron lens, yes.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Thanks. I use this on a Z8 and love the versatility it has and the images it produces.
7:41 is it also longer at other focal lengths, like 35 or 50 mm?
Not in a way that I noticed.
weirdly enough, this time the Tamron lens seems more aesthetically pleasing than the Sigma
Interesting.
@@DustinAbbottTWI i would still pick the Sigma because it's overall more ergonomic, and also the jokes write themselves, alpha sigma funny Greek letters
On crop A6400 what would the lens length be.
52.5mm-225mm f3 - f4.2 (DOF)
@@premsai2001 thanks
Thinking of trading my Sony 24-105 f4 for the sigma…I have the 70-200 gmii so don’t need the Tamron…
Fair enough.
Sony would be out of business without Sigma and Tamron making high quality cheap glass, they day Canon wakes up and lets them enter the system is game over
THIS. This is the reason I went from Sony to Nikon instead of to Canon when I started shooting more sports. The artificial limitation of 15 fps and lack of body with higher megapixels and a fast sensor under $6500 made me leave Sony, and Canon doesn’t have these 3rd party lenses. Super happy with my Z8! But, I still think about the R5/R5ii regularly for its lighter weight and slightly smaller body.
Bro jealous so mad 😂😂 game over really 😂¿
Kudos to Sony for doing this early on. I'm curious to see if Canon loses some market share to Nikon now that Z-mount is starting to open up.
@@DustinAbbottTWI I’m thinking that will only happen if/when we see Sigma DG DN Art lenses for Z mount.
By your logic Canon should be out of business and to an extent, Nikon. Heck why stop there, Fuji should be out of business as well.
Stick to your brand and keep quiet.
I love so much my Tamron. The bokeh is so much better than 28-75 Tamrons
Is 35-150 slso scharper than 28-75 Tamron g2? Im gonna buy 28-75 g2
Not sharper, but pretty close to being equally sharp.
In india sigma is usually costly than tamron.
both a bulky setpup. For my taste 28-75 and a 70-180
Interesting perspective, as, in my mind, that's more combined bulk.
A like before I even 1 sec of video!
Well that's nice of you :)
really surprising that sigma is so much worse than the tamron. where i live the tamron is much cheaper as well.
Prices in some markets vary much more between brand new releases and those that have been on the market for a while.
First. Looking forward to this.
Enjoy