01-04-2015, 07:16 AM
Hello and welcome Apedra,
at first I'd like to update your knowledge about field of view. I think, that's necessary since no one of these lenses has a bigger field of view (all start with 24 mm
) but one has a larger range of focal length. I was curious how big the weight difference is:
See the "specs" on DxOMark (camera type I've set to D610 since that uses the same MP count as yours and the lenses only become slightly better on the standard D800)
825 - 900 - 885 grams (Tamron - Nikon - Sigma). I think 60...75 grams are no huge difference. Of those lenses, I own the Sigma and came from a different direction: I wanted a better one than the Nikon 24-85 which shows massive distortion. I didn't want the "best" zoom in that range, I already have 5 primes covering it but sometimes I want to have only one lens with me. For that purpose, the Sigma is great and the OS (= VC) is simply the best I've tried so far (better than Nikkor 70-200/4 at 105mm).
Downsides of the Sigma are (in my eyes)
0.38 - 0.38* - 0.45 grams (Tamron - Nikon - Sigma).
*Nikon says "at focal length 35 … 50 mm", which makes me a little bit suspicious. Anyway, with the Sigma I get a slightly bigger scale at close-ups.
In general, I can't see a heavy weight advantage of Sigma over Tamron. In particular, however, I do see an advantage: Using the Sigma USB-dock and investing some hours of testing, I can focus adjust the Sigma at 4 different focal lengths and 4 different distances. I know people saying a lens should be adjusted right out of the box, my experience about that is "wishful thinking" but good, the Sigma allows me to fulfill my wish
Now, if you're in the situation your new 24-xx has to become your work-horse and you won't get better primes, I'd prefer recommending you the Tamron. Unfortunately, I can't: I made some bad experiences with Tamron service and a 17-50/2.8 lens. They might have become better in terms of service, but I'm not willing to find that out on my costs. Tamron needs to make a real fascinating lens to get me back on their boat, currently I look first on Sigma's portfolio, then on Nikon's and after that all the others.
at first I'd like to update your knowledge about field of view. I think, that's necessary since no one of these lenses has a bigger field of view (all start with 24 mm
) but one has a larger range of focal length. I was curious how big the weight difference is:See the "specs" on DxOMark (camera type I've set to D610 since that uses the same MP count as yours and the lenses only become slightly better on the standard D800)
825 - 900 - 885 grams (Tamron - Nikon - Sigma). I think 60...75 grams are no huge difference. Of those lenses, I own the Sigma and came from a different direction: I wanted a better one than the Nikon 24-85 which shows massive distortion. I didn't want the "best" zoom in that range, I already have 5 primes covering it but sometimes I want to have only one lens with me. For that purpose, the Sigma is great and the OS (= VC) is simply the best I've tried so far (better than Nikkor 70-200/4 at 105mm).
Downsides of the Sigma are (in my eyes)
- Massive weight (but somehow nomal in that range?)
- Nikon bodies put it on the same Focus-Adjustment bench as Micro Nikkor 105/2.8. Using both, I have to decide which correction value to use. Somehow stupid. Nikon's not interested in changing that, Sigma is not able to do so.
- filter thread is a bit exotic with M 82 (but that goes for Tamron as well).
0.38 - 0.38* - 0.45 grams (Tamron - Nikon - Sigma).
*Nikon says "at focal length 35 … 50 mm", which makes me a little bit suspicious. Anyway, with the Sigma I get a slightly bigger scale at close-ups.
In general, I can't see a heavy weight advantage of Sigma over Tamron. In particular, however, I do see an advantage: Using the Sigma USB-dock and investing some hours of testing, I can focus adjust the Sigma at 4 different focal lengths and 4 different distances. I know people saying a lens should be adjusted right out of the box, my experience about that is "wishful thinking" but good, the Sigma allows me to fulfill my wish
Now, if you're in the situation your new 24-xx has to become your work-horse and you won't get better primes, I'd prefer recommending you the Tamron. Unfortunately, I can't: I made some bad experiences with Tamron service and a 17-50/2.8 lens. They might have become better in terms of service, but I'm not willing to find that out on my costs. Tamron needs to make a real fascinating lens to get me back on their boat, currently I look first on Sigma's portfolio, then on Nikon's and after that all the others.