|
Canon
24-105 vs Sigma 24-70 2.8 HSM vs Tamron 28-75 2.8
The standard zooms are the most popular
lenses for every manufacturers; there are dozens of standard zoom,
and nearly every photographer owns one of these lenses. In this
test, I have compared the best standard zooms of every manufactuter
(in Canon EF mount...in future I'm going to test also Sony and
Nikon). I own the super versatile Canon 24-105 IS, and I have
compared it with the
new Sigma 24-70 2.8 HSM and with the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8, one of the
cheapest f/2.8 zooms on the market.
Specifications
|
|
Canon 24-105 f/4 IS
|
Sigma 24-70 2.8
|
Tamron 28-75 2.8
|
|
Focal length
|
24-105 mm
|
24-70 mm
|
28-75 mm
|
|
Construction
|
18 elements/13 groups
|
14 elements/12 groups
|
14 elements/14 groups
|
|
Macro ratio
|
0.23x (1:4.3)
|
0.18x (1:5.3)
|
0.25x (1:3.9)
|
|
Max Aperture
|
f/4
|
f/2.8
|
f/2.8
|
|
Stabilization
|
Yes
|
No
|
No
|
|
Autofocus
|
Ultrasonic motor
|
Ultrasonic motor
|
Lens motor
|
|
Closest Focus
|
0.45 meters
|
0.38 meters
|
0.33 meters
|
|
Dimensions
|
83 x 107 mm
|
88 x 94 mm
|
73 x 92 mm
|
|
Weight
|
670 g
|
790 g
|
510 g
|
|
Weather sealing
|
Yes
|
No
|
No
|
|
Price
|
$ 1000
|
$ 900
|
$ 400
|
|
Announced
|
2005
|
2008
|
2003
|
Built
quality, stabilization and autofocus
Both the Canon and the Sigma have
excellent built quality: they feels solid, professional; the Canon
has even weather sealing. In comparison, the Tamron feels a bit
"cheap", it is much lighter than the Sigma and it has not
the same professional look...on the other hand, the Tamron costs $
400 while the Sigma is $ 900. All lenses have large focus ring and
zoom ring; they extend considerably during zooming.
 |
| Sigma
24-70 2.8 HSM, Canon 24-105 IS USM, Tamron 28-75 2.8,
extended and with hood. Click
here to enlarge. |
The Canon and the Sigma have fast and
silent ultrasonic autofocus, with full time manual focus; the Tamron
instead has a traditional AF motor, that is quite noisy and not as
fast as the AF motor of the other two lenses. The Canon has a big
advantage: image stabilization. I own the Canon from some years and
I have appreciated a lot the stabilization, sometimes it really
makes the difference between a sharp photo and a blurred one. You
have to evaluate if for you it is more important the f/2.8 aperture,
or if you prefer the advantage of IS with the f/4 aperture of the
24-105. Personally, I rarely use standard zooms wide open, so I
don't mind the difference between f/2.8 and f/4 on such lenses, and
I prefer to have IS.
Image quality comparison
I have tested the lenses on my Canon
1DsIII (21 megapixel, FF). The lenses was mounted on tripod; I have used mirror lock up and self timer. The following
images are 100% crop from the unprocessed RAW file. (note: c24 is
Canon 24-105 IS, s24 is Sigma 24-70 HSM and t28 is
Tamron 28-75).
24/28mm, center:
|
wide
open |
f/8 |
| c24 |
 |
 |
| s24 |
 |
 |
| t28 |
 |
 |
24/28mm, corner:
|
wide
open |
f/8 |
| c24 |
 |
 |
| s24 |
 |
 |
| t28 |
 |
 |
In the center, all three lenses give
excellent image quality, both wide open and at f/8. In the corners,
instead, they are quite soft; the Canon and the Tamron are the best
(even though you have to stop down to f/8 to get a relatively good
corner sharpness), while the Sigma has soft corners, even stopped
down.
40mm, center:
|
wide
open |
f/8 |
| c24 |
 |
 |
| s24 |
 |
 |
| t28 |
 |
 |
40mm, corner:
|
wide
open |
f/8 |
| c24 |
 |
 |
| s24 |
 |
 |
| t28 |
 |
 |
In the center, all lenses give
excellent image quality at f/8; the Canon 24-105 is slightly better
wide open. In the corners, instead, the Tamron is the sharpest of
the three both wide open and at f/8, while Canon and Sigma show
softer corners.
70mm, center:
|
wide
open |
f/8 |
| c24 |
 |
 |
| s24 |
 |
 |
| t28 |
 |
 |
70mm, corner:
|
wide
open |
f/8 |
| c24 |
 |
 |
| s24 |
 |
 |
| t28 |
 |
 |
In the center, all lenses give
excellent image quality both wide open and at f/8; the Tamron is the
only one that shows a little less contrast wide open. In the
corners, the results are very similar for all three lenses; in this
case the Tamron is slightly sharper than the other three, but it is
a small difference.
Flare
|
wide
open |
f/16 |
| c24 |
 |
 |
| s24 |
 |
 |
| t28 |
 |
 |
The flare is an important thing that
you have to consider when you chose a lens: it is almost impossible
to correct flare during post-processing. Flare is the Achille's heel
of Canon 24-105: it is bad wide open, and unusable at f/16, when
there are strong light sources into the frame. The Tamron is not as
bad as the Canon, but still far from great at small apetures. The
Sigma, instead, is impressive: it has almost no flare wide open, and
even at f/16 it is still pretty good.
Vignetting
and distortion
| Canon
24-105 |
Sigma
24-70 |
Tamron
28-75 |
 |
 |
 |
| Canon
24-105 |
Sigma
24-70 |
Tamron
28-75 |
 |
 |
 |
I don't care much about
distortion and vignetting because you can correct them easily
with Photoshop, anyway, this is the result: the Sigma and the
Tamron are very similar (quite good), while the Canon shows
more distortion and vignetting.
The
difference in angle of view
Even though all three lenses can
be considered "standard zooms", they cover different
ranges. The Tamrom has less wide-angle than the Canon and
Sigma, and the Canon has more tele than the other two lenses.
This is the difference between
24mm and 28mm:

And this is the difference
between 70, 75 and 105mm:

Conclusions
All the lenses are pretty good,
but each one has its weaknesses. The Canon 24-105 is very
sharp; it has a very useful zoom range,
professional built quality, fast autofocus and image
stabilization - overall, it is my preferred standard zoom, but
it has an huge problem: flare. If you take often photos with
the sun or other strong light sources into the frame, I don't
recommend the Canon 24-105: at f/16, it is almost unusable
with strong light sources; otherwise it is an excellent
choice.
The Sigma is almost as expensive
as the Canon; the built quality is great, and the HSM AF motor
is as good as the Canon AF. In terms of image quality, it is
on par with the Canon in the center, but it is softer in the
edges, in particolar at 24mm. A great advantage of the Sigma
is the impressively low flare: even with the sun directly into
the frame, it showed almost no flare. If you take often photos
that include the sun, the Sigma 24-70 is a better choice than
the Canon, if you don't mind the soft corners at 24mm (on FF
cameras).
The Tamron has been a pleasant
surprise. This lens is really cheap, it costs less than half
the Sigma and the Canon, but it has great image quality: it is
as sharp as the Canon, and sometimes it is even better. It lacks of IS and the AF is not as
good as Canon and Sigma AF, but for its price it is truly a
bargain; I recommend this lens for those who have a limited
budget and want an sharp f/2.8 standard zoom.
Do you have
comments or questions?
If you have comments or questions about this
article, feel free to ask in the Juza
Nature Photography Discussion Forum!
|