right now i'm stuck between a sigma and the Tamron. the sigma is a few hundred bucks cheaper.
from what i can see from lens comparison, the sigma is very comparable to the tamron but it loses it sharpness at 2.8 as you move up the focal length, the tamron remains sharp throughout and of course is stabilized. none of this translates to real world experience though.
im confidant the tamron would make me very happy but if i can save a few bucks.... anyone have any experience with the sigma shooting events?
In the fast paced world of event photography, you will be facing a lot of indoor low light situations requiring a wide open aperture. A loss of sharpness will leave you frustrated when you get home to process your images. Increase your keepers and spend the extra bucks to get a solid piece of equipment that will perform the way you expect it to.
I have always regretted not shelling out to get a better piece of kit!
see the canon 24-70mk2 and the tamron, the canon is almost twice the cost, its debatable if the paying the premium for the canon is worth it.
By the numbers, no it is not. Most especially because the Tammy is stabilized. The stabilization alone says the Tamron should be more expensive than the Sigma. So, bang for the buck, looks like the Tamron wins, at least by the numbers. I have no direct experience with any of the three (my 24-70 is a Mk I Canon). What the optical quality numbers don't take into account is AF performance and build quality. That you'll have to research carefully. I know the Canon versions are really well built (mine lives on the camera, is over 10 years old, and is going strong). Another consideration (perhaps) is resale value. Although for me, I don't weight this heavily, as I rarely re-sell my gear, I just accumulate it, LOL.
