p.32 #2 · In stock: Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 E-mount ($799)
This is more a PR, journalists type lens . The Sony 24-105 will be much better at landscape type stuff. You don’t need 2.8 for that per say. Sure nice to have but really you don’t need the extra stop in speed.
p.32 #4 · In stock: Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 E-mount ($799)
timballic wrote:
This is the impression that I'm getting too, from reading around. Maybe the 24-105 would be the better of the two for landscapes? What do you think?
Definitely!
Like maestro, I was completely blown away by the 12-24G, enough so that I immediately ordered the 24-105G, and was again blown away. I am not one to leap on brand new offerings, but for these lenses it paid off in spades.
I expect the 28-75 to behave like a $700-800 lens (lens release price, then falling to eventually around $650).
p.32 #5 · In stock: Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 E-mount ($799)
I was really surprised with the 24-105 G. It's one of the few zoom lenses I have that I feel I don't need to think avoiding one of the ends, or a "week" spot. It does surprisingly well across the whole range. At landscape apertures I find it hard to nitpick.
-Tim
timballic wrote:
This is the impression that I'm getting too, from reading around. Maybe the 24-105 would be the better of the two for landscapes? What do you think?
p.32 #6 · In stock: Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 E-mount ($799)
timballic wrote:
This is the impression that I'm getting too, from reading around. Maybe the 24-105 would be the better of the two for landscapes? What do you think?
for landscapes, seems like a no brainer, the 24-105 is a much better range for landscapes.
28-75 is for those that want a 2.8 lens for a variety of shooting, and ok with lesser range. I dont remember ever shooting with less than 2 lenses for an event, so that's where the 2.8 becomes a big value.
p.32 #7 · In stock: Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 E-mount ($799)
Thanks guys.
I really tried to like the little 24-70/4, but was never pleased with it, and the 24-70 GM is just too big, too heavy and too expensive for me, so it looks like the 24-105 it will be...until eventually there is a vastly improved 24-70/4, which betters it.
p.32 #8 · In stock: Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 E-mount ($799)
The Tamron is much more versatile than the Sony 24-105mm.
Better for lowlight shooting, subject isolation, street photography, smaller/lighter to carry, and just as good for landscapes when stopped down to f5.6-f8
If the extra 4mm at the wide end is so important, just get the upcoming Samyang FE 24mm f2.8 pancake. That will still be faster than the Sony 24-105mm f4.
Personally, I'd just zoom with my feet a little to make up the difference in focal length.
p.32 #9 · In stock: Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 E-mount ($799)
Just back from a holiday with lots of early morning visits to marshy lake sides, where "zooming with my feet" was not an option, and swirling mist and sun and reflections were changing with great rapidity! Half the time spent changing lenses, trying to keep midges away from the sensor, and not dropping anything! That's when I decided I need to try a zoom again.
p.32 #10 · In stock: Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 E-mount ($799)
Yeah but how much "zooming with your feet" is required to match 4mm at the wide end?, or 30mm at the long end? Not much at all, so I think the difference in focal length is overstated.
p.32 #11 · In stock: Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 E-mount ($799)
It's amusing how much of a "first world issue" this is. Ten years ago this lens for this money... you wouldn't see a single negative comment. It would have been called the greatest zoom lens ever made. The variety of amazing lenses now is really something.
p.32 #12 · In stock: Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 E-mount ($799)
jaybr wrote:
The Tamron is much more versatile than the Sony 24-105mm.
Better for lowlight shooting, subject isolation, street photography, smaller/lighter to carry, and just as good for landscapes when stopped down to f5.6-f8
If the extra 4mm at the wide end is so important, just get the upcoming Samyang FE 24mm f2.8 pancake. That will still be faster than the Sony 24-105mm f4.
Personally, I'd just zoom with my feet a little to make up the difference in focal length.
J
If you can zoom with your feet 24mm gives a different perspective than stepping back with a 28.
p.32 #13 · In stock: Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 E-mount ($799)
Haha. 10 years ago it would even have been the greatest lens ever made. Good times we're living in!
maestrofilms wrote:
It's amusing how much of a "first world issue" this is. Ten years ago this lens for this money... you wouldn't see a single negative comment. It would have been called the greatest zoom lens ever made. The variety of amazing lenses now is really something.
p.32 #14 · In stock: Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 E-mount ($799)
I think "much more versatile" really depends on your priorities. I don't shoot events....predominantly landscapes. Even 105mm @f/4 give decent blur in cases were I might do a head shot.
I would most likely throw in a faster prime or two if I thought I'd need it.
That being said, for other people's priorities, the Tamron may be the bees knees.
p.32 #16 · In stock: Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 E-mount ($799)
timballic wrote:
Just back from a holiday with lots of early morning visits to marshy lake sides, where "zooming with my feet" was not an option, and swirling mist and sun and reflections were changing with great rapidity! Half the time spent changing lenses, trying to keep midges away from the sensor, and not dropping anything! That's when I decided I need to try a zoom again.
It's certainly nice not having to change lenses, I often shoot at the beach, and sometimes bring a simple 24-240. Sometimes 12-24 + 24-240 on two bodies. At the museum, I like 12-24 + 28-75. Choices are good, this lens will serve very well for many. Right now, my "landscape" lit is the CY 35-70, which will be replaced by the Tamron, just much more versatile. It can double duty as travel and low light on said travels.
p.32 #17 · In stock: Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 E-mount ($799)
I’m with you, listed my 35-70 today. Many will say we’re crazy but the Tammy is more useful. Have primes that beat the CY as well if necessary.
Charlie N wrote:
It's certainly nice not having to change lenses, I often shoot at the beach, and sometimes bring a simple 24-240. Sometimes 12-24 + 24-240 on two bodies. At the museum, I like 12-24 + 28-75. Choices are good, this lens will serve very well for many. Right now, my "landscape" lit is the CY 35-70, which will be replaced by the Tamron, just much more versatile. It can double duty as travel and low light on said travels.
p.32 #18 · In stock: Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 E-mount ($799)
"If you can zoom with your feet 24mm gives a different perspective than stepping back with a 28"
:
Really?
Taking a couple of steps back to equal a 24mm focal length with a 28mm lens is really gonna make that much difference in perspective?
So if you owned a Sony FE 28mm, would you buy a Loxia 24mm as well for the perspective difference?
Or if you owned the Tokina 20mm or Loxia 21mm, would you buy the Loxia 24mm as well for the perspective difference? Surely the cost outweighs the benefit?
Anyway as I mentioned earlier, if the extra 4mm at the wide end is important to you (because you don't like the change of "perspective" by taking two steps back), get the new upcoming Samyang 24mm f2.8 as well.
p.32 #19 · In stock: Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 E-mount ($799)
Moving forward or backward, or even cropping in, does not change the focal length of a lens.
And once you shoot enough lenses, yes, the difference between 24mm and 28mm is significant.
p.32 #20 · In stock: Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 E-mount ($799)
Lol,
I've shot "enough lenses" to know most people wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a 24mm shot, and a shot taken on a 28mm lens composed to equal 24mm by taking a few steps back. The 4mm difference is overstated.
Please answer the questions I posted earlier:
"So if you owned a Sony FE 28mm, would you buy a Loxia 24mm as well for the perspective difference?
Or if you owned the Tokina 20mm or Loxia 21mm, would you buy the Loxia 24mm as well for the perspective difference? Surely the cost outweighs the benefit?"
