Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

28mm shootout - Sigma Mini Wide II vs. Tamron 02B
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Wed Oct 24, 2012 12:39 pm    Post subject: 28mm shootout - Sigma Mini Wide II vs. Tamron 02B Reply with quote
As between these two 28mm lenses only, which is the better lens??

I'm willing to swallow that the Sigma Mini Wide II is slightly slower (f2.8 for the Mini Wide II vs. f2.5 for the Tamron 02B).

I'm willing to swallow that the Tamron 02B offers a smaller minimum aperture (f32 vs f22 for the Sigma) when attached to some camera bodies.

But which lens is sharper?? offers better color rendition??

Are they close? Or does one of these lenses just blow away the other?


PostPosted: Wed Oct 24, 2012 1:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Well I have this lens but only the Tamron 28mm f2.8 version and although I haven't used the Sigma or Tamron much (as I have sharper 28mms) would say stopped down they are equal and would be surprised if the Tamron f2.5 version blew it away, but I'm sure someone will add more info about wide open or bokeh comparison.....or whatever.

Sigma 28mm miniwide low scanned film


Tamron 28mm f2.8 ver low scanned film


PostPosted: Wed Oct 24, 2012 2:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thanks, Excalibur!

Those are both fascinating and revealing photos! It would be difficult for me to choose a winner.

A brief question, if I may, please:

Were you shooting with a Sigma Mini-Wide or with a Sigma Mini-Wide II? The latter seems to be garnering a bit more praise on the net.


PostPosted: Wed Oct 24, 2012 4:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
guardian wrote:
Thanks, Excalibur!

Those are both fascinating and revealing photos! It would be difficult for me to choose a winner.

A brief question, if I may, please:

Were you shooting with a Sigma Mini-Wide or with a Sigma Mini-Wide II? The latter seems to be garnering a bit more praise on the net.



Mine is the 28mm mini wide II......the 24mm Sigma super wide II is an excellent lens so maybe Sigma lens designers (or whoever) improved the mini wide at the same time? But I prefer a Canon fd or Hexanon 28mms and only use film so maybe on a digital camera results would be different?


PostPosted: Wed Oct 24, 2012 5:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Excalibur wrote:
guardian wrote:
Thanks, Excalibur!

Those are both fascinating and revealing photos! It would be difficult for me to choose a winner.

A brief question, if I may, please:

Were you shooting with a Sigma Mini-Wide or with a Sigma Mini-Wide II? The latter seems to be garnering a bit more praise on the net.



Mine is the 28mm mini wide II......the 24mm Sigma super wide II is an excellent lens so maybe Sigma lens designers (or whoever) improved the mini wide at the same time? But I prefer a Canon fd or Hexanon 28mms and only use film so maybe on a digital camera results would be different?


Dunno. But thanks just the same. Without question the Sigma Mini-Wide II receives a lot of praise. I want one.

But this is not to say the original Mini-Wide is a poor lens. I simply have no data on that lens.

Up against the Hexanon 28mm, the Mini-Wide II offers more speed and possibly more mount opportunities. Here where I am, most of the Hexanon lenses being sold seem to have Konica AR mounts.

But up against the Tamron 02B it's a different story. The 02B is an Adaptall 2 lens, so mounting opportunity is nearly universal. And the Tamron 02B is actually a bit faster than the Sigma Mini-Wide II, not slower.


PostPosted: Wed Oct 24, 2012 5:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
guardian wrote:
Excalibur wrote:
guardian wrote:
Thanks, Excalibur!

Those are both fascinating and revealing photos! It would be difficult for me to choose a winner.

A brief question, if I may, please:

Were you shooting with a Sigma Mini-Wide or with a Sigma Mini-Wide II? The latter seems to be garnering a bit more praise on the net.



Mine is the 28mm mini wide II......the 24mm Sigma super wide II is an excellent lens so maybe Sigma lens designers (or whoever) improved the mini wide at the same time? But I prefer a Canon fd or Hexanon 28mms and only use film so maybe on a digital camera results would be different?


Dunno. But thanks just the same. Without question the Sigma Mini-Wide II receives a lot of praise. I want one.

But this is not to say the original Mini-Wide is a poor lens. I simply have no data on that lens.

Up against the Hexanon 28mm, the Mini-Wide II offers more speed and possibly more mount opportunities. Here where I am, most of the Hexanon lenses being sold seem to have Konica AR mounts.

But up against the Tamron 02B it's a different story. The 02B is an Adaptall 2 lens, so mounting opportunity is nearly universal. And the Tamron 02B is actually a bit faster than the Sigma Mini-Wide II, not slower.


Well as a film user I have a camera for any mount (well almost) and have sixteen 28mms, but unless you are going to get an expensive lens you might be unhappy with the results wide open so if you are not going to use the lens in mainly low light why worry about any lens from f2 to f3.5....so just choose the lens that has the attribute that you want at the best price and post some shots Wink


PostPosted: Thu Oct 25, 2012 2:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I haven't tried Sigma 28mm.
I tried Tamron 28/2,5. here's my sample;


wideopen


PostPosted: Thu Oct 25, 2012 4:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I had a tamron 28/2.5 for a while but sold it as it was nothing special. It wasnt as sharp as
my Pentax smct 28/3.5 or my smc pentax 28/3.5.


PostPosted: Thu Oct 25, 2012 5:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
The difference between the 2.5 & 2.8 apertures, may just be marketing.


PostPosted: Thu Oct 25, 2012 6:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I had a 24mm Superwide bought through the EB place and returned it whence it came. It may have been defective or it may have been one of those non-compatibility issues which can occur between Sigma lenses and Canon EOS DSLR bodies. I seem to have just four images taken with it, of which this is the first:


Interestingly, I have a Sigma Z 28mm 1:2.8 which does function on EOS bodies and by a curious coincidence is sitting on my Mamiya ZE 35mm right now for tests. The DSLR shots with that lens can be found here:
http://s303.photobucket.com/albums/nn131/tikkathreebarrels/m42%20lens%20tests/28mm%20Sigma%20Z/



PostPosted: Thu Oct 25, 2012 11:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Guardian, why do you limited to that two lenses?

Perhaps you can take an aperture in your taste.

The old super takumar 3,5/28 (the biggest front element one) is razor sharp and with high contrast (and cheap, I guess).

I hear some good things about the old rokkor 3,5/28, big front element too. I think that it's previous to the MC version. And cheap too.

Good luck with your choice, Guardian.


PostPosted: Thu Oct 25, 2012 1:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
sonyrokkor wrote:
Guardian, why do you limited to that two lenses?

Perhaps you can take an aperture in your taste.

The old super takumar 3,5/28 (the biggest front element one) is razor sharp and with high contrast (and cheap, I guess).

I hear some good things about the old rokkor 3,5/28, big front element too. I think that it's previous to the MC version. And cheap too.

Good luck with your choice, Guardian.


Thank you. That's very nice of you to write!

I just enjoy lenses. I try, to the best of my ability, to buy with an eye to value. And of course I buy lenses which will operate with my very limited array of camera bodies.

I wrote the OP after net research was pointing to high value in the Sigma Mini-Wide II. There are a great many positive reviews of this lens on the net. But I also agree with a previous poster to this thread, hifisapi, that the Tamron 02B has been found less than a stellar performer by some owners.

What I didn't know, and really still don't know, is how these two lenses (only) stack up against one another.

For example:

Are reviewers of the Mini-Wide II using a different yardstick to gauge the performance of the Sigma than they would apply to a Tamron lens? Tamron, after all, is generally bought with quite high expectations . . . which the 02B might not fulfill. At the same time, Sigma is recognized to make good lenses but also some really poor ones. So while the Mini-wide II might be "good", it might only be good "for a Sigma".

I have not been able to learn the year of introduction of the Mini-Wide II. The Mini-Wide series, the original lenses, were introduced back in 1978. So it's likely fair to assume the Mini-Wide II lenses came along between 1980 and 1985. Thus, it's an old lens, but not as old as many I already own.

I am trying to find a (mount) suitable Mini-Wide II to purchase. So far: no luck. The Tamron 02B lenses, OTOH, are rather ubiquitous.


PostPosted: Thu Oct 25, 2012 2:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Well guardian looking back on my files of shots and for general use and stopped down can't see much difference from CZJ 28mm (East German made), Sigma II or Tamron f2.8 ver. Maybe worth a gamble for the older Tamron f2.8 (if going for peanuts) as most people would be looking for the f2.5 ver.....

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=ja&u=http://www.tamron.co.jp/data/old-lens/cw28.htm

also IMO the Vivitar 28mm close focus ver would be an overall better buy (if still going cheap).


PostPosted: Thu Oct 25, 2012 6:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Personally, I'd stay away from the stigma. I dont like em. Build quality sucks.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Page 1 of 1