Tamron 28-75/Sigma 24-70

[KiD.DeeN]

I'm looking at one of these two lenses for mainly high-school basketball.
I know the nikon 24-70 is a marvel, but as a high-school student, I just can't pay that much. So, I've found these two lenses, both of which will autofocus on my D40.

Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di LD $399
or
Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 IF EX DG HSM $899

For those who have tried both, is the sigma that much better than the tamron?

 

[GoCubsGo]

KiD.DeeN actually do you know how to read an MTF chart? If not that is ok because I'm going to tell you some things I know about the Sigma 24-70 versus the Nikon 24-70.

MTF chart wise there is not a $1000 difference between the two. There has to be some fairly signifcant diferences between two lenses in my book to justify a $1000 increase. To the extent I am a pro doing this day in and day out I can justify spending $1000 more on a lens. However, the Sigma has been seen to perform nearly as well as the Nikon and better in some cases. In some cases the Sigma (must be the HSM version) has more sharpness at it's widest end. I would say you detect faint (and I mean faint) evidence of light falloff on the Sigma but overall not enough to matter to me and probably not enough to matter to you.

I would choose the Sigma 24-70 HSM over the Nikon 24-70 any day of the week up until it was no longer a matter of money. If I were shooting enough and could recover the cost of the Nikon in just a couple of weeks I would certainly go for the Nikon as the build quality may be slightly better, but only slightly. Another issue I take up where there is not $1000 difference in the Nikon's favor.

Now as far as the Tamron goes, I am totally unsure. I believe you're looking at a piece of sh*t glass. I feel as though you may very well be comparing apples to oranges with the Tamron versus the Nikon & Sigma.

My vote goes to Sigma in this case.

 

[Abstract]

That Tamron is famous for being sharp. Having said that, it starts at 28 mm, and I'd rather be able to shoot wider at 24 mm.

I own the non-HSM version of the Sigma 24-70 mm f2.8, and have been generally happy with mine. The Tamron was sharper, but I chose the Sigma because the difference between 24 and 28 mm is huge. In fact, if the Sigma 18-50 mm f/2.8 (or the equivalent from Tamron or Tokina) was available at the time, I may have chosen it instead.

Someone at the Henry's near my house, which is a large, reputable camera shop in Canada (although a bit expensive at times), said that the new Sigma 24-70 mm HSM is just fantastic in every way, and that he'd choose it over the Nikon even if it weren't for the price difference. He said he has tested and compared every cool new lens that comes in, and said that was what he saw.

 

[djbahdow01]

Well there is another option, the Nikon 28-70 AF-S. You can find it used for around $1000, it is well worth it in the end. Not much more than the Sigma you are looking at.

I have it and am amazed by it, I shoot a lot of sports and rarely feel the need for anything shorter than 28 at the moment. The 24-70 is very nice as well but as stated it is out of your budget.

I also own an older Tamron 28-75, without the Built in Motor (BIM). Had this first but upgraded when I couldn't focus fast enough indoors (especially bball). Unsure if the BIM is the same as the Nikon-AFS, but there is a reason this lens is highly recommended by some serious commercial photographers, (check out shootsmarter.com). I took a class and the primary lens was the Tamron 28-75. I highly recommend it. Although if you are used to the AF-S focusing (I have a 70-200 and 300 2.8) the Tamron really lacks (non-BIM). Although that might not be true now.

Best bet is to go to a camera store and test the lenses out in low light situations. If you feel the focusing is quick enough with the Tamron go with it you won't be disappointed with the quality.

 

[KiD.DeeN]

thanks for all the opinions

If you feel the focusing is quick enough with the Tamron go with it you won't be disappointed with the quality.

I'm gonna go ahead and try to rent the tamron and test it out while I'm on vacation next week. Then maybe try out the sigma.
When I was shooting some baseball games this past year, the actual photographer mentioned the tamron for basketball.

 

[wheelhot]

Definitely the Tamron 28-75, I was researching at the general zoom range recently for Full Frame DSLR cause I was planning to change to Nikon and Nikon FX f/2.8 glasses is just too expensive for me to own when I'm switching (Nikon you need to make FX f/4 glasses!), and I am planning to own a D300 as my first Nikon body and don't want to invest on DX glasses, hence the 3rd party FF glasses.

I will eventually get Nikon FX glasses, once I got some Nikon equipment

I don't know why, but I got issues with Canon main wheel dial.

Anyway, post up some pics after you taken with that lens

Oh yeah, the difference between both is, optically both are excellent, price-wise well you know the difference , build quality : well of course the more expensive one is going to be better, now the special thing about the Nikon one is that there is the ability to manual focus all the time whereas you can't on the Tamron but I don't care this time cause you are paying SOO much cheaper

 

[luminosity]

Definitely the Sigma 24-70mm HSM (with the HSM being key). The new lens from Sigma has shown itself to be outstanding, assuming you get a good copy. I've read an increasing number of top-notch reviews, and it seems to be plenty good enough for anyone's main lens, save perhaps the absolute most demanding pros (and there's sample variation for every lens, no matter the cost).

Sigma went all out with this one, and I might get it if I had a D700.

 

[GoCubsGo]

Take note that the Sigma non hsm may out perform that $300 tamron but there is no way the Tamron out performs the HSM version of the Sigma.

 

[toxic]

i don't know how it is for Nikon, but the Tamron isn't known for AF speed on Canon bodies.

 

[GoCubsGo]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 3_0 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/528.18 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile/7A341 Safari/528.16)

i don't know how it is for Nikon, but the Tamron isn't known for AF speed on Canon bodies.

I believe the tamron noted in this thread is not favored for it's AF speed.

 

[SLC Flyfishing]

I don't mean to hijack this thread but I'm in a similar situation.

I'll be buying a Nikon D700 and some pro glass next month, I'm switching (or more accurately "diversifying") from Pentax. I'll be keeping the Pentax equipment and getting the Nikon for it's higher dynamic range and ISO capabilities.

Anyway, my lens plan so far calls for the Nikon 24-70 f/2.8 AF-S lens that I've heard so many people raving about, then comes this thread and you folk are claiming the Sigma that's about $700 less to be just as good?

Do you have any links to some reviews that make (and justify) this claim? I'm all about saving money when it makes sense. But my wife and I are fairly exacting in our expectations and we've gone out and tested the Nikon version of the lens and found it to be very much to our liking. Sigmas are hard to get our hands on for testing round here since hardly anyone keeps them in stock. I'm open to the idea but only if the lens is without a doubt as nice as the Nikon version (which I can only describe as perfection).

The 24-70 will be combined with an 85 f/1.8 and a 70-200 f/2.8 AF-S VR or an 80-200 f/2.8 AF-D.

Thanks for your help!

SLC