I did feel that the Sigma delivered slightly better contrast results at the wide end of the focal range, but, as you can see from this crop from my test chart, there was little distinction to be made: I did these formal tests on a 42Mpx Sony a7RIII. Both lenses showed good evidence of centering, with all four corners delivering roughly equal results. I saw little to distinguish the two, with some give and take depending on where I looked in the frame. Logic would dictate that the much larger front element of the Sigma would give it an advantage over the smaller Tamron in terms of vignette, but that wasn’t actually the case in my comparisons.īoth lenses are very sharp at 24/28mm and F2.8. The vignette improves as the lens is stopped down, though some remains even at smaller apertures. The distortion turns to mild pincushion distortion of varying degrees over the rest of the zoom range. The good news for us all is that we get to choose which approach better suits our needs. I understand why Tamron did what they did (it’s the reason why we got a smaller and lighter lens while retaining strong optical performance), but Sigma has addressed the challenges of the focal range more directly even though that required them to build a larger and heavier lens. I said it in my review of the Tamron, and I’ll say it here: I would definitely take the extra 4mm on the wide end over the extra 5mm on the telephoto end when comparing these two zoom ranges. This profile does a fairly good job of correcting for distortion and vignette, though I don’t think this lens would be a great pick for architecture or interiors because there is too much correction needed.
#Wedding sigma 24 70 2.8 art sample photos series#
While at the time of my review period there wasn’t yet a standard correction profile in Lightroom, both JPEG and video receive in camera corrections (as you can see from the third image in the series above). Video focus was also very stable when I used the 24-70DN to record several of my video episodes, without any unnecessary pulsing or jitters. Focus pulls were smooth, with little visible stepping, and there was little to no settling or pulsing. When I did my focus pull test and tried to pick up sound with the on-board microphone, there was just nothing to hear. The lens simply gets to where it needs to go silently and without fuss. That remains the case here, and, like the build, I have much more good than bad to mention.įirst of all, autofocus was fast in all tested situations. The focus motors are quick, quiet, and smooth. Sigma’s “made-for-mirrorless” lenses have all shown very positive autofocus performance. There is very little “extra” about the GM lens compared to the 24-70DN. It is a beautifully made, pro-grade lens that feels very quality in the hands. Minor complaints aside, however, the lens handles really well.
What’s odd is that they turn in opposite directions, too, with the Tamron turning the same direction as the Sony zooms I’ve tested and the Sigma turning in the opposite direction. It is closest to the front of the lens while the zoom ring is closest to the lens mount. It is worth noting that the focus ring is in the opposite position from the Tamron. When input is detected the active focus area will automatically magnify in the viewfinder or LCD screen and an on-screen distance scale will appear.
This method has a little less tactile response but Sigma has done a pretty fair job of giving a smooth, evenly damped focus experience. The focus ring has thick ribs in a rubberized finish, and is (like all lenses actually designed for mirrorless) a “focus-by-wire” focus ring where input on the focus ring is routed through the focus motor. There is no tendency towards zoom creep, but the lock does help when hiking with the lens to prevent rubbing on the focus ring while moving which might cause it to zoom out.
0 kommentar(er)
