Τhanks for the detailed presentation. Definitely a next buy! I was always looking for a standard zoom that is BALANCED between wide and tele. Will fit in nicely between the art 14-24/2.8 and the next DG DN 120-300/2.8 for a three lens all inclusive lens combo. Sigma ROCKS!
Thank you for making this excellent review and comparisons with the Tamron 35-150mm f/2.0-f/2.8 that I purchased 3 years ago thanks for your depth reviews on the lens. I also purchased the Sigma 16-28mm f/2.8 lens based on your review to get a bit wider and closer than the Tamron 17-28mm f/2.8; however, foolish of my own decision thinking the opposite zoom ring direction will not be an issue I was sadly mistaken about how confusing when using it together with Sony & Tamron lenses during the shoots. Looks like an interesting lens for people who needs a wider angle f/2.8 All-In-One zoom lens. I will stay with the Tamron 35-150mm f/2.0-f/2.8 for now until the v.2 or something similar comes along in Tamron's line as I just can't get use to the opposite zoom ring direction. For the smoothness of AF transition, I think Tamron has the upper hand especially when Sony has ~15% share in this company and uses the AF system on some of their GM lenses.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Always check with you and Christopher Frost before I get down to business. Got my preorder in just before the weekend blackout on B&H.
The Tamron is still the better pick for what you actually use lenses like this for which is mainly event because of the one stop faster aperture fully and about 3/4 stop at 50ish plus the 45mm longer reach which is incredible useful for the application and even for portrait shoots because you got the 135mm coverage. It look optical to be an excellent lens, it’s a bit clinical but that was kinda expected. Personally I would have preferred it to go the 135mm and I would gladly see the 28mm sacrificing for it. Because there so many lenses ending at 35mm so in a two camera lineup it would not really be an issue, this does not really remove the need for owning a longer reach lens, as 105mm is still on the short end, it’s fundamentally 70mm cropped in to APS-C
Flare resistance and sun star, 12 blades; that is great to see in a zoom (and not common). The pretty good repro ratio is very nice too. I could potentially be interested in it at some unspecified future date.
you can erase the marking 35 make it 28 and 150mm make it 180mm. I have never seen someone checking that what we are getting is really the focal lens advertised. it's a bit like "it goes to 11 !"
Would you replace a 24-70 F2.8 with the Sigma and/or the 70-180 with the Tamron? With all the possibilities it is nowerdays difficult to decide with which combination to cover the range 20mm-200mm.
I do think the tamron lens is more versatile as it combines its other two 2.8 lenses by slight reducing the range yet giving a faster aperture at the wider range. The sigma increase is 35mm from its 28-70 (albeit not the same build quality) but vis a vis its 24-70 reduces the wider range. The tamron is a 28-75 so the increase is 30mm. Whether the extra is worth it in terms of weight-optics-price depends on the intended use. It would be interesting to have both a comparison video of the tamron-sigma but also one that compares the 28-70/75 range or the 24-70
I was just talking about this with another poster. It's actually strange how few autofocusing macro lenses have been released on Sony when you consider the shear number of other lenses.
Thanks for the review, but I will stick with my Sony 24-105 f4. For me the 28mm is not wide enough. I have the Tamron 28-75 2.8 and the extra 4mm at the wide end of the Sony makes a big difference. The Sony also has image stabilisation and is about 2/3rd of the size (665 grams compared to 950g). Yes, it's not 2.8 but I haven't missed and I have a 50mm 1.8 if I need it.
The sunstars can look amazing with this lens. Overall, I still think the Tamron 35-150 is a better lens because it goes to f2 and slowly goes to f2.8, for ex 55mm is still f2.2! It depends if you're using a 2 camera setup or not and with which lenses.
Thanks for the review Dustin. I am going through your website review and you have an image taken of you (#52 in the filename) which you refer to as a casual portrait and the bokeh is quite busy. I checked the EXIF and the shutter was 1/5000 on an A7RV. you happen to recall if you shot this in EFCS or mechanical shutter? With EFCS shutter speeds over 1/1000 start to show busy bokeh which is solved by switching to the mechanical shutter. Not sure how representative that example is but it would dissuade me from buying this one.
I've got an upcoming comparison video head to head with the Tamron 35-150mm, and my takeaway is that the bokeh is busier than the Tamron...though a bit less so when you get all the way to 105mm.
I would love to see a comparison with the Sony 24-105 G lens. My question is whether the difference in IQ is worth carrying the additional weight and size if I don’t need f/2.8.
The problem is most reviewers will probably compare the image quality at 2.8 versus at F4 rather than their lowest shared aperture. Because I guarantee you the F 2.8 stopped down to F4 will be sharper. (Lenses are typically sharper stepped down)
@@DavidVRU-vid Agreed, but I want to know how much better to know whether it’s worth the extra weight. I don’t really care about the f/2.8, but I’m currently using a 20-70 G (and 70-200 Macro G II) because the image quality is so much better than the 24-105 G. In doing so I miss the 105 long end and always struggle whether to carry the 70-200 for no gaps, or the 100-400 with gaps and longer reach. Having so many lens options for the sony system is a GAS nightmare ;)
The 24-105 G would now be considered a moderately older lens, so it probably wouldn't keep up in some metrics. But that doesn't change the fact that many could still get away with a smaller, lighter lens if they didn't need the faster aperture.
Obviously a personal use based comment, however with these types of zooms, a 24mm wide angle is an absolute must for me, longer focal length way less important.
So it's not for you and that's fine. 28mm+ is the main reason this lens exists, no way around it unless making it 33% heavier and much more expensive - and much less people buying it even when they claim they want 24mm. With so many light/er options for Sony mount, we got quite 'lazy/less weight tolerant', the whining about 1kg+ lenses gets louder and louder, regardless of utility :)
Where is the f2.8 advantage if you need to step this lens down at least one stop? Wouldn't the Canon RF 24-105 f4L lens be the better choice? (Letting aside the fact that this Sigma 28-105mm f2.8 DN ART lens won't be available for the Canon RF-mount soon!) The Canon f4L lens is even cheaper - probably the cheapest L-lens for the RF-mount Canon offers!
It’s an awkward range. For those who have a 16-35, the wide end overlaps. For those who have a 16-28 or 14-24, carrying such a bulky lens to get 35mm isn’t a great solution. Seems a 24-105 range is more practical.
@@DustinAbbottTWI you’re absolutely correct. Made a compromise on the aperture and using the Panasonic 24-105, albeit f4, at 680g and get the wider coverage. Would consider the Sigma here, and give up the 4mm, but your thorough detail testing doesn’t seem to indicate the Sigma is definitely better than the Panasonic.
Looks like an excellent video lens, but it has one fatal flaw…Canon’s 24-105 2.8 has the ability to accept a “power-zoom” attachment for silky smooth zooming ability, along with full AF-C protocol access. In addition, the lack of full AF-C protocol access for Sony or Nikon is another artificial barrier of entry for this excellent glass. If Sigma had a power-zoom attachment for this lens, then it would neutralize the Tamron 35-150. Another great presentation, Dustin. Are you filming your review videos in 8K on the α1? It looks identical to the footage I get on my α1 that I film in 8K and then upload to RU-vid in the highest fidelity. Really sets your reviews apart from others who shoot 4K.
@@PetrKlapper it’s something that is important to a Videographer. With Canon you have the option to attach the powerzoom, or remove it for portability. There is a reason why Sony makes a 16-35 2.8 with a powerzoom that costs $6,000. Videographers are willing to pay for it to set their work apart from others.
@@hikertrashfilms We're talking simple goods sale here, but sure, educate me about archaic and the most antidemocratic oddity since when your profile pic was 'relevant' the last time ;)
