p.3 #2 · Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 VS Sony 24-105 f/4.0
Hi all,
Just found my account here...
I just got the Sony 24-105mm and it is extremely sharp, it has great colors and contrast, and very quick focusing on A7RIII....
I owned the 28-75 lens in Canon mount many moons ago(previous model) and it was nothing to write home. I hope the new one is better.
I think one stop of light is not that much considering how good the new cameras are at high iso... yes, 10 years ago when my 10D had a max iso of 3200 or so, it would make a world of difference. Shot taken or lost...
Nowadays, makes no sense in my opinion.
...if a stabilized F4 is not good enough, most likely an F/2.8 would not suffice either and you need a faster prime.
p.3 #3 · Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 VS Sony 24-105 f/4.0
The original Tamron 28-75/2.8 and the FE model are drastically different lenses. They perform entirely differently. IIRC, the Tamron 28-75/2.8 was the first af standard zoom ever. The new one is much, much better in everything bit bokeh with foliage in it.
p.3 #4 · Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 VS Sony 24-105 f/4.0
In my mind, these lenses serve very different purposes.
For instance, I wouldn't bother taking the Tamron on a hike; the 24mm wide end is much more suitable and the 105mm long end is as well.
I would never take the Sony to an indoor event where I needed a walkabout zoom, though. If I was doing a general travel lens, the Tamron would wind up in my bag more, just because it's more versatile for both indoors and outdoors.
It's really about what you'll shoot with them, and honestly, I think there's an argument to be made to have both (if you need both).
p.3 #5 · Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 VS Sony 24-105 f/4.0
Having used both now to shoot portraits and events...I have sold my 24-105 in favor of the tamron. Why? the sony lens is ultimately sharper for landscape, but there are some distortions that make it less suitable for people shots. The tammy renders the subject very sharply and has a better falloff at comparable f stops...also noticed it focus more consistently using eye af for some reason. First job with it, there were NO oof photos, first time I can say that having used sony for about 1.5 years now
p.3 #6 · Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 VS Sony 24-105 f/4.0
Well, I don't know whether my experience would be suitable for you.
I have both lenses, but for the 24-105 f/4, I use the sigma for canon version via MC-11 (you can get a pre-owned sigma for around 500 dollars). The 24-105 is better for its focal length coverage and I usually use it when I travel alone. But I prefer to use Tamron as my walkaround lens when traveling with friends as I sometimes have to shoot portraits. These two lenses are really different for usage. So I'd recommend you first to think about what you shooting most. If you want a do it all lens, I would recommend Tamron. If you want better coverage, go with Sony 24-105 and also try to grab some of your favorite primes.
p.3 #7 · Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 VS Sony 24-105 f/4.0
I was not very impressed by initial samples of Tamron but more i look on the latest ones the more i want this lens. Already own 24-105 f4. It is great at 24mm stopped down to f8-11 for landscapes but for anything else as general walk around lens f4 is just not cutting it. I could sell 24-105, replace it with Tamron 28-75 2.8 and for missing 24mm i can get 24 1.4GM im planning to get anyway.
p.3 #8 · Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 VS Sony 24-105 f/4.0
A user in this thread on DPReview ... https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4334778
... reports some sort of banding, apparently electronic interference, when using the Tamron FE 28-75/2.8 lens on the A7RIII at high ISO settings. Same shots with the Sony 85/1.8 lens, with the same settings, show no banding. Strange! Anybody else seeing this with their Tamron lens?
p.3 #9 · Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 VS Sony 24-105 f/4.0
milkod2001 wrote:
I was not very impressed by initial samples of Tamron but more i look on the latest ones the more i want this lens. Already own 24-105 f4. It is great at 24mm stopped down to f8-11 for landscapes but for anything else as general walk around lens f4 is just not cutting it. I could sell 24-105, replace it with Tamron 28-75 2.8 and for missing 24mm i can get 24 1.4GM im planning to get anyway.
I was like you. Stats on this lens were not impressive according to test vs the G lens, but one event job converted me fully. Shooting portraits and candids with my a7III became much more confident and actually pleasurable. Edited the job and I am totally sold. I would probably not use it for a landscape job...that will go to primes or 16-35 or 12-24.
p.3 #11 · Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 VS Sony 24-105 f/4.0
echelonphoto wrote:
I was like you. Stats on this lens were not impressive according to test vs the G lens, but one event job converted me fully. Shooting portraits and candids with my a7III became much more confident and actually pleasurable. Edited the job and I am totally sold. I would probably not use it for a landscape job...that will go to primes or 16-35 or 12-24.
I use it for landscapes all the time, seems sharp on my R2/R3.
p.3 #12 · Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 VS Sony 24-105 f/4.0
24 mm is my most used focal length so the decision was easy for me. Btw I use mine for landscapes but it does well as an all a rounder as well. Unlike some of the most recent posters I found the bokeh of the tamron pretty poor but everyonesopinion of bokeh is subjective. I have been extremely happy with the Sony lens and it has taken my best pictures to date.
p.3 #13 · Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 VS Sony 24-105 f/4.0
I agree with your comment about the difference between F4 and 2.8. To add to that, I think the high ISO performance of the III series compensates enough for certain types of event photography. My 35 F2.8 doesn't really help in low light compared to the 24-105, and frankly, the AF isn't as good in low light. Then again, it's a third the cost (used) and weighs next to nothing.
I think the big difference between these two is the subject isolation. I prefer to use primes for that but I can see the use value, especially at wider angles.
p.3 #14 · Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 VS Sony 24-105 f/4.0
I’ve had them both and for what my use was for these is more PR type work and the F4 just was too slow and bought the Tammy. Now I’m just primes but depending on your use case it’s a interesting choice or both. Admittedly I’m not a big zoom fan and currently don’t have any
p.3 #15 · Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 VS Sony 24-105 f/4.0
For me a zoom is flexibility and the 24mm of the 24-105 wins every day over the limited 28-75. If I need speed, I shoot primes...if I want the convenience of a zoom...then give me the convenience and don’t limit me to 28-75 when a very good 24-105 option is available.
p.3 #16 · Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 VS Sony 24-105 f/4.0
Well both these zooms are quite good, I had them both and tested them both. That part is kind of easy as they do very well for sure. I do think mostly though it maybe a different use case for them. For me at least the Tammy made more sense for the type of work I used it for. The Sony at least to me is more a outside type environment lens. The good news here is you can buy either one and be quite happy with them. The zoom world has stepped it up in recent years.
It turns out I wanted more speed so went with the Sony 24 and 50 1.4 and I do like primes better anyway. I’m still stuck in the past on zooms. Not that one should or not be I’m just a prime guy and I don’t get along well with zooms. But that’s me
p.3 #17 · Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 VS Sony 24-105 f/4.0
I sold my 24-105 for Tammy and i hope i like it. I used 24-105 in Ladakh and it was very useful as one lens solution on a long hike and for driving around to different locations. I sold it because I thought it was a bit large and heavy. Also I couldn’t shoot at 24 and filters without black corners. Could be user error.
p.3 #18 · Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 VS Sony 24-105 f/4.0
moby59 wrote:
To start with something that can be useful, I would be happy if someone has the lens(es) to make the following test : a portrait (or similar) framed identical, one at 75mm f/2.8 and the other at 105 f/4.0 (so from a bit further away) to give an idea of the difference of bokeh. Anyone with a 70-200 f/2.8 can make the test (I don't have one).
Did anyone make this test?
In my case, I'll would like to know if it's possible to obtain similar narrow field of view of the Tampon f/2.8 using a higher focal length + f/4.0 on the Sony lens (with the subject further away in order to keep similar frame composition).
One example could be what moby59 wrote and could be grate others examples.
p.3 #19 · Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 VS Sony 24-105 f/4.0
I found f/2.8 made my zoom lens more flexible than the added focal range you get with the 24-105, so I went with the Tamron, and have been very happy with it for a variety of things, including some landscapes. Currently my only zoom lens actually. If I need wider than 28, in my uses, I usually have time/flexibility to reach for my 24 GM. Depending on what you shoot the range might be more important than f/2.8, in which case I don't think you can go wrong with the 24-105. Nice we have 2 good choices.
p.3 #20 · Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 VS Sony 24-105 f/4.0
gocolts wrote:
I found f/2.8 made my zoom lens more flexible than the added focal range you get with the 24-105, so I went with the Tamron, and have been very happy with it for a variety of things, including some landscapes. Currently my only zoom lens actually. If I need wider than 28, in my uses, I usually have time/flexibility to reach for my 24 GM. Depending on what you shoot the range might be more important than f/2.8, in which case I don't think you can go wrong with the 24-105. Nice we have 2 good choices.
it's the age old question that spans hundreds of years and will continue hundreds of years
ok ok, a little over dramatic, however the debate has been going on as long as the 28-70 f2.8's have been around, range vs aperture.
outdoor landscapes primarily, the range wins it.
Jack of all trades, the faster lens wins it.
if I traveled without kids and family, I'de take the 24-105 as I'de likely be on my own shooting landscapes, and for indoor low light, I'de bring the baddest primes
well, I travel with family, so I send to keep things minimal, and that means giving up some range and aperture, as I typically dont bring fast lenses.
