tsdevine wrote:
So is the discrepancy between corners consistent at infinity?
Not exactly. I did was Fred's quick decentering test. The second copy looked quite good (but not perfect) at 28, 35, 50, and 75mm.
The first copy, always had one corner quite blurry but it usually was the bottom right although at 35mm it was the upper left that was way out. So while this test I wasn't specifically looking across the frame at infinity, it did indicate issues when focused at infinity for the first copy of the lens.
I don't suppose anyone has noticed any battery drain issues with the 28-75 G2?
I got mine on Friday, tested it briefly, and the battery was drained when I turned it on in Saturday (from about 35%). I put a fresh battery in on Saturday and it was down to 23% when I turned it back on this morning.
Haven't noticed it yet on my a7R III, but I'll keep an eye on it.
Andydr wrote:
Hi everyone.
I don't suppose anyone has noticed any battery drain issues with the 28-75 G2?
I got mine on Friday, tested it briefly, and the battery was drained when I turned it on in Saturday (from about 35%). I put a fresh battery in on Saturday and it was down to 23% when I turned it back on this morning.
I have yet to formally test mine for centering, but I think it's pretty close. I'll try to see if I notice any oddness shooting at shorter distances. I do see less foreground depth of field (similar to my FE 24-105) compared to some of my primes.
amv8 wrote:
Not exactly. I did was Fred's quick decentering test. The second copy looked quite good (but not perfect) at 28, 35, 50, and 75mm.
The first copy, always had one corner quite blurry but it usually was the bottom right although at 35mm it was the upper left that was way out. So while this test I wasn't specifically looking across the frame at infinity, it did indicate issues when focused at infinity for the first copy of the lens.
I shoot the Sony 24-105mm regularly. I very briefly tested the Tamron 28-75mm that my local store had in stock.
I am very impressed with the 28-75. It is well built, has some unique features, and is optically excellent for a zoom. Yes, a slight bit sharper in the corners than the Sony. I was very tempted to switch to it. It would complete the Tamron f/2.8 Zoom trilogy for me. I already have and am pleased with the 17-28, and the 70-180. That would be an excellent and capable travel kit. However, for now I have decided to stick with the Sony 24-105.
Midrange zooms like this I use as much for a walk around, as I do for landscapes. In this capacity I find that the expanded focal lengths the Sony provides very valuable. I would miss that.
In its capacity as a hand held walkaround lens the built in image stabilization is a big plus. In low light situations it more than compensates for being one stop slower. I will get more keepers using it.
Stopped down to landscape apertures and shot on a tripod both lenses have excellent IQ. I don't think there will be any significant difference after post processing. I do think that at the stopped down apertures for quick landscapes hand held, the image stabilization will get me more sharp images.
At times I would prefer the f/2.8 aperture of the Tamron for subject separation. But I find I am able to get what I need at f/4 with positioning, FL, and other techniques.
The 24-105 pairs better with some lens selections when going to places where longer FL are an advantage. When I am going to take my 100-400 (+TC) instead of the 70-180 on a trip that includes long landscapes, or wildlife opportunities, the 24-105 provides seamless focal length continuity.
The 24-105 can also operate at full 30 fps on my a1 instead of being limited to 15fps.
All that said, at the price difference if the Tamron had been available 4 years ago I might have bought it instead. I just won't sell the Sony for the Tamron.
I hope you find this brief discussion on why I made my choice useful.
This thread is making me wonder again if the new G2 represents better value for money than the Sigma...
(It seems like the internal dust problem is getting worse)
So these are informal tests in real word shooting scenarios. Not as controlled as some would want. I may try to do those at some point, but with autumn I'm more interested in shooting real things vs tests.
Here is a comparison, all tripod mounted, AF with lenses supported...MF for the CV. I did focus on the same spot on all 3. These were all processed in Lightroom, same sharpening/contrast, etc. I disabled all lens corrections that can be disabled, but I did check the remove CA checkbox.
If you look at the small versions displayed, you won't see much difference. You have to download the full size files to see differences. Granted, what is a material or not material in sharpness is really a subjective thing that each person needs to assess for themselves.
Sony a7R III + Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 Di III VXD G2 - 35mm @ f/5.6
Again I will try to do something more formal, like infinity shots from wide open to f/8 or so, at multiple FLs. But it will probably take me some time to do that.
So these are informal tests in real word shooting scenarios. Not as controlled as some would want. I may try to do those at some point, but with autumn I'm more interested in shooting real things vs tests.
Here is a comparison, all tripod mounted, AF with lenses supported...MF for the CV. I did focus on the same spot on all 3. These were all processed in Lightroom, same sharpening/contrast, etc. I disabled all lens corrections that can be disabled, but I did check the remove CA checkbox.
If you look at the small versions displayed, you won't see much difference. You have to download the full size files to see differences. Granted, what is a material or not material in sharpness is really a subjective thing that each person needs to assess for themselves.
Sony a7R III + Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 Di III VXD G2 - 35mm @ f/5.6
Again I will try to do something more formal, like infinity shots from wide open to f/8 or so, at multiple FLs. But it will probably take me some time to do that.
Tim, what was your impression between the 24-105 and the 28-75? Was there enough difference to be obvious or is it really a pixel peeping thing and mostly because you have identical shots? I imagine the 35 apo wins on resolution and contrast, that’s a very different lens.
My sigma 24-70 is supposed to arrive today. I am thinking I will order a 28-75 g2 to try as well. To some extent no matter how many reviews you look at nothing replaces trying it yourself. I think reviews help you to know what you don’t want to try. I am keeping my 24-105, but want to add a faster zoom as well.
tschopp wrote:
My sigma 24-70 is supposed to arrive today. I am thinking I will order a 28-75 g2 to try as well. To some extent no matter how many reviews you look at nothing replaces trying it yourself. I think reviews help you to know what you don’t want to try. I am keeping my 24-105, but want to add a faster zoom as well.
I would be very interested in seeing a comparison of the Sigma 24-70 and the 28-75 G2, especially with respect to sharpness and rendering.
Okay, these comments are based on having the time to do a couple hours of shooting on one day...and my interest was more focused on how the Tamron compares to my primes, not the 24-105. My impression of the 24-105 is that it's an excellent all around lens, very flexible in covering a broad FL range, having OSS, etc. But at different FLs and different apertures it's a little bit of a mixed bag (some FLs are sharper across the frame than other FLs at the same aperture.) This is not uncommon for zooms.
Primes are easier to judge...you have one FL and you run the apertures, and you can get a feel for performance. Maybe you need to look for field curvature and focus shift, but you can figure it out somewhat quickly. It takes me to sort of understand how a zoom performs at different FLs, it takes some quality shooting time.
So far, I've found the Tamron to be "closer" to my CVs in performance than it is to the Sony. One area the CVs always seem to win is that the depth of field at a given aperture seems wider at a given f-stop than either of the zooms. So for landscape that's a big advantage. It has more bite in general (sharpness and contrast), but the Tamron is closer to the CVs than it is to my 24-105. Again....my judgement based on my copies of the lenses on the a7R III. All based on a few hours of shooting, so take it for what it is.
My copy seems very close to perfectly centered, at least more centered then I often expect from a zoom. It's sharp from wide open, to the corners, and every FL I've shot.
Again, the knock I feel is that it seems like there is a loss of foreground depth of field compared to my other lenses at the same aperture (similar to the 24-105.) I don't know if it's focus shift or something else. I have not tested sharpness across the frame at close distances, so I know others have expressed some concern there.
For me, there is tangible difference between the 24-105 and 28-75. Again, based on limited shooting.....
tschopp wrote:
Tim, what was your impression between the 24-105 and the 28-75? Was there enough difference to be obvious or is it really a pixel peeping thing and mostly because you have identical shots? I imagine the 35 apo wins on resolution and contrast, that’s a very different lens.
My sigma 24-70 is supposed to arrive today. I am thinking I will order a 28-75 g2 to try as well. To some extent no matter how many reviews you look at nothing replaces trying it yourself. I think reviews help you to know what you don’t want to try. I am keeping my 24-105, but want to add a faster zoom as well....Show more →
I agree it's hard to judge a lens without trying it yourself, and even though I haven't tried the Sigma 24-70, I suspect it would give it a run for the money. Really comes down to the size/weight/rendering/FL range type questions.
tschopp wrote:
Tim, what was your impression between the 24-105 and the 28-75? Was there enough difference to be obvious or is it really a pixel peeping thing and mostly because you have identical shots? I imagine the 35 apo wins on resolution and contrast, that’s a very different lens.
My sigma 24-70 is supposed to arrive today. I am thinking I will order a 28-75 g2 to try as well. To some extent no matter how many reviews you look at nothing replaces trying it yourself. I think reviews help you to know what you don’t want to try. I am keeping my 24-105, but want to add a faster zoom as well....Show more →
Roadless wrote:
Has anyone tried the 28-75 G2 and the Sony 24-105 f4? How do they compare?
My wife has the Sony. While I find it to be a good all round lens, it doesn't really impress me.
I'm not expecting great things from any mid-range zoom, but Dustin Abbott's review seems promising.
I had the Sony 24-105 but sold it a while back so I can't do a side-by-side comparison. The Sony has a great range, but was not as strong in the corners and the edges, especially on the wider end of the range. I also have the 16-35GM which performs much better where it overlaps with the 24-105mm which is one of the reasons I decided to sell the lens. I've done a brief side-by-side at 28mm and 35mm between the 28-75 G2 and the 16-35mm. The lenses looked pretty close. Depending on aperture, I'd generalize that for the specific test (flat wall), the Tamron was a touch better at the center and the Sony was a touch better at the corners/edges.
I've also read Dustin's review on the 28-75mm G2. I enjoy his reviews and think he does a very thorough job. However, I note that the Tamron lenses he's testing (at least recently) are being supplied by Tamron. So I'm going to assume that these are cherry picked/optimized copies that show best case performance. I've tested two copies of the 28-75mm with noticeable variation of performance between the two. Even the better copy doesn't show the level of field flatness/sharpness he's seeing wide open.
Dang my luck with Tamron....I've only ever bought 2 and they've both been perfect (okay.....not sure I can say the 28-75 is perfect, but it's close.)
Meanwhile I've had some trouble with just about every other manufacturer. It really does seem to come down to luck of the draw for the average Joe like us.
amv8 wrote:
I had the Sony 24-105 but sold it a while back so I can't do a side-by-side comparison. The Sony has a great range, but was not as strong in the corners and the edges, especially on the wider end of the range. I also have the 16-35GM which performs much better where it overlaps with the 24-105mm which is one of the reasons I decided to sell the lens. I've done a brief side-by-side at 28mm and 35mm between the 28-75 G2 and the 16-35mm. The lenses looked pretty close. Depending on aperture, I'd generalize that for the specific test (flat wall), the Tamron was a touch better at the center and the Sony was a touch better at the corners/edges.
I've also read Dustin's review on the 28-75mm G2. I enjoy his reviews and think he does a very thorough job. However, I note that the Tamron lenses he's testing (at least recently) are being supplied by Tamron. So I'm going to assume that these are cherry picked/optimized copies that show best case performance. I've tested two copies of the 28-75mm with noticeable variation of performance between the two. Even the better copy doesn't show the level of field flatness/sharpness he's seeing wide open....Show more →
I‘m also tempted by the Sigma 28-70 f2.8. However, I already have a 24-70mm and I like 24mm because it provides you with a lot more versatility.
Any (valid) reasons to pick the Tamron and not the Sigma 28-70mm 2.8? I read that it‘s not really sharp at 70mm. The Tamron seems to be perfect at any focal length.
Edit and btw.: Do you mind the different directions of rotation of the Sigma zooms? I can already tell when I rarely use the Sigma 24-70 that I‘m always a bit “confused“ at first ...
So I wonder if the combination 17-28 (Tamron) + 28-70 Sigma is a good combination in this regard. Is it just me who has these concerns?
tsdevine wrote:
Dang my luck with Tamron....I've only ever bought 2 and they've both been perfect (okay.....not sure I can say the 28-75 is perfect, but it's close.)
Meanwhile I've had some trouble with just about every other manufacturer. It really does seem to come down to luck of the draw for the average Joe like us.
I have one other Tamron lens, the 70-180mm. The copy I received is stellar which is why I was a so disappointed with the first copy of the 28-75mm G2 I received...
