# IQ comparison: Sigma 70-200 F2.8 VS. Tamron 28-70 F2.8



## anubis404 (Nov 19, 2008)

Which one of these lenses has higher quality glass, and produce the best images? I'm aware that they have different focal lengths, I was just curious as to which one's image quality is better. The Sigma is $300 more than the Tamron, but its focal lengths are much longer. Your insight is appreciated.


----------



## djacobox372 (Nov 19, 2008)

With those brands it probably depends on the individual lens, the $300 difference is because of the focal length--f2.8 telephotos are $$


----------



## anubis404 (Nov 19, 2008)

Of course. I was just curious about the quality of the picture produced. Anyone?


----------



## keith204 (Nov 19, 2008)

I owned the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 and it was very, very sharp.  Great lens.  Do you really mean the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8?  I owned that for a few days - it was very sharp, but terrible AF, and a strange range for a crop body.

They are not only different lengths as you mentioned, but completely different lenses when it comes to feel, use, and autofocus.  I am not sure which was sharper - they were both pretty sharp.


----------



## maxalmon (Nov 19, 2008)

I just got the sigma 70-200 f2.8 today and I'm like a kid in a candy store. The details of the images are incredible, very, very happy with this lens. Feedback from others was important in my making this decision and most everyone rates this as a very good lens


----------



## Chewbecca (Nov 19, 2008)

My friend has the tamron 28-75mm f2.8.
She has a D700, though, so like someone already mentioned, I wonder if it's better for her because of the FF.
Here's some of her shots.




































She says it has SOME macro ability.


----------



## anubis404 (Nov 19, 2008)

Ah. I am just looking into my next lens as either a Tamron 17-50, a Tamron 28-75, or maybe even a Sigma 70-200. The Sigma costs much more money, but I already have the 18-70 focal lengths covered. Come to think of it, I don't think I'm gonna want a Tamron 28-75, but the Tamron is definitely on the table and maybe even the Sigma. Just contemplating if that extra $300 is really worth it. It would mean waiting a much longer time to purchase one, maybe even months. I'm in school now, and am too busy with extracurriculars to have a job, so that extra $300 is going to take a bit of time to make.

On the other hand, if the Tamron can produce images of very similar quality, then I probably don't need the Sigma. Those focal ranges are nice, but not worth the extra $300. Plus, I can sell my 18-70 if I get the 17-50, which means a little extra money for other stuff.


----------



## Kegger (Nov 20, 2008)

Here's one with the Sigma wide open.


----------



## DRoberts (Nov 20, 2008)

It might be a personal prefrence kinda like Canon or Nikon, but from all the reviews I've read on this very subject, I have found the majority say that Sigma is an overall better quality lens than Tamron


----------



## keith204 (Nov 20, 2008)

Why are you not sure which range you want?


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Nov 20, 2008)

Kegger said:


> Here's one with the Sigma wide open.


Doesn't really look too super. 


Take a look at the Nikon 80-200 f/2.8 too. I have it and it's beutiful on the D3/700. 

Here's photograph I did recently that perfectly explains it's clarity. 








And the centerish at 100%:








Now if that's not sharp, I don't know what is. 


I did however get to handle a Sigma 70-200 HSM last week and i'll admit, I was a little impressed by it's speed of focusing. It's pretty quick and torquey, but can be really indecisive. I have no idea on how sharp or contrasty it is.


----------



## roadkill (Nov 20, 2008)

Is there vr on that sigma 70-200 f2.8


----------



## ksmattfish (Nov 20, 2008)

Quit blaming the gear.  Lens sharpness has been excellent for the last 50 years.  99.9% of sharpness issues are with the photog, not the lens.  Tamron and Sigma lenses regularly match top of the line Canon and Nikon lenses in sharpness tests, and sometimes beat them.  The difference in cost is usually about build quality, AF, IS/VR, advertising budget, etc... AND HYPE!!!
Compare prints with your bare eyeballs.  If you are a photographer who's final product is prints that's the only test that matters.

Results from a 50+ year old, Ansco (the Sigma of it's day) anastigmat (one of the oldest popular designs) lens.  The corners and edges are a little soft compared to the center, but the center sharpness matches or beats ANY zoom lens available today.


----------



## JerryPH (Nov 20, 2008)

I know it is not related at all, but in the 24-70 range... with Sigma and Nikkor, there was no visible differences at F/8, but as you started to open up the lens, the differences became more and more obvious.  By F/2.8, the Sigma almost looked as if it was back-focusing because of how unclear it was compared to the Nikkor.

This is certainly not the case with all lenses, but I felt interesting to note in this discussion.

There are times to go 3rd party and times not to.  Doing the homework and researching is the key to getting the best lens for your needs/budget.

One of the first things, though, is to make sure that you are comparing apples to apples.  Do not be comparing different focal lengths and manufacturers.  It's like comparing a luxury bus with a Corvette, each is THE choice for someone, but for totally different reasons... its not logical to say the least.


----------



## anubis404 (Nov 22, 2008)

I understand that, however I'm not quite sure which focal lengths I want yet. Surely you can compare an image from the Sigma at 70 and from the Tamron at 50? I was curious as to the image quality produced by the lenses.

I am unsure about which focal lengths I want because I sometimes find myself wanting wider, and sometimes longer. In any case, I wanted to know about the quality of the images that came out of the lens, not the lens itself. I could probably get more use out of the 70-200 because I am more often wanting a longer lens, however the 17-50 would be used more, and I could sell my 18-70 and put a few extra bucks in my pocket, not to mention the extra $400 the sigma will cost.

As for the Nikon/Third party debate, I can't afford Nikon. Third party will have to be good enough.


----------



## skieur (Nov 22, 2008)

anubis404 said:


> Which one of these lenses has higher quality glass, and produce the best images? I'm aware that they have different focal lengths, I was just curious as to which one's image quality is better. The Sigma is $300 more than the Tamron, but its focal lengths are much longer. Your insight is appreciated.


 
Well, you are talking apples and oranges since the focal length is NOT the same. The tamron 70mm to 200mm 2.8 has excellent IQ throughout its range according to Popular Photography but users complain about its less than fast, effective, autofocus.  The Sigma 70mm to 200mm has better autofocu but the IQ reduces as it goes out beyond 100 to 200mm to very good...again according to Popular Photography.

So check the autofocus on your tamron consideration, as well as the tested IQ.

skieur


----------



## davebmck (Nov 22, 2008)

There is a new version of the Sigma 70-200 out now and it was reviewed in the latest issue of Popular Photography.  It got very good ratings and was compared to the Tamron of the same focal range.  The review is not on the web site yet, so you may want to pick up a copy if you want to read the review.  It sounds like a very good lens for the money.


----------



## anubis404 (Nov 22, 2008)

I realize I'm not comparing the same focal lengths, but surely it cannot be hard to compare the Tamron at 50 and the sigma at 70?


----------



## keith204 (Nov 22, 2008)

skieur said:


> Well, you are talking apples and oranges since the focal length is NOT the same...





anubis404 said:


> ...surely it cannot be hard to compare the Tamron at 50 and the sigma at 70?



Surely it cannot be hard to compare orange slices at a 3rd grade soccer game, and apples soaking in butter awaiting their utopia in America's favorite pie.

But seriously, both are relatively sharp lenses.  Your next step is to decide which focal length you need.


----------



## Alleh Lindquist (Nov 22, 2008)

The Nikon 80-200 2.8 might be a better pick than the sigma. Personally I would never buy a Tamron lens either. Only rarely do off brands produce a decent lens but the canon or Nikon equivalent will always be better. 

Your 18-70 is probably sharper than the Tamron and you don't even gain a full stop from 3.5 to 2.8.


----------



## icassell (Nov 22, 2008)

Alleh Lindquist said:


> Only rarely do off brands produce a decent lens .



Huh?  Not sure what you mean by 'off brand'.  I have Canon lenses as well as Sigma EX glass and Tamron .... they're all good glass. I actually did a side-side with a Sigma 10-20 and the Canon 10-22 and liked the Sigma better and bought it.


----------



## anubis404 (Nov 22, 2008)

Alleh Lindquist said:


> The Nikon 80-200 2.8 might be a better pick than the sigma. Personally I would never buy a Tamron lens either. Only rarely do off brands produce a decent lens but the canon or Nikon equivalent will always be better.
> 
> Your 18-70 is probably sharper than the Tamron and you don't even gain a full stop from 3.5 to 2.8.



My kit lens having better IQ than a 400 dollar tamron? Unless someone else tells me otherwise, I doubt it.

And "off brand" lenses are usually just as good as Nikkor or Canon lenses. Sometimes they are slightly lacking compared to the Nikkor/Canons, but the significant price difference can account for that.


----------

