A SIGMA Lens “So…” Twofer: The 28-105mm f/2.8 and 28-45mm f/1.8. 

A SIGMA Lens “So…” Twofer: The 28-105mm f/2.8 and 28-45mm f/1.8.

A great time to be a photography enthusiast. Both of these lenses are solid offerings that are capable of fantastic results. But for me, both are met with the same one sentence opening…

Great lens but I already have…

Both alternatives are Tamron lenses interestingly.

For the SIGMA 28-105mm f/2.8 the issue is that I already have the Tamron 35-150mm f/2-2.8.

I. Adore. This. Lens.

Better? I do not know. Depends on your use case I imagine. If you want a less expensive lens then SIGMA it is. But not by that much given the extra 45mm at the long end. I had thought the SIGMA lens would be smaller and lighter but to my surprise the difference is not that great.

I had already made the mental shift from 28mm to 35mm at the wide end when I traded my Tamron 28-75mm towards the 35-150mm and I did not notice much difference if I am honest. But I have a feeling I would miss access to 150mm. Add in that extra bit of light at 35mm with f/2 and the Tamron makes a strong case for itself.

And most importantly it is a known entity at this point having proven itself on many occasions as the only lens I needed.

What if this were an alternate timeline and the SIGMA 28-105mm f/2.8 had come out first? Then maybe I would feel differently.

I do know this. Whoever purchases the SIGMA 28-105mm will be very happy with it.

On to the 28-45mm f/1.8.

I already have the Tamron 20-40mm f/2.8.

There is a preface of some importance.

I do not do astrophotography. So for my purposes any lens wider than 35mm a f/2.8 maximum aperture will do. This is also why I have not succumbed to a minor obsession with the Viltrox 16mm f/1.8. (I am largely in it for the neat little tiny screen on the lens if I am honest. Makes no sense, but them’s the facts.) To add to that I (A reminder. Personal preference at play here.):

• Appreciate the smaller size and weight of the Tamron.
• Appreciate the smaller price tag on the Tamron.
• Prefer the 20-40mm focal range to 28-45mm.
• Already have it and adding both does not make any sense.

I also have some history here with a previous SIGMA lens that was similar in focal range and aperture. The Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 for APS-C (27-52.5mm full frame equivalent).

That lens did not work out mainly due to a known focusing issue with Pentax bodies. Oddly AF was a bit off when using the OVF, but worked fine with the back screen. But what I also noticed during my short time with the lens was that I found it to be a bit cumbersome given the truncated focal range. And I fear the same issue is at play here. Now I do understand that this is physics at play since an aperture this fast will require more glass. But I would prefer a more compact lens over a faster one.

If the SIGMA had come out first? I honestly think I would have passed, so timing has no impact here.

Plus, I really like the Tamron 20-40mm f/2.8 and like the 35-150mm I would have a hard time giving it up.

And also like the SIGMA 28-105mm f/2.8 above, whoever purchases the SIGMA 28-45mm f/1.8 will be very happy with it.

…nerd sidebar. I just noticed that both of the SIGMA lenses start at 28mm, cost nearly the same, and are very similar in size and weight.

This has no bearing on the rest of this post. Just thought it was interesting. Anyhoo…

Choice is good.

As I said at the top, it is a great time to be a photography enthusiast.

Happy capturing.

-ELW