With Sigma’s release of the 24-70mm ART, there seems to be a floury of Tamron apologising for something, and I’m still not quite sure what. The Tamron is a great lens.
The challenge is when a manufacturer releases a good lens, suddenly owners of similar lenses feel they need to defend their lenses. It’s as if, someone else releasing a better lens, suddenly makes a lens they were perfectly happy with…bad.
Their lens didn’t get any worse. It’s not producing worse photos. It’s the same great lens it was 12 months ago, but there is a better lens and that hurts their feelings. The only way to do that is to try convince people that this new evil lens isn’t any good and that people don’t need it. Crisis averted.
The challenge with the 28-75mm is that it isn’t a 24-70mm. People were happy with that but subconciously some of them weren’t. They accepted it because the Sony 24-70mm GM costs twice the price.
There was no reason to convince themselves they needed the 4mm because the 4mm cost another $1000. $1000 for 4mm is an expensive 4mm. The humorous part is they probably don’t use 24mm much anyway.
But then the Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 arrived. Unlike the old Sigma Art lenses, it doesn’t weigh a ton. What sorcery is this? The pricing isn’t far off the Tamron 28-75mm and the construction is metal. It also has the extra 4mm without being $1000 more.
Suddenly, these Tamron owner feels the need to jump into every Sigma post to complain about said evil lens as a means to convince themselves they made the right decision and their lenses aren’t redundant.
The problem is that the Tamron isn’t redundant, and the only thing they are convincing everyone of is their own insecurity about their purchase.
This isn’t Tamron vs Sigma. It could have been a Samyang lens. But for now it’s Sigma until the next competitor arrives.