# Tamron 24-70 or Sigma 24-105?



## Connected (Dec 11, 2014)

Tamron 24-70mm F2.8 vs Sigma ART 24-105mm F4.0
Hi Fellas! im between these two lenses as my next investment.
Does anyone have these two lenses? 
which one is sharper?
Which one would you choose for landscapes and portraits and why?
The downside of the sigma is its f4.0 widest aperture. As i like Bokeh very much
its been difficult to decide between these two.
Opinions? Thank you

Btw it is for my 6D.


----------



## Harv (Dec 11, 2014)

You don't have the Canon 24-70 f/4L IS on your list but that's the one I would be taking a hard look at. Very sharp lens and no compatibility issues with present or future Canon bodies.


----------



## drummstikk (Dec 11, 2014)

For me, it's a no-brainer in favor of the 24-105. You don't list any real low light situations (Indoor sports, music performances) among your preferred shooting conditions, so I don't think the F2.8 of the 24-70 gets you much. And with portraits, I personally don't think you get a really good bokeh/shallow depth effect with lenses shorter than 135 mm at apertures smaller than about F2.0 or 2.2. So I don't feel you'd be losing much with the F4 aperture of the 24 to 105.

On the other hand, the additional 35mm of zoom range you get with the 24-105 mm will reap for you huge benefits with its versatility. I've done entire jobs within 24-105 that would have me switching back-and-forth between a 24-70 and a longer telephoto.

I let my 70-200 2.8 zoom go over a year ago in a financial crisis. Then a couple of months back my 24-105 developed problems beyond economical repair after over 7 years of hard daily use. It actually continues to surprise me how much I *DON'T* miss the 70-200, but after a month or two without the 24-105, I'm really feeling it and will probably have to replace it soon.

I can't offer an opinion on Canon versus Sigma on this one. Would definitely take a close look at the Sigma.


----------



## tayassu (Dec 11, 2014)

For landscapes, the Sigma is absolutely stellar because of its FL flexibility.
For portraits, they should be about even... 70mm f/2.8 vs 105mm f/4 isn't that much of a difference.
Sharpness should be about equal.
The Tamron is weathersealed, the Sigma is not.
AF is a lottery with the Tamron... Had to send it in 3 times, now it works pretty well. That should be a lot easier with the Sigma USB dock.
My recommendation for you: the Sigma 24-105.


----------



## Spiros Zaharakis (Dec 11, 2014)

I use to own the Tamron and it was one of the best zoom lenses I ever owned.
It got stolen and now I am using a Canon 24-105 that I bought cheap.
The canon lens is noticeably inferior but it is much more convenient.
The Sigma equivalent is much better than the Canon, on par with the Tamron.
Background blur at 105mm & f4.0 will be about the same as at 70mm & f2.8 but 105 is a much better focal length for portraits.
If low light performance is not a huge concern (the 6D easily offsets that with its very good low light performance) the Sigma lens is the better option.


----------



## Harv (Dec 11, 2014)

You should know that Sigma has apparently stopped production on the 24-105 f/4 lens. This may not bode well for the future availability and service...... http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=23874.0


----------



## bholliman (Dec 11, 2014)

I've avoided Sigma lenses due to on-going auto focus issues, even with the newer Art lenses. From the reports, Tamron has done a much better job of reverse engineering the Canon AF system and the AF with the Tamron 24-70 2.8 is pretty good.

It really comes down to the Tamron's better AF and wider aperture vs. the Sigma's extra 35mm of reach. My choice would be the Tammy as f/2.8 give you much more options for low light and ability to blur backgrounds than a f/4 lens can.


----------



## TeT (Dec 11, 2014)

at 35mm f4

Tamron has less Vignetting

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Vignetting-Test-Results.aspx?Lens=786&Camera=453&FLIComp=2&APIComp=0&LensComp=918&CameraComp=453&FLI=1&API=1

Tamron is sharper (especially mid frame & corners)

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=786&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=1&API=2&LensComp=918&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=0

The 105 v 70 is nice though.

if you go with the 24 105 I would check out the sigma v canon comparisons first.

The sigma is sharper at the wide end only: and has less vignetting. Otherwize the canon is better.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=355&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=918&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Vignetting-Test-Results.aspx?Lens=355&Camera=9&FLIComp=2&APIComp=0&LensComp=918&CameraComp=453&FLI=2&API=0


----------



## Ryan85 (Dec 11, 2014)

Id go with the tamron so you have the faster appetture.


----------



## Hesbehindyou (Dec 11, 2014)

Easy choice: 24-105. Why?

Landscapes don't need f2.8 so you'd only be using it for portraits. With portraits you really want access to longer than 70mm on full frame (to give you that extra compression when shooting people with big noses). It's also useful for cutting distracting backgrounds out of the shot. As another poster pointed out 105 at f4 will look pretty similar to 70 at f2.8 so don't worry about the difference in background blur.


----------



## Ryan85 (Dec 11, 2014)

If you decide to do night photography or star trails along with your landscapes you'll need the faster lens.


----------



## Connected (Dec 12, 2014)

Thanks everyone for all your valuable opinions.
I'm leaning more towards tamron now for a couple reasons vs 1.
Tamron: Sharper from center to corner, a bit more contrasty, less chromatic aberration, and faster.
Sigma: extra 35mm.


----------

