I'm using the Sigma 30mm on my a6600 and you can literally use it for everything. A zoom lens is great but I don't it'll be as sharp as a prime/fixed lens. Of course, you could always get the Sony E PZ 18-105 mm F4 G OSS?
I have all four. I’ll use the Tamron 95% of the time. That just makes sense. I’ll keep the trio, for studio work mostly. If I’m shooting a wedding, the Tamron is much more convenient without compromising image quality. Get the Tamron.
Jealous! Would you say the faster speed of the 56mm makes a big difference in portraits (and the creamy bokeh) to be worth buying if you have the Tamron 17-70?
@@hondaxdood 56 1.4 is different class, so having it makes huge difference. But tamron’s versatility is winning for daily usage, despite its huge weight (as for apsc)
How are the colors / contrast on the Tamron compared to the Sigmas? I have a Sigma 60 2.8 Art for Sony APSC, and aside from being sharp as hell, I absolutely love the images that come out of that lens. The colors and the contrast are amazing especially when compared to my Sony 35 1.8 and Sigma 19 2.8 (non art).
I'm a hobbyist and I shoot variety of things. I have Sigma 16 and 56, and recently got Tamron 17-70. And it's the same old "zoom vs prime" story: if I know exactly what I'm going to shoot - i will just take with me an appropriate prime. There is no reason to use Tamron for portraits when Sigma 56 produces superb images. Same goes for landscapes on tripod with Sigma 16 (which doubles down as "Zoom call" lens with good low light performance and shallow depth of field, that blurs the clutter in my man cave). I got Tamron for a casual "tourist walk" when I wonder around the city and have no idea what would be the next subject: person on arm's length, building in front of me or a cat on the other side of the road. I've missed countless shots because I haven't really felt like opening my bag and switching between wide-angle and portrait prime all the time. That's where the focal range and image stabilization outweighs sharpness and wider aperture of Sigma primes.
For me as a travel and landscape photographer, the zoom is a no brainer, even now it is pain in the ass to replace from 10-20 to 17-70 and to 70-350 very often during a hike or just wandering around - imagining doing it two/three times more is just impossible 😁 for stuff where I need the extra super sharpness and bokeh like portraits, yes, it is worth it, but for the landscape, primes are bad - I rather have my photo 5% less sharp than missing a moment because I jongle with the lenses 😂
I have all 4 (just got the Tamron 17-70 a couple days ago) and I also have the Tamron 70-180 that I've had for a while. They are all good, sharp lenses! 🤙🏾
How are the colors / contrast on the Tamron compared to the Sigmas? I have a Sigma 60 2.8 Art for Sony APSC, and aside from being sharp as hell, I absolutely love the images that come out of that lens. The colors and the contrast are amazing especially when compared to my Sony 35 1.8 and Sigma 19 2.8 (non art).
Thanks for the comparisons and great video, really easy to follow/understand! Can i ask what your thoughts/recommendations are between the Tamron 17-70 vs the new Sigma 18-50 f2.8? I've got a sony a6400 (so no IBIS) and was wondering if stabilization is that important for photo and video?
It depends on ..... The 17-70 is a great lens with a wide range of work.The short focal distance is awesome. But for Portraits and extremly low light i use the Sigma 30 1.4 and the Sony 85 1.8. Thx you for your good comparison 👍
I have been shooting video cameras since they had vacuum tubes inside. Zoom lenses have always been the glass on the front. The choice might be easier if you only shoot video, but for hybrid shooter you should probably put your money, where you make your money. I shoot 95% video, so I mostly use zoom lenses, although I do have a couple primes that fill a niche that I can't get in a zoom. Video is a fast paced working environment and changing lenses just slows you down. Good show!
awesome video! tks for all! hey, the video example with the tamron was shot on 4k or 1080? i have the sigma 30mm and i'm undecided cause of sharpness, do you think that for video, maybe the better option is the tamron? i shot weddings in 1080, some photos on jpeg, musical clips on 4k, interviews, etc.
They were shot in 4K! For better sharpness, I honestly think that the Sigmas are the way to go. But the Tamron isn’t bad either. Sigmas are just better.
I used to have the 16mm and 30mm when I was using my a6400. The 17-70mm is very tempting for it's flexibility, especially if you travel a lot (whenever that is possible again.) But I love the 1.4 of the Sigma trio.
Cool vid. I own the sigma 16mm and the 18-105mm. I never use the 16mm for UA-cam or weddings, but the 18-105mm stays on my camera 100% of the time. However, I would like better low light performance. The 17-70mm just hit my radar and I think a combination of that and the 56mm might be what I need.
I am considering buying Tamron and selling all the glass except sigma 16mm. For indoor low light use and that extra 1mm of Focal length I think it's worth it. Especially for stationary/gimbal application. Kinda also want the sigma 56mm but my woman would chase me away from home xD
Awesome. I wound up grabbing the 18-105, after much thought, and since I found one really cheap, and so, along with my fast primes, I feel like I'm ready to make a bunch of movies. About to start on a doc in a few weeks, and so, here's to possibilities!! Thanks, as always, for the great and meticulous work.
@@DanboxingPH the ISO is just so good in the a6400, I think f4 is fine for low-light. We'll see how it goes with this project, but I have a feeling I will be using mostly primes anyway, because for me, zoom lenses are really mainly for running around and having fun, and doing events, which I don't really do. I pretty much plan out all of my filmmaking, and so, I think I made the right decision. Congratulations on your continual growth of followers, I hope you get to a million very soon. :-)
That is a great idea! Actually half the price of the Tamron and I will be using it in daylight anyways... Hmmm. Do you feel that is is sharper than the Tamron here? I have the Sigma 16 and planning to buy the 56 too, for "studio" or controlled environment. Hell, with the price of Tamron, I can get the Sony 18-105 AND the Sigma 56. Would that sound like a great plan? :))
@@SocietateaAscendenta honestly, the 18-105 is plenty sharp for me, but I only shoot video, I'm not a still photographer. I haven't used the 17-70, but even if it was much sharper, it wouldn't make a difference to me. Famous directors make movies with $60 lenses sometimes, it's all a matter of the story, and as long as your settings are correct, and you shoot things properly, I think any of these lenses are awesome. They're simply tools, and all good ones. I might buy that 17-70 at some point, but it would simply be because I'm a tech geek. Not because I really need it. I'm quite sure I would be 100% fine with just my Viltrox 23mm and my Sony 50mm and nothing else. Or just the 18-105 and nothing else. So to make actual art, it's not really crucial to have all the stuff. You can make an awesome movie with an a6400 and just a 35mm lens. For sure. No doubt. 100%. Hell, I just made a full length feature film with my PHONE!! And it was an awesome experience. But... The truth is... we all know that it IS fun to have all the coolest and best spec-d out stuff, and so I feel like as long as you're being a responsible human being, and not spending so much money on gear that you can't live a healthy life, and pay your bills, its all good. LOL To answer your question, I think your plan is good. Make it work. Use what you get. Use what you have. Tell stories. Share them. The end. ;)
@@RockWILK WOw, thanks so much for the little story! Appreciate it! Yeah, if the filmmakers of now 30-40 years ago only had our phones of today and quality, they would be amazed and sell their house to buy a phone like we have now. Story, Message, Feel, Music is the most important in a film. Hell, we still watch "Casablanca" and all the noir movies from the 40's and love them. But, yeah, in video, sharpness is not that important, unless you have a crazy customer who wants the highest quality possible - but then again, you can always rent a "RED" camera or something, for a day or two, if the budget permits. For me, I wanted something to be flexible, to take along, when shooting urban stuff (grafitti painters, coffee shops, food trucks etc.), as my clients or having fun, where you can not change lenses all the time - you can, but you will miss moments and wished you had a "16mm" here... and in the next moment a "70mm" there... So, the Sony older lenses (4.0 aperture) got really cheap this year, in comparison with the prices they had some years ago. Would buy the Tamron, but feel that they still have this "hype" price for now, cause the lens is new and all, but will get lower eventually... Thanks again! All the best!
How are the colors / contrast on the Tamron compared to the Sigmas? I have a Sigma 60 2.8 Art for Sony APSC, and aside from being sharp as hell, I absolutely love the images that come out of that lens. The colors and the contrast are amazing especially when compared to my Sony 35 1.8 and Sigma 19 2.8 (non art).
I’m glad I got the Tamron. Sure I wish it opened up to f1.4 for indoor stuff but I just got done with AnimeNYC2023 and I have to say: I just took more photos with the Tamron 17-70 f2.8 than I did my Sigma 35 f1.4. I found myself not having to move around my subject so much in a tight space, and I can just frame my subject however I needed to. I kept the Tamron locked at f2.8 the entire time, occasionally closing it to f5.6. Images were tac sharp and honestly, while the sigma images were noticeably sharper, I was just happier using the Tamron, which lead to more fun and better looking shots.
I have both Sony aps-c and full frame...I love both, should I get the sigma trio 1st for my a6000 or should I get 24-70 sigma fe DG DN for my full frame, the only zoom lens I have for the apps-c is the 18-105 f4 which I got last week and I don’t have any zoom on my Full frame...if you was in my position what would be your choice?
If one into video making they would anyway need a good gimbal so prime lenses are the way to go. Also, many people still use sigma trios for photography on cameras with out stabilisation. I would not get tamron unless I need one all around versatile lens for my travel.
I own the Sigma 16mm and Sony 50mm 1.8 right now. I am thinking about selling both and buying the Tamron instead. The image stabilization would be nice since my camera is a a6300. Should I keep them, or get the Tamron?
If you have the budget, keep them. It’s nicer to have one zoom lens for general purposes and a few primes certain situations. Otherwise, I would sell my primes and get a Tamron. It’s a nice one all around lens.
I have sigma 30mm and I'm confused between my kit lens, Tamron 17-70 and Sigma 18-50 for my second zoom lens. I already own the kit lens and confused if I should sell it. I want the second lens for vlogging and travel videography. Sigh.
@@DanboxingPH thank you for the recommendation. I have A6400 and no stabilisation. Do you think that would make a huge difference getting a lens without OSS?
Damn it!!! its so hard man! sigma and tamron are hell bent on making our choices difficult... tamron with its wide focal range and VC and sigma with its f1.4 and now we have another monster sigma 18-50 which is half of tamron price!! ugh!! life was so much simler when i was not so much interested in photography!!!
I got rid of my Sigma 56mm and 18-105 f4 to get the Tamron. Maybe I got a bad copy but that was by far my biggest mistake in purchasing to date. My copy of the Tamron had serious vignette in video and the VC was unusable for handheld video. I handhold my 18-105 for sports all the time without issue but there is no way my copy of the 17-70 could do it.
@@DanboxingPH Drove to the store today and they swapped for another copy. All is well in the world now. No regrets any more. VC is still not quite as good as OSS at the telephoto end in my opinion but I will run it on my monopod with video head to solve those issues. I do think this lens is good enough to replace the Sigma Trio and the 18-105 now. I love that I won't be guessing which lenses to pack any more. One good all arounder to meet 98% of my needs.
haha funny to see you want to have the exact same set up as me. 17 70 plus sigma 56 - that is the sweetest couple! great videos. i love watching your stuff. keep it up!
You bet! :) Actually, there’s also one that I am looking at - the Sony 35mm f1.8 OSS. I need a 30mm with large aperture and with stabilization :) Should you have thoughts about it, please free to share! Oh by the way, THANK YOU FOR EXPRESSING INTEREST IN MY VIDEOS 🔥
@@DanboxingPH i have the 30mm sigma and i want to sell it.. why do you feel you need stabilization? Because you use it a lot for video? I am only doing photo so i feel like the 1.4 compensates for the wobble quite enough haha.
I have both of Tamron 17-70 and sigma 56mm on sony a6600 body. To be honest, when it comes to autofocus, I would prefer Tamron when both of lenses are on the same aperture.
Today i have sigma 16 1.4 and sony 50 1.8, and for years these two lens resolve my life. But, since begining, i miss tele lens, mostly for weddings... I already worked with 85mm and 135mm, but in pace of filmmaking, being changing lens piss me off! So... I was searching for Sony 18-105 F4 and Tamron 17-70 2.8, and I can't decide...
Galing! Deserve more subs! I'm confused between sigma 16mm and viltrox 85mm and alam mo if pipili ako dito sa dalawa kung ano uunahin I'm still going to buy the other one in the future. Haha. Kaya naisipan ko what if mag ipon pa (mga 1 year) para diretso na lang sa tamron 17-70? 😅 Ano kaya mas magandang option? I'm currently using sigma 30mm, which is my only lense, for shooting small events like wedding, debut, etc. Bagohan pa lang po ako and earning minimum wage. Do you think mas okay po na pumili either sa dalawa muna (sigma 16/viltrox 85mm) or mag ipon pa and dumiretso sa tamron 17-70?
Thank you!!! I would suggest… Kung hindi pa kaya ng budget, go get the 85mm. 30mm could be your all around lens for the time being. Then the 85 is for portraits, b-rolls, etc. Then given the chance, go get the Tamron 17-70 as well! Solid line up if ever.
I already have a Sony 35mm 1.8 OSS on my A6400, I might sell it if I get a good suggestion. I am planning to buy a Sigma 56mm for sure to enjoy the best portraits. I want one more lens which can be used for videos. Hopefully with some stabilization and less focal length.
@@DanboxingPH Is Tamron 17-70 sharper than Sony 35mm? And do you think it's worth carrying two lenses ( Sigma 56 + Tamron 17-70) . I do post processing in lightroom as well. It would be great if we can get SBS comparison of pics for Tamron vs Sigma trio. Tamron looks like a great competitor.
Just bought the tamron today, so will wait few days with my final opinion, but the first thought after trying it is that there is always some compromise. Till now I had a6300, a6500, sigma trio and sony 18-105. Two cameras did great while doing some shooting with the primes (low light, portrait) - no switching lenses all the time and this sharpness, bokeh of the primes is just the best. But the downside was that all this was quite heavy. I've sold a6300 because I do not using cameras too much lately and also I had a plan to sold sony 18-105 (not sharp enough for photos) and sigma 30 mm (I've planned to use it for video with gimball, which I've never bought for the a6x00) after buying tamron. The goal was to make my bag lighter by selling stuff and replace functionality with tamron, but: - tamron do not have powerzoom which sony 18-105 have - and for the video this is killer feature - tamron is so heavy with a6500 that I'm considering staying with sigma 30 mm for street photo So at the moment my bag has the same weight as with two cameras :)
Hey, what is your experience with Tamron after 3 months? I was thinking for buying it for the Cinematic videos but I love the 1.4 of Sigmas. Confused...!!
@@thr6453 I love it. I’m using it for 90% of time. It’s sharp as hell, 2.8 is good enough for most of the time. I’ve sold 18-105 and forgot about PZ functionality. At the moment I’m doing more photos than videos. I bought also samyang 12mm (tamron 11-20 is great but 3 times more expensive in Poland) for travel. I’m keeping sigma trio - 16mm is irreplaceable for night escapades, 56mm is just best apsc lenses. Still considering to sell 30mm. I’ll give it last chance on next trip to check if it is still worthy.
@@karol6784 I am buying Sony A6400 and skipping Kit lens. I am confused which one to choose between Sigma 30 and 16. I need a Versatile lens for Travel and Cinematic videos as I have only one lens for now. Then I will buy a Gimbal and then thinking of buying something like Tamron 17-70mm 2.8. What do you think? Which one I should choose between 16 and 30. 30 seems to be more Cinematic due to creamy bokeh. But you are experienced, Please guide me 🙏
@@thr6453 Choosing just one prime lens might be risky if you are not 100% sure what exactly you would like to show on your videos. Zoom lenses are more versatile during travel. 6400 does not have stabilisation, so filming without gimball with sigmas will be shaky. I had 6300 without IS and 6500 with IS is so much better (gimball for camera in travel is not for me). Tamron 17-70 has IS (VC) built in. So I would start with some zoom lenses, and after checking which focal length i am using more often then buy apropriate prime and gimball. Think twice if you like to buy body without IS.
I'd like to do the same but 2 stops of extra light is too much to compensate for un what I do. If you don't need that bright of an aperture I'd sure go for Tamron.
@@rafsnchz there's always a compromise somewhere. I actually went to full frame Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 so i felt I only lost "1 stop" of light instead of 2. However I'm losing reach on the wide and tele end. Similar to like you said, the camera/lens game seems not so much what you want, but what you are willing to compromise. lol
How are the colors / contrast on the Tamron compared to the Sigmas? I have a Sigma 60 2.8 Art for Sony APSC, and aside from being sharp as hell, I absolutely love the images that come out of that lens. The colors and the contrast are amazing especially when compared to my Sony 35 1.8 and Sigma 19 2.8 (non art).
@@vincetarrosa Sigma Trio contrast and colors are 1-2% better! IMO. I was still willing to compromise for convenience since im a travel photographer, zooms are the way for me. I actually use the Tamron 28-200 on A7C now.
So, Tamron or Sigma? Or both? 😂
All!!! 😂
Sigma👍🏻
both! really I'd say all four lenses and then you're done. 😂
I'm using the Sigma 30mm on my a6600 and you can literally use it for everything. A zoom lens is great but I don't it'll be as sharp as a prime/fixed lens. Of course, you could always get the Sony E PZ 18-105 mm F4 G OSS?
Both. I have the sigma trio and I want the 17-70mm for general purpose travel walk around lens. Then the trio for times I want or need the 1.4
I have all four. I’ll use the Tamron 95% of the time. That just makes sense. I’ll keep the trio, for studio work mostly. If I’m shooting a wedding, the Tamron is much more convenient without compromising image quality. Get the Tamron.
Team Tamron :)
Is where my brain was on it as well. If I'm doing portrait I want the primes. Out and about def the tamron.
Jealous! Would you say the faster speed of the 56mm makes a big difference in portraits (and the creamy bokeh) to be worth buying if you have the Tamron 17-70?
@@hondaxdood 56 1.4 is different class, so having it makes huge difference. But tamron’s versatility is winning for daily usage, despite its huge weight (as for apsc)
How are the colors / contrast on the Tamron compared to the Sigmas?
I have a Sigma 60 2.8 Art for Sony APSC, and aside from being sharp as hell, I absolutely love the images that come out of that lens. The colors and the contrast are amazing especially when compared to my Sony 35 1.8 and Sigma 19 2.8 (non art).
I'm a hobbyist and I shoot variety of things. I have Sigma 16 and 56, and recently got Tamron 17-70.
And it's the same old "zoom vs prime" story: if I know exactly what I'm going to shoot - i will just take with me an appropriate prime.
There is no reason to use Tamron for portraits when Sigma 56 produces superb images. Same goes for landscapes on tripod with Sigma 16 (which doubles down as "Zoom call" lens with good low light performance and shallow depth of field, that blurs the clutter in my man cave).
I got Tamron for a casual "tourist walk" when I wonder around the city and have no idea what would be the next subject: person on arm's length, building in front of me or a cat on the other side of the road. I've missed countless shots because I haven't really felt like opening my bag and switching between wide-angle and portrait prime all the time. That's where the focal range and image stabilization outweighs sharpness and wider aperture of Sigma primes.
Wow! Great inputs! I agree with you especially the part about the focal range and image stabilization :)
For me as a travel and landscape photographer, the zoom is a no brainer, even now it is pain in the ass to replace from 10-20 to 17-70 and to 70-350 very often during a hike or just wandering around - imagining doing it two/three times more is just impossible 😁 for stuff where I need the extra super sharpness and bokeh like portraits, yes, it is worth it, but for the landscape, primes are bad - I rather have my photo 5% less sharp than missing a moment because I jongle with the lenses 😂
Great inputs!
I plan to get the Tamron but will definitely keep the sigma 16mm and 56mm!
I have all 4 (just got the Tamron 17-70 a couple days ago) and I also have the Tamron 70-180 that I've had for a while. They are all good, sharp lenses! 🤙🏾
Woaaah! Goals, man! Solid line up 💯
@@DanboxingPH thank you. I also have the Sigma 100-400 and the Sony 85mm 1.8.. I believe that's my full lens lineup. 😬👍🏽
Now I envy you :( hahahaha
How are the colors / contrast on the Tamron compared to the Sigmas?
I have a Sigma 60 2.8 Art for Sony APSC, and aside from being sharp as hell, I absolutely love the images that come out of that lens. The colors and the contrast are amazing especially when compared to my Sony 35 1.8 and Sigma 19 2.8 (non art).
Thanks a lot , I was also thinking of getting the 17-70 plus the Sigma 56, seems impractical but I think I need it both.
I got the Tamron. I'd love to get some of the sigma primes. I always wanted the Sony 16-55mm. I'm very happy with my 17-70mm for photos and video.
I already have the tamron. And I still have plans ro get the Sigma 56 as well :)
Is tamron good for videography,, please give your opinion 👍
Perfect timing was debating this myself! Great video bro!
Thank you :)
Thanks for the comparisons and great video, really easy to follow/understand!
Can i ask what your thoughts/recommendations are between the Tamron 17-70 vs the new Sigma 18-50 f2.8? I've got a sony a6400 (so no IBIS) and was wondering if stabilization is that important for photo and video?
It IS that important. Especially if you do handheld videos.
It depends on .....
The 17-70 is a great lens with a wide range of work.The short focal distance is awesome.
But for Portraits and extremly low light i use the Sigma 30 1.4 and the Sony 85 1.8.
Thx you for your good comparison 👍
Agree with you, Mark! Thank you 💯
This guy deserves more subs! Love your work man.
THANKS, MAN 🔥📸💯
I have been shooting video cameras since they had vacuum tubes inside. Zoom lenses have always been the glass on the front. The choice might be easier if you only shoot video, but for hybrid shooter you should probably put your money, where you make your money. I shoot 95% video, so I mostly use zoom lenses, although I do have a couple primes that fill a niche that I can't get in a zoom. Video is a fast paced working environment and changing lenses just slows you down. Good show!
Good points, man! Thanks for sharing.
@@DanboxingPH I should be in PH to stay in a month or so. I am excited to be back there. Your channel is really good, enjoy watching!
awesome video! tks for all! hey, the video example with the tamron was shot on 4k or 1080? i have the sigma 30mm and i'm undecided cause of sharpness, do you think that for video, maybe the better option is the tamron? i shot weddings in 1080, some photos on jpeg, musical clips on 4k, interviews, etc.
They were shot in 4K!
For better sharpness, I honestly think that the Sigmas are the way to go. But the Tamron isn’t bad either. Sigmas are just better.
I used to have the 16mm and 30mm when I was using my a6400. The 17-70mm is very tempting for it's flexibility, especially if you travel a lot (whenever that is possible again.) But I love the 1.4 of the Sigma trio.
What about oss bro sigma doesn’t have oss while tamron has vibration control should i go for tamron for videography with 6400 body
@@abgurung2107 For photography I guess the stabilization of the Tamron will help. But I think for video it will still be shaky.
@@abgurung2107 for video get a small gimbal. It’s a game changer
Cool vid. I own the sigma 16mm and the 18-105mm. I never use the 16mm for UA-cam or weddings, but the 18-105mm stays on my camera 100% of the time. However, I would like better low light performance. The 17-70mm just hit my radar and I think a combination of that and the 56mm might be what I need.
Thanks, man! Yes. 56 plus 17-70 is 🔥
I waited for a Video like that. Thanks
I got the 16mm and the 56mm. Love them!!
Good to hear this :) thank you!
Im looking to take the same combo are you totally satisfied with this duo ?
have this combo too and still thinking about tamron 17-70...
This is the best youtube channel, solve all my problems
LET’S GOOOO!!!
I am considering buying Tamron and selling all the glass except sigma 16mm. For indoor low light use and that extra 1mm of Focal length I think it's worth it. Especially for stationary/gimbal application. Kinda also want the sigma 56mm but my woman would chase me away from home xD
Hahaha good points, brother :)
Awesome. I wound up grabbing the 18-105, after much thought, and since I found one really cheap, and so, along with my fast primes, I feel like I'm ready to make a bunch of movies. About to start on a doc in a few weeks, and so, here's to possibilities!! Thanks, as always, for the great and meticulous work.
Super happy for you!!!! 💯
Thank you as well, brother 🔥
@@DanboxingPH the ISO is just so good in the a6400, I think f4 is fine for low-light. We'll see how it goes with this project, but I have a feeling I will be using mostly primes anyway, because for me, zoom lenses are really mainly for running around and having fun, and doing events, which I don't really do. I pretty much plan out all of my filmmaking, and so, I think I made the right decision. Congratulations on your continual growth of followers, I hope you get to a million very soon. :-)
That is a great idea! Actually half the price of the Tamron and I will be using it in daylight anyways... Hmmm.
Do you feel that is is sharper than the Tamron here?
I have the Sigma 16 and planning to buy the 56 too, for "studio" or controlled environment.
Hell, with the price of Tamron, I can get the Sony 18-105 AND the Sigma 56.
Would that sound like a great plan? :))
@@SocietateaAscendenta honestly, the 18-105 is plenty sharp for me, but I only shoot video, I'm not a still photographer. I haven't used the 17-70, but even if it was much sharper, it wouldn't make a difference to me. Famous directors make movies with $60 lenses sometimes, it's all a matter of the story, and as long as your settings are correct, and you shoot things properly, I think any of these lenses are awesome. They're simply tools, and all good ones. I might buy that 17-70 at some point, but it would simply be because I'm a tech geek. Not because I really need it. I'm quite sure I would be 100% fine with just my Viltrox 23mm and my Sony 50mm and nothing else. Or just the 18-105 and nothing else. So to make actual art, it's not really crucial to have all the stuff. You can make an awesome movie with an a6400 and just a 35mm lens. For sure. No doubt. 100%. Hell, I just made a full length feature film with my PHONE!! And it was an awesome experience. But... The truth is... we all know that it IS fun to have all the coolest and best spec-d out stuff, and so I feel like as long as you're being a responsible human being, and not spending so much money on gear that you can't live a healthy life, and pay your bills, its all good. LOL To answer your question, I think your plan is good. Make it work. Use what you get. Use what you have. Tell stories. Share them. The end. ;)
@@RockWILK WOw, thanks so much for the little story!
Appreciate it!
Yeah, if the filmmakers of now 30-40 years ago only had our phones of today and quality, they would be amazed and sell their house to buy a phone like we have now.
Story, Message, Feel, Music is the most important in a film.
Hell, we still watch "Casablanca" and all the noir movies from the 40's and love them.
But, yeah, in video, sharpness is not that important, unless you have a crazy customer who wants the highest quality possible - but then again, you can always rent a "RED" camera or something, for a day or two, if the budget permits.
For me, I wanted something to be flexible, to take along, when shooting urban stuff (grafitti painters, coffee shops, food trucks etc.), as my clients or having fun, where you can not change lenses all the time - you can, but you will miss moments and wished you had a "16mm" here... and in the next moment a "70mm" there...
So, the Sony older lenses (4.0 aperture) got really cheap this year, in comparison with the prices they had some years ago.
Would buy the Tamron, but feel that they still have this "hype" price for now, cause the lens is new and all, but will get lower eventually...
Thanks again!
All the best!
I've got the sigma trio and 18-105 and I'm really considering selling them all except the 56, then buying the tamron. Really helpful video!
Woah! That’s my goal too. So excited for you :)
I would if I were you!
That would be my dream combo (Tamron 17-70 + Sigma 56)! I have the 18-105 now
I think that’s a safe bet. I have the trio and its mainly the 56 that stays on my lens. Between that and the Tamron I am set
How are the colors / contrast on the Tamron compared to the Sigmas?
I have a Sigma 60 2.8 Art for Sony APSC, and aside from being sharp as hell, I absolutely love the images that come out of that lens. The colors and the contrast are amazing especially when compared to my Sony 35 1.8 and Sigma 19 2.8 (non art).
I’d say the Sigma’s are sharper and more contrasty. But only if you are nitpicking. Otherwise, they are very much similar for me.
I’m glad I got the Tamron. Sure I wish it opened up to f1.4 for indoor stuff but I just got done with AnimeNYC2023 and I have to say: I just took more photos with the Tamron 17-70 f2.8 than I did my Sigma 35 f1.4. I found myself not having to move around my subject so much in a tight space, and I can just frame my subject however I needed to. I kept the Tamron locked at f2.8 the entire time, occasionally closing it to f5.6. Images were tac sharp and honestly, while the sigma images were noticeably sharper, I was just happier using the Tamron, which lead to more fun and better looking shots.
🔥🔥🔥
I have both Sony aps-c and full frame...I love both, should I get the sigma trio 1st for my a6000 or should I get 24-70 sigma fe DG DN for my full frame, the only zoom lens I have for the apps-c is the 18-105 f4 which I got last week and I don’t have any zoom on my Full frame...if you was in my position what would be your choice?
If it were up to me, I’d invest more on the Full Frame :)
@@DanboxingPH thanks for the reply back, I’m going for 24-70 sigma instead of the 28-70 sigma, love the videos, keep it coming...
If you get the 24-70 you can use on both your cameras
If one into video making they would anyway need a good gimbal so prime lenses are the way to go. Also, many people still use sigma trios for photography on cameras with out stabilisation. I would not get tamron unless I need one all around versatile lens for my travel.
I own the Sigma 16mm and Sony 50mm 1.8 right now. I am thinking about selling both and buying the Tamron instead. The image stabilization would be nice since my camera is a a6300. Should I keep them, or get the Tamron?
If you have the budget, keep them. It’s nicer to have one zoom lens for general purposes and a few primes certain situations.
Otherwise, I would sell my primes and get a Tamron. It’s a nice one all around lens.
@@DanboxingPH Thanks for the quick reply! I think I‘ll go with the Tamron.
I have sigma 30mm and I'm confused between my kit lens, Tamron 17-70 and Sigma 18-50 for my second zoom lens. I already own the kit lens and confused if I should sell it. I want the second lens for vlogging and travel videography. Sigh.
If I may… go for Sigma 18-50. It’s really good. Plus it’s compact :)
@@DanboxingPH thank you for the recommendation. I have A6400 and no stabilisation. Do you think that would make a huge difference getting a lens without OSS?
Damn it!!! its so hard man! sigma and tamron are hell bent on making our choices difficult... tamron with its wide focal range and VC and sigma with its f1.4 and now we have another monster sigma 18-50 which is half of tamron price!! ugh!! life was so much simler when i was not so much interested in photography!!!
Bro, I need your opinion. Should I sell my sigma trio and get Tamron 17-70mm, or just sell my sigma 16mm and 30mm for getting the Tamron?
Yup! I’d go for that - Tamron 17-70 and Sigma 56.
I don’t think you’d use the Sigma 16 and 30 as often once you have the Tamron 17-70. :)
@@DanboxingPH THANKS MATEE
Of course both would be the best option. But if I had to choose it would be the sigma trio for me. Your videos are awesome btw
Thanks, man!!!
- 6db on music, pls.
Amazing video, you should put timestamp headers for each topics.
Thanks, man!!! Oh wow. Appreciate the suggestion. Will do that :)
your videos are just awesome. very helpful
Thank you!
Nice work. New sub.. Ive got all 4 + 70-350, 85mm FE. They are all awesome!!
Agree :)
Thank you!!!
I have both and they are perfect for my needs
I got rid of my Sigma 56mm and 18-105 f4 to get the Tamron. Maybe I got a bad copy but that was by far my biggest mistake in purchasing to date. My copy of the Tamron had serious vignette in video and the VC was unusable for handheld video. I handhold my 18-105 for sports all the time without issue but there is no way my copy of the 17-70 could do it.
Oh man! Feel sorry for you :(
@@DanboxingPH Drove to the store today and they swapped for another copy. All is well in the world now. No regrets any more. VC is still not quite as good as OSS at the telephoto end in my opinion but I will run it on my monopod with video head to solve those issues. I do think this lens is good enough to replace the Sigma Trio and the 18-105 now. I love that I won't be guessing which lenses to pack any more. One good all arounder to meet 98% of my needs.
There you go! Cheers to many more adventure with the Tamron 👌🏽
18-105 oss is way better in my opinion working with a6500. I have to be more carefull while doing handheld video with the tamron.
Great comparison! 💯
haha funny to see you want to have the exact same set up as me. 17 70 plus sigma 56 - that is the sweetest couple! great videos. i love watching your stuff. keep it up!
You bet! :)
Actually, there’s also one that I am looking at - the Sony 35mm f1.8 OSS. I need a 30mm with large aperture and with stabilization :)
Should you have thoughts about it, please free to share!
Oh by the way, THANK YOU FOR EXPRESSING INTEREST IN MY VIDEOS 🔥
@@DanboxingPH i have the 30mm sigma and i want to sell it.. why do you feel you need stabilization? Because you use it a lot for video? I am only doing photo so i feel like the 1.4 compensates for the wobble quite enough haha.
I used to have one as well! Sold it for the Tamron hahahaha
Yeah, I need stabilization coz I do a lot of video work :)
I have both of Tamron 17-70 and sigma 56mm on sony a6600 body. To be honest, when it comes to autofocus, I would prefer Tamron when both of lenses are on the same aperture.
Really? But I’m not that surprised, the Tamron 17-70 is a beast of lens 🔥
Today i have sigma 16 1.4 and sony 50 1.8, and for years these two lens resolve my life. But, since begining, i miss tele lens, mostly for weddings... I already worked with 85mm and 135mm, but in pace of filmmaking, being changing lens piss me off! So... I was searching for Sony 18-105 F4 and Tamron 17-70 2.8, and I can't decide...
Go for the Tamron 17-70. Amazing all around lens.
Superb reviewer!!!
Thank you :)
Should have uploaded Bokeh difference at diff focal lengths
Galing! Deserve more subs!
I'm confused between sigma 16mm and viltrox 85mm and alam mo if pipili ako dito sa dalawa kung ano uunahin I'm still going to buy the other one in the future. Haha. Kaya naisipan ko what if mag ipon pa (mga 1 year) para diretso na lang sa tamron 17-70? 😅
Ano kaya mas magandang option? I'm currently using sigma 30mm, which is my only lense, for shooting small events like wedding, debut, etc. Bagohan pa lang po ako and earning minimum wage. Do you think mas okay po na pumili either sa dalawa muna (sigma 16/viltrox 85mm) or mag ipon pa and dumiretso sa tamron 17-70?
I do both photo and video po. If that helps in the decision making. Haha! 🤣
Thank you!!!
I would suggest…
Kung hindi pa kaya ng budget, go get the 85mm.
30mm could be your all around lens for the time being. Then the 85 is for portraits, b-rolls, etc. Then given the chance, go get the Tamron 17-70 as well! Solid line up if ever.
I already have a Sony 35mm 1.8 OSS on my A6400, I might sell it if I get a good suggestion. I am planning to buy a Sigma 56mm for sure to enjoy the best portraits. I want one more lens which can be used for videos. Hopefully with some stabilization and less focal length.
Try the Tamron 17-70mm
@@DanboxingPH Is Tamron 17-70 sharper than Sony 35mm? And do you think it's worth carrying two lenses ( Sigma 56 + Tamron 17-70) . I do post processing in lightroom as well. It would be great if we can get SBS comparison of pics for Tamron vs Sigma trio. Tamron looks like a great competitor.
how is the quality of ur 35 1.8 OSS? and what is most suitable for? I have a6400 and i am looking for a good do it all lens
Just bought the tamron today, so will wait few days with my final opinion, but the first thought after trying it is that there is always some compromise.
Till now I had a6300, a6500, sigma trio and sony 18-105. Two cameras did great while doing some shooting with the primes (low light, portrait) - no switching lenses all the time and this sharpness, bokeh of the primes is just the best. But the downside was that all this was quite heavy.
I've sold a6300 because I do not using cameras too much lately and also I had a plan to sold sony 18-105 (not sharp enough for photos) and sigma 30 mm (I've planned to use it for video with gimball, which I've never bought for the a6x00) after buying tamron. The goal was to make my bag lighter by selling stuff and replace functionality with tamron, but:
- tamron do not have powerzoom which sony 18-105 have - and for the video this is killer feature
- tamron is so heavy with a6500 that I'm considering staying with sigma 30 mm for street photo
So at the moment my bag has the same weight as with two cameras :)
Thanks for sharing, Karol! Agree that there would always be compromise.
Hope you can also share your final thoughts about it after a month or so :)
Hey, what is your experience with Tamron after 3 months? I was thinking for buying it for the Cinematic videos but I love the 1.4 of Sigmas. Confused...!!
@@thr6453 I love it. I’m using it for 90% of time. It’s sharp as hell, 2.8 is good enough for most of the time. I’ve sold 18-105 and forgot about PZ functionality. At the moment I’m doing more photos than videos. I bought also samyang 12mm (tamron 11-20 is great but 3 times more expensive in Poland) for travel. I’m keeping sigma trio - 16mm is irreplaceable for night escapades, 56mm is just best apsc lenses. Still considering to sell 30mm. I’ll give it last chance on next trip to check if it is still worthy.
@@karol6784 I am buying Sony A6400 and skipping Kit lens. I am confused which one to choose between Sigma 30 and 16. I need a Versatile lens for Travel and Cinematic videos as I have only one lens for now. Then I will buy a Gimbal and then thinking of buying something like Tamron 17-70mm 2.8.
What do you think? Which one I should choose between 16 and 30. 30 seems to be more Cinematic due to creamy bokeh. But you are experienced, Please guide me 🙏
@@thr6453 Choosing just one prime lens might be risky if you are not 100% sure what exactly you would like to show on your videos. Zoom lenses are more versatile during travel. 6400 does not have stabilisation, so filming without gimball with sigmas will be shaky. I had 6300 without IS and 6500 with IS is so much better (gimball for camera in travel is not for me). Tamron 17-70 has IS (VC) built in. So I would start with some zoom lenses, and after checking which focal length i am using more often then buy apropriate prime and gimball. Think twice if you like to buy body without IS.
I've got the Tamron 17-70 but with Sony 11mm 1.8, 35mm 1.8 oss and 85mm 1.8 FE. I still want the Sigma 56mm though.
Yup! A real must have :)
. @DanboxingPH
I've since sold the Sony 11mm and bought a Tamron 11-20 f2,8 to go with the 17-70. A Sony 70-350 finishes my trio.
Sigma 24-70 better choice
This was just a specs comparison
I’m a zoom guy. So Tamron. I use to carry the sigma trio everywhere I go and after a few years got tired of switching lenses. Lol
Hahaha cheers!!!
I'd like to do the same but 2 stops of extra light is too much to compensate for un what I do. If you don't need that bright of an aperture I'd sure go for Tamron.
@@rafsnchz there's always a compromise somewhere. I actually went to full frame Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 so i felt I only lost "1 stop" of light instead of 2. However I'm losing reach on the wide and tele end.
Similar to like you said, the camera/lens game seems not so much what you want, but what you are willing to compromise. lol
How are the colors / contrast on the Tamron compared to the Sigmas?
I have a Sigma 60 2.8 Art for Sony APSC, and aside from being sharp as hell, I absolutely love the images that come out of that lens. The colors and the contrast are amazing especially when compared to my Sony 35 1.8 and Sigma 19 2.8 (non art).
@@vincetarrosa Sigma Trio contrast and colors are 1-2% better! IMO. I was still willing to compromise for convenience since im a travel photographer, zooms are the way for me. I actually use the Tamron 28-200 on A7C now.
Sigma 16mm user here! Subscribed!
Not bad!
Oh wow thank you! 😊
Taking a page out of Arthur R's book for this one! I like it!
Woaaaah!!! Appreciate the kind words, Colin 😊
all good lenses , & all depends on what you shoot , almost a prime v zoom argument here
u deserve more followers!
Thanks, Chuyie! 🔥
3 lives! 😂👏🏻
I LOVE YOU THIS IS JUST WAHT I MEEDED
Welcome!
Insert *why not both* meme
we both have the choice of having 17-70mm tamron ang 56mm sigma haha
Niiiice!
Actually still hard to find stock at this time lol
Hahahaha
tamron 17-70 for canon mounts pleaseeee 😂
😂😂😂
Please make sigma 16 vs sony 18-105
Sigma 16 hasn’t oss while 18-105 has oss also sigma 16 is a king for low light 💡
superb information.and your gestures are super irritating by the way :)................
Hahaha thank you!