09-24-2017, 09:50 AM
The you don't see very far. 
If one wants a set with f/2.8 zooms covering 14-200, this 24-70 range pops up. "standard" zoom doesn't mean "everybody runs around with it" it's just something which covers 50 mm and a bit wide and a bit tele. If one goes the f/2.8 lane instead, he or she is aware that the genuine offerings will cost a lot (1700.- from Canon, 2000,- from Nikon). So to me the question is not "what are the differences between the nearly equally priced Sigma/Tamron lenses, but would it be worth to throw extra cash towards Nikon or Canon?"
If I were using Canon, I just would go for the original glass (although I don't know anything about any of these lenses for sure, never used one), but for Nikon, I'd take a closer look. 750.- is something worth to think twice.
Oh, btw. I use (if I need to) the 24-105 Sigma as "standard" zoom, but you would catch me more often with a 35 mm
If one wants a set with f/2.8 zooms covering 14-200, this 24-70 range pops up. "standard" zoom doesn't mean "everybody runs around with it" it's just something which covers 50 mm and a bit wide and a bit tele. If one goes the f/2.8 lane instead, he or she is aware that the genuine offerings will cost a lot (1700.- from Canon, 2000,- from Nikon). So to me the question is not "what are the differences between the nearly equally priced Sigma/Tamron lenses, but would it be worth to throw extra cash towards Nikon or Canon?"
If I were using Canon, I just would go for the original glass (although I don't know anything about any of these lenses for sure, never used one), but for Nikon, I'd take a closer look. 750.- is something worth to think twice.
Oh, btw. I use (if I need to) the 24-105 Sigma as "standard" zoom, but you would catch me more often with a 35 mm