Sigma 28-105mm f/2.8 | The Best Zoom Lens Ever?

[@loganwebb5449]

Sigma is on a generational run right now.

[@Texasphotoguy]

Love this lens. Partnered with the 150-600 makes it a great 2 kit combo.

[@klaymoon1]

Great review! Sigma 28-105mm f/2.8 is a light lens for Sigma standard.

[@dangerpig]

Thanks Ben, 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.

[@MarkBennettCameraCrisis]

The big question is how many criminals did you thwart while testing this lens??

[@benjhaisch]

All the ones at Kando ;)

[@g_lantos]

@@benjhaisch Mark just exposed himself as Kando's Most Wanted :D :D

[@g_lantos]

I don't think so it beats my the Tamron 35-150 f2.8 in usability. Yes its 990g compare to 1150g which is lighter, but with this Sigma 28-105 you still need a 16-35 or 14-24 lens for wide shots and also a 70-200 if you wanna have a good range. On the other hand with the Tamron 35-150 you only need a 16-35 and let's not forget with that lens you also get a 35 f2 prime for video work or some environmental portraits. But hey let's wait for that Tamron 28-180 f2.8 that might come out as well.

[@benjhaisch]

I still think a big 24-70/2.0 would be the winner. That or a 20-70/2.8 for video would also crush. I love the 28-45/1.8 as well, but still wish it was a 24-50/1.8. So much is *almost* what I’m wanting for both photo and video work together.

[@marcp.1752]

@@benjhaisch I'd prefer a 20-70/F2. Not bigger, than this new Sigma 28-105/2.8...but noone, nobody made it yet. 🙂

[@warpspeed9877]

As standard zooms go (meaning covering equally wide and tele applications around the 50mm mark) the Tamron is nowhere near. This Sigma lens is a godsend!

[@benjhaisch]

@@marcp.1752 hahahaha I mean, same.

[@NateReimers]

@@benjhaisch A stabilized 24-105 f2.8 is a dream right now. I'm in the same boat, have to pack a 24-105 for video and a 35-150 for photo. a 20-105 would be insane.

[@firehorseweddingphotograph3995]

The combo of 28-45mm f1.8 for indoor and low light work plus 28-105mm f2.8 for everything else, on the A7RV, is a bit of a dream set up for wedding/event stills because with crop mode set on a custom button, 26mp 42-157mm becomes available. I just wish the 28-105 was internal zooming however. I just hope Sigma bring out a longer focal length sibling to the 28-45 f1.8 such as a 45-90, also f1.8 and internal zoom. Then we’re done!

[@LuisFelipeBustilloVelasquez]

Tamron still wins for versatility with the 35-150mm. But what a great lense is this sigma for l mount 🎉.

[@warpspeed9877]

As in wide angle versatility?

[@frankfeng2701]

When it comes to zooms, Tamron is ahead of Sigma.

[@alansarpy]

I feel like the extra millimeters on the wide end are more beneficial then on the long end

[@kimw994]

thank you: great information and review! I was always wondering: the startup-time with non Sony-lenses were bad in the past: the same with this new lens- and the A9III ? Best, Kim

[@HappeningPhotos]

Um, Canon shooters may not know this, but both Tamron and Samyang make 35-150/2.0-2.8 zooms (Tamron for Nikon and Sony, Samyang for Sony) that can be paired with one UWA zoom for a two-lens do-it-all event kit. The 28-105/2.8 would require both an UWA zoom AND a longer zoom to cover the range typically needed for event work. Which makes this basically a very large and heavy one-lens walkabout solution. Most folks will choose Tamron's 28-200 for this.

[@benjhaisch]

Depends on the event, weddings very very very rarely need more than 105mm

[@HappeningPhotos]

@@benjhaisch Maybe that's how you shoot. As a second shooter, I've been tasked with getting another "first look" angle across a pond @ 300mm. And, for corporate events, 105mm doesn't get me waist-up shots of a presenter at a lectern from the corner of the stage.

[@benjhaisch]

@HappeningPhotos sure, for a second shooter a 70-200 is a great lens. I’d never expect someone to have a 300mm though and I don’t think I’ve ever even seen someone bring one to a wedding before (other than a cheap 70-300 kit lens style as a a worst case scenario backup)

[@HappeningPhotos]

@@benjhaisch 35-150 largely obviates my need for a 70-200. 105 is still too short for my work, so a 28-105/2.8 holds no appeal. And, event work is more than just weddings. Finally, it sounds like you disapprove of my Tamron 70-300, though I can't imagine why. Well, I had advance notice, I had the lens, and it got the job done....more than once.

[@pureheartvisuals]

If Sigma can made an L-Mount 70-180 f/2.8 is the form factor of the 28-70 for us travelers that would be an Industry worth while product.

[@benjhaisch]

Maybe a 90-150/2.8 or something?

[@aboynamedjamil]

Good video Benj. You've been killing it with the gear reviews lately!

[@benjhaisch]

Appreciate it, man!

[@santcain]

Nice review. You have in the past been one of the few KZbinrs reviewing the L-mount version of the Sigma lenses. Will you be doing that again with this lens? Would the performance be more or less the same? Thank you.

[@benjhaisch]

@santcain for sure, it seems like the Sigma lenses are optimized really well for L-mount. I usually request an L-mount but wanted to check it out for E-mount this time just to see if the audience fluctuates about or not.

[@HDBnB1]

How much is the weight difference between this and the Samyang 35-150? I love that lens but the extra weight can be annoying. Debating on getting this but also between this and the new 70-200 macro

[@benjhaisch]

Samyang 1.32kg Sigma 990g

[@stkuj]

Have you tried the Flexible ISO mode with variable aperture on Sony? Wonder if this would be similar to the Leica "Variable ISO" setting. For what you're saying, I think this might work.

[@benjhaisch]

Flexible iso in video on Sony just allows you to actually change your iso beyond the “base” of something like 800/12800 on the FX3

[@thefridaynightboi]

is there point to get the sigma 2.8 24-70 mk 2 over this? what are your thoughts?

[@benjhaisch]

Probably just size/weight/cost if that’s a factor for you.

[@BrandonColePhotography]

I still cant pick this over the tamron 35-150 . you just get much more. As a pro photographer, we would still go with the tamron.

[@victourmotovlog104]

@3:42 Just use AUTO ISO it's the same thing.

[@benjhaisch]

It’s not though, auto iso adapts to the surrounding lighting conditions. Floating iso still works in manual exposure.

[@MayeloSand]

Hmmm this or the 28-45 1.8 art lens

[@zidh_n3259]

I'm with Tamron 35-150 f2-2.8 all the way

[@rontopp]

I agree. 35 /150 all day, every day.

[@rickbiessman6084]

Dude, since when do you shoot your videos on anamorphic? :O

[@benjhaisch]

My ADHD brain is always messing around with new twists haha

[@rickbiessman6084]

@@benjhaisch Haha, nice. Cheers from a fellow ADHD wedding photographer, electric guitar player and Christian and former youth pastor candidate. :D

[@TylerMcCool]

This kind of lens is stretching what is able to be done at a high quality throughout, usably broad zoom range, and reasonable weight.. anything beyond this and compromises are being made. Or you need a prime anyways for the light you have.. There's a reason the F2 RF is 24-70, and the Tamron is only 35 on the wide end (35-150).. I have been a 24-105 F/4 user for many years with Canon and Sony as it covers just about every normal situation, and with stabilization. It does 80% of what you need, and what it doesn't, you probably need a prime or a very large lens. There are no better Docu (Film/Video) lenses right now than the 24-105s or the 35-150 in my opinion..

[@benjhaisch]

The RF is also a 28mm as well, yeah?

[@TylerMcCool]

@@benjhaisch yea the 28-70 is f2 with 24-70 2.8 - I’d gladly take the 28.. I never like shooting at 24 personally.. if I want wider than 28 it isn’t 24.. to each their own tho.

[@veritas932]

how can a lens weighing close to 1kg be the perfect zoom lens?

[@benjhaisch]

Some things just can’t beat physics

[@pc1234asdf]

I would rather have sigma make a 24-120 f4. The z 24-120 is the best of that range ever and I got addicted to it.

[@mostfrequencies4981]

Its a long lens for the focal lengths, my Canon 70-200mm L 2.8 has a shorter profile. I guess you get what you pay for. (not that this is a cheap lens)

[@benjhaisch]

The Canon 70-200/2.8 RF is still an anomaly in lens design for sure.

[@warpspeed9877]

24-70/2.8 is not "popular for a reason". It is popular because for decades, it was the only /2.8 "standard" zoom produced. And it was horribly lacking at the tele end for an "all in one" solution. Thank God Sigma fixed this and now we have a standard f/2.8 zoom that is equally wide and tell. Good times!

[@benjhaisch]

I mean, it’s popular based on both availability and demand. If there wasn’t demand for that range they wouldn’t make it.

[@moneeb343]

The lacking of stabilization at a focal of 105 is insane.

[@benjhaisch]

I think the assumption is that most cameras that this will be used on will have IBIS. I never had issues even handheld

[@A1000Truths]

24-70F2. You’ve been testing the new Sony zoom lens. 🤣😂

[@benjhaisch]

I suggested it in a feedback thing with some engineers but definitely wouldn’t be dropping any NDA breaking info if I actually had any knowledge of such a thing.

[@A1000Truths]

@@benjhaisch an unrelated question but still camera centric. What’s your thought on the Sigma 50mm F1.2 lens. Debating between that and their F1.4 lens just not sure which way to go.

[@MarcS4R]

@@A1000TruthsI opted for the 1.4 it is lighter and half the price , it renders amazing

[@A1000Truths]

@@MarcS4R thanks man ! Just ordered it. I rented the F1.2 lens and didn’t absolutely love it at F1.2. I personally don’t need that shallow depth of field.

[@jbfilms4642]

no the tamron and Samyang 35-150 2-2.8 is the best zoom lens