F/2.8 Super zoom battle: Sigma 28-105mm vs Tamron 35-150mm vs Canon 24-105mm

[@christopherfrost]

By popular demand! Hope you all find it helpful. These lenses are way more similar than they are different. I mention the Samyang 35-150 lens at the end of the video, by the way. Check out the video description for all kinds of links.

[@Riskbreaker2009]

Samyang 35-150 F/2-2.8

[@TomCornell1]

Thanks Chris!

[@fellowcitizen]

Great episode🌠

[@red.domino]

You really listen Chris! And you’re fast too! God Bless you for your work on KZbin, you are really a worthy youtuber for your precious content

[@christopherfrost]

I had to work flat-out for this one :-) thanks man, God bless!

[@cedric3379]

@@christopherfrost Just thought it would be great to have a Fuji 40mp sensor comparison between 18-55, the new 16-50 and Sigma 18-50, Fuji standard zoom can be really tricky to choose

[@rafserrano2164]

Amazing video as always, God bless you Chris! Just my personal experience on the Samyang 35-150 after owning it for more than a year and shooting professionally, my few gripes are 1. It tends to lock up the AF on the camera (it ceases to work) from time to time. I had to turn the camera off and back on again 2. The lens extends by itself when facing downwards, I had to put a rubber ring to stiffen the zoom a bit 3. No LR profile (when I owned it until about a month ago) 4. AF is not as fast as the Tamron 35-150 which I now have. For anyone shooting weddings professionally, I would suggest to spend extra on the Tamron.

[@cyrilhamel8289]

Thanks a lot for responding to our requests! 😊 And you did very quick!! Congrats Chris 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻

[@simonmackenzie4227]

Good video, liking the new direction with direct comparison and the fact you don't sit on the fence but say which you'd get. Bravo.

[@PeruLover]

Look sweet, ill definitely buy these in 10 years when i can afford them..........

[@hoatd1993]

At my place, Tamron 35-150mm is about $1200 brand new so it is obviously the best choice if your budget is limited.

[@v3zMedia]

$1799

[@lionheart4424]

To which country does "your place" belong to?

[@zhanxianghua4648]

@@lionheart4424 he means hongkong

[@johansphoto]

And the fastest lens too, f2 at 35 make a big difference

[@hoatd1993]

@@lionheart4424 I'm from Vietnam.

[@erenteker6908]

I watched the tamron's review back when you first reviewed it and I was amazed by the quality of that lens. Fast forward to today and I've just ordered it. Can't wait for it to be delivered. And also can't believe it is on discount

[@jasonzakszewski3718]

Was waiting for this. Thanks!

[@stefansmuts8882]

Amazing Chris! Love your work - you never fail to impress me with the quality of your videos!

[@molybdnum]

So much for the Holy Trinity of 2.8 zooms; these are the Holy Singularity.

[@aldolega]

I would personally be happiest with a Divine Duality of a 20-70mm f2.8 and a 70-200mm f2.8.

[@DayBotKnightBot]

@@aldolegafor me f2.0 at 35 mm would be really handy

[@neutrinostorm]

Once again, absolutely great work! Thank you for this comparison! I bought all my lenses after seeing a review from you!

[@MDMart]

For MFT users, may I suggest the Olympus 12-100 f4. It's amazing and it won me over over many of the other (great) options available. As it's MFT, it has the focal length equivalent to that of a 24-200, and it is nice and sharp all the way through while being fairly compact (considering the zoom range). And the fact that it's a constant f-stop is very nice

[@aliavdic5940]

thank you for this comparation, we needed this much!

[@thatguyoverthere115]

Okay Nikon, your move. 24-120 2.8? Keep the hype going! Even if I can't afford this, it's still cool!

[@RG-rm9jt]

You can get the Tamron for Z-mount :-)

[@warpspeed9877]

4K and 1600 grams. Here you go then!😂

[@alphaandomega2709]

Ni-who? 😂

[@jhoang861]

24-120 mm f4 is already badass. but f2.8? even better! 🤞

[@Wistbacka]

Do you have any idea how big and heavy such a lens would have to be? Probably same size as the Tamro 150-500,and cost like 2-2.5 k👀

[@r.vanbeek]

Bought the Samyang 35-150 for €900 on Amazon, for me that was a no brainer! The versatility is unmatched at the moment.

[@hardywoodaway9912]

hope you have a solid warranty

[@ristea87razvan1]

For Tamron you can change the manual focus ring in an aperture ring just with the push of one of the three buttons....so no issue with that

[@aldrindetablan4358]

Kudos to your effort Chris!

[@JurajPadych]

What a comparison! 💪🏻 well done 🤘🏼

[@wolfgangvogt3482]

The Tamron is simply a dream. I use it together with my Sony 2,8 16-35 for model shoots outdoors on 7rV. All primes for studio.

[@jaapkroonfotografie]

The Tamron 28-200 for travel is the winner and so is my Tamron 35-150 for concert and portrait photography .

[@spencerfr1]

I wish the 28-200 would get an update. I bought it for a trip and returned it when I got back because the files were really not good, sharpness lacking big time :(

[@jaapkroonfotografie]

@@spencerfr1Maybe a bad copy?I used it for my last trip this year to Bolivia and I loved the sharpness. I even made a Zine from that trip.

[@Wistbacka]

​@@spencerfr1Sounds like a bad copy. I used mine at a wedding (as a guest), and the sharpness at 200 mm was surprising AF. Gotta say that it is weakest at 28 mm. But at thatpoint I usually close down the aperture anyways, making the image sharper that way.

[@hardywoodaway9912]

@@spencerfr1used it on a a7riv, sharpness wasn’t an issue for me. maybe you have a bad copy. I would buy an updated one with VC though, but otherwise I have zero complaints

[@daysandwords]

The Samyang can also be had in L mount now. Personally, the weight of the Canon wouldn't put me off using it in a wedding if I thought it was the tool for the job (and if I owned a Canon R-something, it would be). I understand it's heavy but I've always found being a wedding photographer to be a physically demanding job, and it's less annoying to just hold a little extra weight than to be changing lenses a lot. I used a 70-200 f2.8 for a lot of the day, my particular one was 1.3kg... the Canon is only a bit more than that, but it would mean that you could change lenses less. On the other hand, I think the Tamron and Samyang have a slightly more useful "in between range". 35 is wide enough for everything except the ones which require a SUPER wide anyway (e.g. 16-35 or 14-28), and 150 f2.8 is great for a lot of things. In the end, as I've always said, a brand could come out with a razor sharp 20-300 f1.8 that was 1.2kg and 2 grand and people would complain that it was too heavy and too expensive.

[@krzysztofnowacki9674]

I've already picked Samyang 35-150 f/2-2.8 - it's almost the same as its Tamron counterpart but significantly cheaper.

[@danielcacitti7269]

I'm not sure if it's my version but at 150 in portrait the picture was so soft and missing autofocus very often.

[@danielcacitti7269]

Ps: i did update to v2 firmware, didnt help

[@krzysztofnowacki9674]

@@danielcacitti7269 I will do some more testing tomorrow with my copy of the lens but in general autofocus also greatly depends also on the camera body you use as well as some extra filters you might put in front of your lens. Other thing is how much light you have in the scene - the darker, the worse autofocus can be, depending on specific camera and lens combination.

[@hardywoodaway9912]

in my experience with 10 samyang lenses over the years: 1. heavy quality variance with the actual lens you get 2. they are cheap and I wouldn’t keep them outside the warranty 3. AF is less reliable as with a sony or tamron 4. don’t drop them… these lenses are not very solid, they’re made of thin alloy and plastic, they will bend…

[@PhilippeDHooghe]

Way to go, Chris! Wooh, wooh, wooh !!! Well now we know why Canon does not open up RF to competition. In my opinion: it absolutely cannot compete and it is overpriced. I agree with you, Chris, the Tamron wins... though it seems to suffer a bit more of CA... can be fixed... but I only have Canon bodies. I should have listened to the shop keeper :-).

[@llagona]

Did I see a slight lower contrast in the Tamron lens at some situations (corner specially) (4:24) in the sharpness test?

[@lionheart4424]

Looks like it to me as well.

[@benmorr]

I noticed it as well, surprised it wasn't picked up. Doesn't look to be a huge problem, but definitely stood out compared to the Sigma and Canon lenses

[@dangerpig]

Thanks Christopher, I'd love to hear your thoughts about the Sigma 24-70 F2.8 ii versus this Sigma 28-105 F2.8. Not the obvious range differences or the price, but what about the picture quality where the 2 lens overlap? Like from 28-70, which of these 2 lenses actually has better image quality? Now THAT would help me decide which of these two choices I will be buying.

[@S-K42]

Simply the best Gear-Reviewer here on KZbin.

[@scawhitwell]

Although Canon and Nikon Z users can probably only use one of these 3, this is still great information. It tells us two or three things: zoom lens manufacture is now getting really good; Tamron send to be by having a very good run, maybe in part because of their closet work with Nikon: Canon needs to tighten up their game. Ultimately, if you are shooting on Sony, these three lenses will be picked on how much you care about the wide end and the weight. Tamron has, as so often, chosen an unconventional range. I like that. If you had a wide angle zoom or a favourite wide angle prime, this might be a really good range. 35-150 covers all standard photography work through normal and portrait. On the other hand, the Sigma's size and weight should make it very very popular.

[@istvanmester]

Sony A6700 - Tamron 35-150 Vs Sigma new 24-70 Anyone has a suggestion?

[@calkapokole]

I will buy the second version of the Tamron lens when it comes out.

[@kalef1234]

Have the 24-70 f2.8 sigma, 35-150 Tameon will probably be my next lens for my A7 IV

[@Paul_Kretz]

Still waiting for *EF 135mm f/2.8 with soft focus* . It is the cheapest native full frame autofocus portrait lens with a unique (although almost useless) feature and not the worst picture quality. Anyway, it totally deserves a review.

[@Snidel]

could you compare the sigma 28-105mm v the sigma 24-70mm II?

[@ualba99]

Thank you for this video! Was very very helpful🫰🏻

[@PHUKU]

FYI tamron lens is now around £1200 in the UK

[@Xirpzy]

After getting the canon 28-70 f2 I have realized that these types of lenses are just not for me. So big and heavy. Almost feels like walking around with the 100-500mm... Difference is that I want a light and easy to use lens as standard zoom. I do prefer a zoom over prime lenses though but will stick to slower lenses for now.

[@tylerdoestech]

I am honestly quite surprised that Canon's close-focus image quality is so abhorrent on this lens. The 'quartz' text was purple for quite a while suggesting severe chromatic aberration. Also, it should be noted that the aperture ring control only works on the Canon lens while in video mode on a camera, which is an unconscionable miss for such a prominent control feature on a lens. The price is also *insane* with Sigma releasing their 28-105 so shortly afterward for about 1/3 the cost! It is almost as if Canon are asking their users to find another camera system to use if they want to save money on exceptional lenses!

[@hazard3020]

Excellent Reviews. Thank you !

[@tiemji]

Thanks for this wonderful comparison

[@bizpixvegas7651]

I thought Sigma was going to be the king in this comparison. Tamron seems to be the overall winner. I shot with it for a week or so doing landscapes. I thought it was a little heavy but the range is worth it. It is no bigger or heavier than your average 70-200 f2.8 lens. Paired up with a Tamron 17-28 or the Sigma 16-28, it makes a nice two lens combo to cover weddings. I have talked to two Sony wedding shooters who own the Tarmon, They both love it and do most of the images with the 35-150.

[@hellopsp180]

Tamron is my winner. It just has my favourite focal lengths all inside 1 package. Rarely do I look to get wider than 35. When i do i just put on my 20mm 1.8G prime. I rarely find I need 200 mm. It would be nice but not that far away from the 150 mm image.

[@SatanSupimpa]

For what Canon charges for their lenses, I think they should at least be able to cover the sensor they're designed for without relying on camera correction. And most of their zoom lenses aren't doing this on their widest end, from kit lenses to the L line.

[@PetrKlapper]

Canon is the only one making full 24mm to 105 in 2.8 and the lens is already huge. The 24mm distortion and corners are the only reason it's even possible to make it work like that. I don't like Canon anything (ok I'd take 85/1.2 DS :), but I am a fan of correcting distortion non-optically when it allows new helpful designs - it's not DSLR world, you don't even have to see it uncorrected and the image is good enough after correction too.

[@SatanSupimpa]

@@PetrKlapper As I said, the problem isn't limited to this lens.

[@PetrKlapper]

@@SatanSupimpa Applies to other lenses too - it's just a smart modern way to 'spend' the design/weight/size/price budget on other optical properties that you can't correct later (so easily). Insisting on optical distortion correction on lenses, that can deliver without it, is just obsolete. And might not even be strictly sharper in the corner anyway, just making you feel better.

[@poolpool64]

@@PetrKlapper Canon fan boy!😂😂

[@poolpool64]

@@PetrKlapper Canon fan boy!😂😂

[@BillyKumoro-ct7gt]

Guys, can I use Sigma 28-105 DG DN ART to my Canon R6 mark II using adapter ? Because I have Sigma 50 f1.4 DG HSM thats work well with my adapter, but I dont know if DG DN type can work with the adapter ? Thank you !

[@dixinggao7178]

Unfortunately no. Sigma uses the DN designation to denote mirrorless lenses (designed with shorter flange distances, i.e. distance between the mount and the sensor, in mind). Without additional optics, an adapter can only accept lenses designed for FD longer than the FD of the body. The 28-105 is offered under E- and L-mount. E-mount has a flange distance of 18mm, L-mount has 20mm. Canon's mirrorless RF mount has 20mm, so there's no space for an adapter ring. AFAIK the only widely used mirrorless-mirrorless adapter is for E-mount lenses (18mm FD) on Z-mount bodies (16mm FD). (There are L to Z mount adapters as well, but they don't facilitate electronic communications and can only support a very limited amount of lenses) With that said, Canon has been making noises about opening up the RF mount to 3rd party lens makers. Sigma already makes several APS-C lenses for RF. So there's a possibility that they will release the 28-105 on RF at a future point.

[@venniev2302]

thank u for a great review as always ,,,,, but why didnt the popular demand add the nikon 70-200 s 2.8 :(

[@SneakyCaleb]

I seriously wish you had thrown the samyang/rokinon 35-150 in the mix! Also the tamron 28-200 would have been awesome as well. I sold my tamron 35-150 once I saw how sharp my rokinon is. And I saved $700 as the rokinon was only $900!

[@mex5341]

bad decision . Rokinon has tons of flaws

[@toqw2]

Now Sigma 28-105 2.8 vs Samyang 35-130 2-2.8 please 😊

[@urbanie]

why cant sigma and tamron put some kind of IS in these lenses? if 70-200 & 70-180 can have it why cant 28-105 & 35-150?

[@JoaquimGonsalves]

A Sigma Art lens being the lightest. Who would have thought? :P

[@PetrKlapper]

The shortest range with just 2.8, not a surprise ;)

[@breadandcircuses5644]

​@@PetrKlapper Still, the Sigma Art Series is being lauded for a lot of things. Weight and size not being one of them. Another exception to the rule is the Sigma Art 85mm f/1.4. But that's about it.

[@Kkozi]

What about the vignetting of Canon lens at 24 mm? Does the automatic correction crop the image a lot? Is then the benefit of 24 mm real or it's similar to 28 mm in real? Thank you

[@omersangabriel1079]

I was waiting for this! Is there by any chance you could include the Samyang 35-150mm F2.8?

[@paigeofstylez]

Ok. How about a video comparing every 70-200 2.8 lens that can be used on Canon R cameras 🤔

[@jimdshea]

I want that Tamron on RF! Or even EF 😢

[@josecavazos1194]

Chris, excellent video. Could you do a Canon RF comparison of 24-105 lenses (include 24-70s)? including cost benefit. Thanks

[@lionheart4424]

I really wish the Sigma had better contrast at the telephoto lens. For $1500 USD is quite a great deal.

[@bioliv1]

Me too 😕

[@vidthreenorth4007]

The Tamron lens looks thicker than the others. What are the filter sizes?

[@hillsnapper4079]

Another cracking video, thank you! Can I give a mention to the Pentax-D FA 28-105mm f/3.5-5.6 - different still available

[@kyrioc]

i hope sigma will give us a Z mount version

[@hunglemed]

Check colors at 5:48 you will see why Canon is on top, tamron has too much purple fringing

[@MT2354j]

Is that due to the different cameras, settings, and processing or are these being used on the exact same camera with adapters?

[@MrElectrocut]

I started with the Samyang but my copy was so bad... I went to Tamron and I could not be happier.

[@VGScreens]

Excellent comparison. Sigma gets my vote: wider, lighter, better flare control, closer min focus.

[@Stop-All-War]

Internal zoom is great, once lenses zoom out physically, dust / dirt enters on barrel..big disadvantage. Primes are best otherwise.

[@kert1842]

Hi Chris! Been following you for a while. What lens can you recommend for 4-500$ usd, APSC EF-S? Preferably 30 to 35mm length THank you so much

[@geopapa80]

Canon RF FF users are right to be mad at Canon for not opening the mount to 3rd party

[@bsfollowstudio6774]

❤ thanks you for your time and effort

[@pmc7105]

Maybe it's the youtube compression, but the corners looked much better at the widest angle.

[@SMGJohn]

No wonder Canon is keeping RF closed, with performance like that being completely beaten by the Sigma 28-105mm F2.8, they certainly would not want that to enter RF mount.

[@buning_sensations5437]

Just wondering what the estimated delivery time (ETA) of Sigma?

[@MichaelFleming06]

When do you think the RF 35mm 1.4 will be available to you, @Christopherfrost ?

[@BarneyKB]

Love my tamron - prices for these lenses are very different in Australia. I paid $2043 AUD for mine, which is about 1037 GBP. And the sigma is currently $3200 AUD (about 1630 GBP) and the canon is a whopping $4500 AUD (2285 GBP).

[@AlexK-ei7yh]

Tamron 28-200mm f2.8-f5.6 beats them all as a sharp travel lens at fraction of the cost. And for event photography instead of the heavy and expensive Canon 24-105mm f2.8 One could buy and carry Tamron 35-150 and a second camera with 17-28mm lens

[@AnthonyDunstan]

fantastic thank you

[@rainyambience923]

the tamron is quite clearly the superior lens, also the 150mm compared to 105 is massive, especially for wedding/portraits, where you will get much more reach, and MUCH more background blur.

[@lukasf5256]

Love this video! If only Canon yould open the R mount ... I would not have to switch to Sony 😂

[@kuroexmachina]

why is samyang's version a knockoff?

[@FelipeCristancho]

One Video to rule them all! 😎

[@JamalPhoenix]

Contrast and colors on the Canon looks fantastic.

[@mbismbismb]

Yeah it looks the most pleasing to my eyes... u just cant beat the canon science

[@bergerniklas6647]

yeah, don't know why this was not manged in the comparison? The Sigma seriously lacks contrast in the corner when you look at 4:09 for example, even compared to the tamron, which is on the same camera...

[@mrc4nl]

but its also the one with the most chromatic aberration. (at close focus) i could forgive some lack of sharpness. but 3000$ i expect a lens that can do better that that.

[@Bobdrumbro]

would be useful if you could list the prices in euros to

[@y_taiwan]

Nikon Z 24-120 : ?

[@DayBotKnightBot]

Buy Tamron 35-150 and Viltrox 20 mm f2.8

[@PaulSafford]

Great comparison and the same conclusion I came to except I'd take the Samyang version of the 35-150. That Canon is pretty sad at 24, seems like they used software to legally say it's 24mm yet it doesn't really cover full frame.

[@Thomasmcse]

Thank you!

[@deltaboy2011]

Need 24-180, F2-2.8.

[@thilinaalagiyawanna3680]

Thank you

[@MrAlElmes]

Great video

[@VQUV]

my goat!!!!

[@AWAShowme]

Thank you.

[@radovanrosic3653]

Great work,thank you! Sigma!

[@thephotoyak]

Chris one more noteworthy handling difference: internal vs external zoom.

[@oliversteiner0815]

Honestly, it's a mystery to me what the Canon lens is doing here.

[@bikash3003]

What❤❤❤ excellent topic

[@globalfunseeker6733]

If you shoot in Raw and don't use conversion software that can import the camera corrections, it's far too much work. I can't imagine having to correct for all that distortion and vignetting on every image captured.

[@PetrKlapper]

Applies to almost any modern zoom lens.

[@globalfunseeker6733]

@@PetrKlapper Yeah. I guess lens manufacturers find it easier/more economical to fix lens corrections using software than eliminate them with better design.

[@PetrKlapper]

@@globalfunseeker6733 Of course they do when almost all customers want smaller lighter and more economical lens too. And at least 90% of them don't care about how much of a correction profile is needed with what lens when almost all use them anyway. If the result is good then it's the best for most. Not to mention that not dealing with easy to fix distortion does allow to deal with other worse properties like LoCA, focus breathing, flares etc. And it also makes some lenses viable to exist at all, like that Canon here.

[@poolpool64]

@@PetrKlapper Canon fan boy!😂😂

[@poolpool64]

@@PetrKlapper Canon fan boy!😂😂

[@marknathan7744]

Tamron got this one i think if i wanted something from 24-105 i would just buy the excellent Sony f4 which also kicks Canon butt.

[@ferdinandbardamu3945]

Manufacturers need to make shorter zoom range fast zooms, something like a 20-40mm F2 that gets sharp at F2.8.

[@PetrKlapper]

That will not happen anymore, the long gone part about acceptable but not razor sharp wide open, needing to stop down a bit to get there. If you make lens like that nowadays, reviews and people will just shatter it's reputation, because there's no common sense anymore. People will pixelpeep everything regardless if the corner is where bokeh lives 98% of time.

[@DesoloZantas]

'What if' Tamron made a 28-150mm f/2.8 lens? 👀 Now that would be the ultimate 'one lens to rule them all.'

[@Wistbacka]

It would look like a 150-600

[@PetrKlapper]

There is a rumor about Tamron 28-180/2.8, but not yet repeated with more info on SAR. Still not better than 35-150 for me, but would be for a lot of people if true.

[@Wistbacka]

@@PetrKlapper That would be insanely humongous 😱

[@PetrKlapper]

@@Wistbacka Not necessarily - the f/2 on the wide end of 35-150 gives you a large headroom to make it just 25% wider and pre-stop down a bit to 2.8 for quality. As for the long end it's also 'just' 20% more in a 'linear way', if anyone can pull it off it's Tamron. But I wouldn't mind if the lens turned out to be 2.8-4, something Tamron also did before.

[@Wistbacka]

@@PetrKlapper 2.8 throughout is impossible (within reason) for 28-150. But yes, a 2.8-4 could perhaps be plausible even around a 1200 g mark.. but most likely it would be 2.8 to like 35 mm, then be a f4 for the rest. Not that that is bad either.

[@Garbid]

Tamron or samyang + 12-24 or 16-35 covers all. It's no brainer.

[@codythep]

Idk man the 24 and stabilized is worth it for me

[@UXXV]

The Tamron has VC (vibration compensation) ?!

[@ritrattoaziendale]

No

[@admdanxsh1671]

komperasi yang sangat bagus dan video yang menarik

[@rommynine]

My vote for Sigma. Dollar to Quality best ratio

[@ice32112548134846]

great!!!!