p.50 #1 · In stock: Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 E-mount ($799)
Another thought:
24-105 at least makes a clear case for itself because its F4. You may still want to switch to primes for 1.8.
28-75 is one demon of a lens. Once its on the camera, it may never come out because you will use it for “everything”
p.50 #2 · In stock: Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 E-mount ($799)
nandadevieast wrote:
Another thought:
24-105 at least makes a clear case for itself because its F4. You may still want to switch to primes for 1.8.
28-75 us one demon of a lens. Once its on the camera, it may never come out because you will use it for “everything”
Having used Tammy, I'm going in the opposite direction because of the same reason. For low light, primes are better for everything else there is Mastercard..... (I mean 24-105 F4 )
p.50 #3 · In stock: Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 E-mount ($799)
I'll throw my opinion/thought process out there as a lay hobbyist, for what it's worth. I decided on the Sony 24-105 f4 because it fit my lens game plan better.
Before picking up an A7III, I borrowed a Canon 5D MkII with a 24-70 f2.8 L and a 16-35 f4 as my only lenses, and learned basic photography on that for about a year. The Zony 55 f1.8 was the first lens I got with the A7III.
I shoot 80% daytime and outdoors, so the f4 is not an issue.
I would only use f2.8 indoors or when doing portraits, both of which I can now do with the 55 f1.8 and down the line, a 85 f1.8.
The extra reach on the tele end of 105 is a VAST improvement over the 70 of the Canon glass. I can't imagine that the same would not apply to the 75 of the Tamron.
I can't really say there's a huge difference on the wide end between 28 and 24.
I have a tripod but I almost never use it. Given that photography is kind of a background thing for me and never the focus of anything I do, it's usually not practical for me to deploy a tripod. Thus squeezing as much stabilization as I can from the OSS seemed like it would be helpful.
Finally, the Tamron was out of stock everywhere, I got an ok discount on the 24-105 via Greentoe.
p.50 #4 · In stock: Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 E-mount ($799)
Ronny Olsson wrote:
Hi Fred
When you get an opportunity, please post some landscapes from tamron .. are interested in a zoom on the trips and are unsure if 28 is enough .. but I think GM 24-70 is too expensive right now .. going to Faroe Islands in Jan 2019 so I plan to get one before
p.50 #6 · In stock: Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 E-mount ($799)
I just got one from Adorama since they had them in stock. And I'm a happy camper with the lens. It's good enough for most work. I'm not pixel peeing. Not bad for the price.
p.50 #10 · In stock: Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 E-mount ($799)
How are you users finding the flare is with it?
From Jannik Peters review on Phillip Reeve's site, it seems that it was maybe its weakest point.
"The Tamron 2.8/28-75 Di III RXD can flare heavily at all focal lengths and in many different ways. It is a pity that the ghostings can be huge and ruin a shot...... Ghostings are more of an issue than veiling flare.
I don’t like the decision to use the older BBAR coatings for this lens. Tamrons high end lenses use different coatings which are called eBAND. I guess this decision kept the cost down but I would choose a premium for better coatings" https://phillipreeve.net/blog/review-tamron-28-75mm-f-2-8-di-iii-rxd-sony-e-mount/
p.50 #12 · In stock: Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 E-mount ($799)
I got my Tamron 28-75/2.8 yesterday, and tested it today. I'm very happy with the performance of this lens at all focal lengths and all apertures. This lens very good and definitely a keeper. It's also vastly superior to the Sony Zeiss 24-70/4, and yet it's cheaper.
p.50 #13 · In stock: Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 E-mount ($799)
I spent an hour seeing images from this lens and the 24-105 on Flickr.
Something to be said about a F2.8 lens. You get just enough separation for the subject to pop, and blurs the background so as to get the context right but remove the edges/distractions.
I hope you get some replies to this question, as this is a concern of mine. I like back light and shooting near the Sun. Poor flare control will be deal killer for me, despite the other attractions of this lens (macro, 2.8, light weight).
p.50 #15 · In stock: Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 E-mount ($799)
Looking again at the Phillip Reeve review, the ghosting is a problem when shooting the Sun low on the horizon. That is a limitation I can live with. The Albert Dros review did not show a problem with ghosting.
p.50 #16 · In stock: Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 E-mount ($799)
PhilthePhrame wrote:
Looking again at the Phillip Reeve review, the ghosting is a problem when shooting the Sun low on the horizon. That is a limitation I can live with. The Albert Dros review did not show a problem with ghosting.
The limitation is true, no doubt. As always, try to play with the position of the sun and the focal length to get the lowest amount that is possible.
I just finished the review. Actually it was already finished but had the title "Rolling Review".. Now I added my experiences of 5 months with this lens. I am still convinced that it is a very useful tool and a good compromise.
p.50 #18 · In stock: Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 E-mount ($799)
To those of you that own this lens and the Tamron 17-28 2.8: which of the two do you think is the better lens (of course, each one within its focal length range)?. Also, which is best at 28 mm?
p.50 #20 · In stock: Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 E-mount ($799)
Enri wrote:
To those of you that own this lens and the Tamron 17-28 2.8: which of the two do you think is the better lens (of course, each one within its focal length range)?. Also, which is best at 28 mm?
Both lenses are great, the Tammy 28-75 is better at 28mm.
)
