p.2 #1 · Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 VS Sony 24-105 f/4.0
it's the age old debate in sony flavor. It's like 35mm or 50mm, simply pick a side or pick both.
it really is that straight forward.
if you havent made that decision in the past, it might take experimentation with both to find out what you like, and why you like it more.
I have kids, and the pick for me is simple, 28-75, the 24-105 doesnt even register for a few reasons.
I have small kids, so I've got to stay within fairly close proximity. If I'm at 105, I'm probably too far from them.
28 is plenty wide for human photography.
I've got 24 covered with another lens, who doesnt?
better low light in a pinch
better blur ability when not shooting primes
bonus bulk, weight, filter size. Not the highest priority, but it's nice that all of these are smaller. Size between the two lenses isnt a huge deal, but pretty darn nice to have a smaller setup to go along with my 67mm filters.
I've already got primes that cover this range, even zooms that cover this range! I'll likely keep the travel zoom as is and replace a few of my other zooms with this.
Right now, I'm simply carrying a single prime along with my kid expeditions, but often I want some shots wider or longer, and cant do that with a single prime. For video, I expect the experience will be super helpful with the zoom.
p.2 #2 · Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 VS Sony 24-105 f/4.0
chez wrote:
Why would you call not considering the 24-105 because it's an f4 as absurd. I'm not considering it for exactly that reason...I love the range, but the lens is just too slow for some of my needs.
Choosing a lens that is f2.8 over a lens that is f4 is not absurd but needing to tell everyone or anyone that you're doing so is absurd. You knew the 24-105 was f4 before ever entering a thread about it so you aren't learning anything new and you aren't helping a single person by telling them that you didn't buy a lens because it was f4. I mean why stop there, I might as well join a Nikon thread to tell them that I chose the Sony 24-105 over the Nikon 24-120 because it fit my camera.
p.2 #3 · Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 VS Sony 24-105 f/4.0
I could see the Tamron being attractive to event and family shooters and the Sony in harsh conditions where lens changes are out of the question, but otherwise, primes are king... especially for travel.
I travel with 25, 55, and 85 which has me covered with modest cropping from 25-135 at about f/1.8 or so. And the whole set is small and light. I wouldn’t switch back to any zoom in this range now.
p.2 #4 · Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 VS Sony 24-105 f/4.0
Lens choice is a personal decision. Asking others will never yield the right answer, actually it will make you doubt using either of the lenses. As you can see most prefer primes. Then you ask what primes do they recommend and the cycle of conflicting opinions continues.
p.2 #5 · Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 VS Sony 24-105 f/4.0
RobCD wrote:
Choosing a lens that is f2.8 over a lens that is f4 is not absurd but needing to tell everyone or anyone that you're doing so is absurd. You knew the 24-105 was f4 before ever entering a thread about it so you aren't learning anything new and you aren't helping a single person by telling them that you didn't buy a lens because it was f4. I mean why stop there, I might as well join a Nikon thread to tell them that I chose the Sony 24-105 over the Nikon 24-120 because it fit my camera.
Well Rob, two posts from you and you’ve told us squat why you’d choose one over the other. At least I laid out my reasons of choice...which is being asked in this thread.
p.2 #6 · Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 VS Sony 24-105 f/4.0
RobCD wrote:
Choosing a lens that is f2.8 over a lens that is f4 is not absurd but needing to tell everyone or anyone that you're doing so is absurd. You knew the 24-105 was f4 before ever entering a thread about it so you aren't learning anything new and you aren't helping a single person by telling them that you didn't buy a lens because it was f4. I mean why stop there, I might as well join a Nikon thread to tell them that I chose the Sony 24-105 over the Nikon 24-120 because it fit my camera.
naw, these debates have existed for as long as the internet has existed.
I dont need the aperture
I need the aperture
I dont need the extended range
I need the range
High iso makes up for the differences
I dont like shooting high iso
1 stop blur isnt that much
1 stop blur in the whole range is a lot
it's somewhat circular, one less variable this time around would be IBIS vs OSS
just consider and append IMO to every post, and you'll be ok with hardline opinions.
p.2 #7 · Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 VS Sony 24-105 f/4.0
Of course different people have different needs. What is really interesting is why they prefer one solution or another.
Often we prefer a lens because it is well suited to a specific situation, and it is often more than just the focal length.
For example, just for hiking I can see some patterns :
- ultra wide angle zoom (ie 16-35) on the body most of the time and switch to a longer lens (85mm, 70-200...) only when needed to capture an element far away, a person a few meters away...
- a mid range zoom (ie 28-75 or 35-70...) most of the time on the body and a little prime (15mm or 21mm...) when a landscape "requires" it
- trans-standard zoom (ie 24-105) to be able to do most of the pictures without switching lens
...
Why would someone choose the first vs the second solution?
Lens vignettes and sharpness is only average. I mean for $799 it is still good value lens but nothing really special. if i was to decide between Tamron 28-75 or Sony 24-105 i'd go with 24-105 or 24-70 GM if wanted the best.
Lens vignettes and sharpness is only average. Im mean for $799 it is still good value lens but nothing really special. if i was to decide between Tamron 28-75 or Sony 24-105 i'd go with 24-105 or 24-70 GM if wanted the best.
See... those compromises in exchange for small, inexpensive , f/2.8, AF and that particular focal range makes for a good amateur family lens. Great for shooting your family indoors and out in a variety of situations with a small, light kit that doesn’t dip into your kids college fund. . This is not a landscape, travel tool or even a pro event lens (that what the GM is for). It could be good for street photography, but travellers will want other lenses to augment this... it’s not a great walk around lens due to the lack of wide angle focal lengths. It might pair nicely with a 16-35 or 12-24 though where these are used for landscapes and architecture and the Tamron for people/street. But I still prefer primes.
p.2 #10 · Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 VS Sony 24-105 f/4.0
Charlie N wrote:
naw, these debates have existed for as long as the internet has existed.
I dont need the aperture
I need the aperture
.
Yeah understood but I'm not talking about someone that is trying to determine whether they need the aperture or not. I'm talking about someone that knows they do and yet feels the need to tell everyone as if it was part of their evaluation between the two lenses. What's to evaluate if you clearly need or want f2.8? Anyway, it just strikes me as not really necessary but no big deal.
p.2 #11 · Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 VS Sony 24-105 f/4.0
I think this is a tough decision...anyway, I think if I prioritize focal range, I pick 24-105/4. If I go with 2.8, then I pick GM 24-70/2.8 (I'm having it-loving it). I think it's hard for me to have a zoom starting at 28mm. I had Tammy 28-75 with Nikon when I started and I sold it shortly after I got, just because 28 was not wide enough. But will see...I may change my thought.
p.2 #12 · Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 VS Sony 24-105 f/4.0
umsl12 wrote:
I think this is a tough decision...anyway, I think if I prioritize focal range, I pick 24-105/4. If I go with 2.8, then I pick GM 24-70/2.8 (I'm having it-loving it). I think it's hard for me to have a zoom starting at 28mm. I had Tammy 28-75 with Nikon when I started and I sold it shortly after I got, just because 28 was not wide enough. But will see...I may change my thought.
yep, it's gonna get personal as usual.
I find, that I can pair my 12-24 with CY 35-70, and have no issues with the gap. I have the current and very old 28-75 f2.8 that I use on occasion. I've owned the canon 24-70L's and tamron 24-70 as well, so I sort of like having one of those midrange 2.8 lenses on me. 24mm was very useful for my travels, but I cant recall a time when it wasnt covered by something else either. I do recall overpacking way too often, and generally didnt like the size of the canon 24-70ii on the A7 bodies, combination of filter size and length made it by far my biggest lens.
I think the fact that out of all the midrange zooms I've had, I ended up with the 28-75, even slow as it is, mainly due to the size attraction. It's very appealing for those that have somewhat realistic expectations. I'm certainly not expecting prime like IQ wide open, simply a lens that gets me high quality snapshots wide open, and excellent shots stopped down.
p.2 #13 · Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 VS Sony 24-105 f/4.0
Just get the longer focal reach and use a prime when light is dim.
horses for courses
For indoor arenas sports you always end up too far anyway so even at 80mm it’s too short, I use a 105/2.8 and it’s still super short. You’ll need a 70-200 for that kind of thing.
For home shots after work a prime will do far better than any zoom, my latest favourite is the zf28/2 over my cv35/1.2, but there’s many ad options too.
For outside travel shots the longer focal range the better, what’s the point in making a background completely melted? You lose context. It’s only useful for wedding shots but even then they need a hint of background.
Lens vignettes and sharpness is only average. Im mean for $799 it is still good value lens but nothing really special. if i was to decide between Tamron 28-75 or Sony 24-105 i'd go with 24-105 or 24-70 GM if wanted the best.
p.2 #15 · Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 VS Sony 24-105 f/4.0
loudtiger wrote:
Looks pretty weak at 28 F2.8.
I think that most of them are not very good to judge de IQ. For example the 28mm f/2.8 of the "rocky stairs", the focus is on the the furthest building, so the sides and corners are not on the focus plane.
p.2 #16 · Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 VS Sony 24-105 f/4.0
I sold my steller copy of 24-105 for one reason, it was bigger than i could enjoy. For someone who doesn’t mind the size, its an obvious choice for landscapes and as a do it all lens.
I am looking at 28-75 for its friendly size and weight. What’s the consensus on it as a landscape lens at those apertures?
. This is not a landscape, travel tool or even a pro event lens (that what the GM is for). It could be good for street photography, but travellers will want other lenses to augment this... it’s not a great walk around lens due to the lack of wide angle focal lengths. It might pair nicely with a 16-35 or 12-24 though where these are used for landscapes and architecture and the Tamron for people/street. But I still prefer primes.