The highlight roll-off difference is a dealbreaker here ! Was it in a totally controlled environment? Just to confirm that it was really the lens because I have never seen such a big difference between lenses.
I own both these lenses and both are great bits of kit, but the Sigma is an incredible lens for stills. In fact I always take my 7DII with my full frame cameras as nothing handles filters like it, definitely not my Canon 16-35 f2.8 II which is a truly disappointing lens. As it’s a cropped sensor lens it also takes 85mm filters which saves a fortune! Where the Sigma 159-600 Sport really benefits from the Sigma Hub I’ve done no more than check for updates for the 18-35 because my fiddling will not benefit the lens in any way. I’m not a videographer though, and I have heard that although the zoom is like butter on the Sigma the focusing can be 'noisy' for your line of work. As usual with me both lenses have had their spills. The Sigma I managed to knock over in the studio, smacked it face down onto a hard floor in the room I use as a studio at the charity where I work and gets all my digital prints to sell. It’s only damage is one of the petals from my lens hood snapped off. The Tamron was dropped on to some semi rough land and the plastic ring on the actual lens came of and is now carefully glued to the lens. Even though I love my Sigma most of all my 30 or so lenses, including my analogue systems ones, I would recommend the 24-70mm Tamron to anyone new. It covers the greater range and if they are planning moving up to full frame in the future that wide to short telephoto range is the most useful. It’s also important to realise that the Sigma, because it’s for a cropped sensor roughly equates to 29mm-56mm, so rather than being a super wide to wide angled lens it’s wide angled to standard. A brilliant review, very well done.
Do you have the first and the second generation of the Tamron? I own the first one...When yes. Is the Imigstabilization worth to upgrade and buy the G2?
Still can’t decide. I want the sigma 18-35mm because i have an apsc camera and i research it is the best apsc lens. But the 24-70mm is so useful, can do portrait and with a apsc it is semi telephoto. And also it has image stabilization. Very very useful. Damn. My head hurts.
I've been on a few more shoots recently and used the 18-35 a bit more and for me what kills it is the lack of IS is the biggest weakness of it. Also having that extra zoom range means more versatility with shots. I haven't regretted not getting the 18-35
@@jw_film thank you James, you are correct, i can get rid of my 50mm 1.8 with the 24-70. and get a 10-18 for wide angle shots. if 24-70mm 2.8 is will be available in our country. thats the one i would buy. thanks.
The Tamron 24-70 is much more suited to event work. I've used to film and photograph lots of events since I got it back in 2014 and is still my go-to lens for this type of work.
Relying on in-body or lens stabilization is amateur hour. If you're doing professional work, you need a gimbal...not lens or in-body stabilization. But if you're dead set against using a gimbal, then your only real choice is an Olympus body as there is no other system that can give you anything close to acceptable...and even then, it does not compare to what you get with a gimbal setup. And that's really for video. If you are using it for stills, the stabilization becomes mostly irrelevant, unless (for whatever reason) you must absolutely shoot a still subject with a very slow shutter speed. How often do you run into that? If shooting people, the minimum shutter speed necessary to freeze their motion is greater than that which causes motion blur due to camera shake...and that's the reason with image stabilization is mostly a waste for stills. Image stabilization for stills mostly comes into play when taking handheld telephoto shots under low light conditions with less than recommended shutter speeds or using super-telephoto lenses without a tripod.
I think a gimbal has its place when it comes to stabilisation. I use the Ronin S now with a GH5S and I primarily use it for walk and talks or wide establishing shots. The Tamron 24-70 lives on my A cam which at the moment is the EVA 1 and when handheld the IS does take out a lot of the micro jitters as there is always time to rig up, a lot of the time its grab it off the tripod and shoot the situation. I film a lot of corporate and educational material so the difference for me between having an IS lens and a non IS lens these days is quite significant. What gimbal do you use with your Sigma 18-35mm?
@@jw_film It's funny you mentioned the Ronin S. I had it for short while. I paired it with my A7III. Ended up selling it though as I focus mainly on stills and my video work tends to lend itself well to a tripod. For running and gunning, I did enjoy the Olympus EM1 Mark II that I borrowed once. Fantastic stabilization for video...it just lacked options and quality in the video department. The Ronin S with the GH5S is a solid combination for video work.
The highlight roll-off difference is a dealbreaker here ! Was it in a totally controlled environment? Just to confirm that it was really the lens because I have never seen such a big difference between lenses.
Thanks for posting this. I was looking for this exact comparison. Mostly about image quality so this helped! =)
Glad it helped! Which lens are you thinking of getting now?
I own both these lenses and both are great bits of kit, but the Sigma is an incredible lens for stills. In fact I always take my 7DII with my full frame cameras as nothing handles filters like it, definitely not my Canon 16-35 f2.8 II which is a truly disappointing lens. As it’s a cropped sensor lens it also takes 85mm filters which saves a fortune!
Where the Sigma 159-600 Sport really benefits from the Sigma Hub I’ve done no more than check for updates for the 18-35 because my fiddling will not benefit the lens in any way. I’m not a videographer though, and I have heard that although the zoom is like butter on the Sigma the focusing can be 'noisy' for your line of work.
As usual with me both lenses have had their spills. The Sigma I managed to knock over in the studio, smacked it face down onto a hard floor in the room I use as a studio at the charity where I work and gets all my digital prints to sell. It’s only damage is one of the petals from my lens hood snapped off. The Tamron was dropped on to some semi rough land and the plastic ring on the actual lens came of and is now carefully glued to the lens.
Even though I love my Sigma most of all my 30 or so lenses, including my analogue systems ones, I would recommend the 24-70mm Tamron to anyone new. It covers the greater range and if they are planning moving up to full frame in the future that wide to short telephoto range is the most useful. It’s also important to realise that the Sigma, because it’s for a cropped sensor roughly equates to 29mm-56mm, so rather than being a super wide to wide angled lens it’s wide angled to standard.
A brilliant review, very well done.
Do you have the first and the second generation of the Tamron? I own the first one...When yes. Is the Imigstabilization worth to upgrade and buy the G2?
Still can’t decide. I want the sigma 18-35mm because i have an apsc camera and i research it is the best apsc lens. But the 24-70mm is so useful, can do portrait and with a apsc it is semi telephoto. And also it has image stabilization. Very very useful. Damn. My head hurts.
I've been on a few more shoots recently and used the 18-35 a bit more and for me what kills it is the lack of IS is the biggest weakness of it. Also having that extra zoom range means more versatility with shots. I haven't regretted not getting the 18-35
@@jw_film thank you James, you are correct, i can get rid of my 50mm 1.8 with the 24-70. and get a 10-18 for wide angle shots. if 24-70mm 2.8 is will be available in our country. thats the one i would buy. thanks.
@@TeacherNickoy I've got the Canon 10-18, a very useful lens!
Me too! I have the same dilemna? This post was year ago. What did you come out? :)
which one would you recommend for the event photography?
The Tamron 24-70 is much more suited to event work. I've used to film and photograph lots of events since I got it back in 2014 and is still my go-to lens for this type of work.
Relying on in-body or lens stabilization is amateur hour. If you're doing professional work, you need a gimbal...not lens or in-body stabilization. But if you're dead set against using a gimbal, then your only real choice is an Olympus body as there is no other system that can give you anything close to acceptable...and even then, it does not compare to what you get with a gimbal setup. And that's really for video. If you are using it for stills, the stabilization becomes mostly irrelevant, unless (for whatever reason) you must absolutely shoot a still subject with a very slow shutter speed. How often do you run into that? If shooting people, the minimum shutter speed necessary to freeze their motion is greater than that which causes motion blur due to camera shake...and that's the reason with image stabilization is mostly a waste for stills. Image stabilization for stills mostly comes into play when taking handheld telephoto shots under low light conditions with less than recommended shutter speeds or using super-telephoto lenses without a tripod.
I think a gimbal has its place when it comes to stabilisation. I use the Ronin S now with a GH5S and I primarily use it for walk and talks or wide establishing shots. The Tamron 24-70 lives on my A cam which at the moment is the EVA 1 and when handheld the IS does take out a lot of the micro jitters as there is always time to rig up, a lot of the time its grab it off the tripod and shoot the situation. I film a lot of corporate and educational material so the difference for me between having an IS lens and a non IS lens these days is quite significant.
What gimbal do you use with your Sigma 18-35mm?
@@jw_film It's funny you mentioned the Ronin S. I had it for short while. I paired it with my A7III. Ended up selling it though as I focus mainly on stills and my video work tends to lend itself well to a tripod. For running and gunning, I did enjoy the Olympus EM1 Mark II that I borrowed once. Fantastic stabilization for video...it just lacked options and quality in the video department. The Ronin S with the GH5S is a solid combination for video work.