Sony 24-105 still a (really) good choice in 2025 (soon 2026)?
p.2 #1Sony 24-105 still a (really) good choice in 2025 (soon 2026)?
Ross Martin wrote:
Here’s a comparison between my excellent copy of the 24-105 and the 24-70/2.8 GMII on tripod with EFCS and self timer, at f/8 so I could see any differences/similarities for landscape apertures, first pic is entire frame and then two different 100% screen captures:
copy variation is huuuge on the 24-105. we have both had stunners for sure! people talk about this lens sometimes like it's a completely different lens than what we have used... because it probably is! haha
Here’s a comparison between my excellent copy of the 24-105 and the 24-70/2.8 GMII on tripod with EFCS and self timer, at f/8 so I could see any differences/similarities for landscape apertures, first pic is entire frame and then two different 100% screen captures:
copy variation is huuuge on the 24-105. we have both had stunners for sure! people talk about this lens sometimes like it's a completely different lens than what we have used... because it probably is! haha
Dec 26, 2025 at 10:58 AM
p.2 #2Sony 24-105 still a (really) good choice in 2025 (soon 2026)?
Maximilian wrote:
"Sony 24-105 still a (really) good choice in 2025 (soon 2026)?"
not for me, owner of an A7RV and A7cR.
I used to have the Sony 24-105, very practical range, but when I upgraded to 61 megapixes I saw its image quality limitations, so I ended up selling it and buying the GM 2,8/24-70mm II.
Image quality is excellent, but for what I do, I really miss that 70-105mm tele range.
The 24-70mm is the perfect companion to my 2,8/70-200mm II, but sometimes I do need to be taking only one lens, and there I'm not happy with the range of a 24-70mm.
I'm considering...Show more →
That was my thinking as well. It’s Boxing Day too so the temptation of the Sigma 28-105/2.8 might not last :-) well maybe not until this summer again.
"Sony 24-105 still a (really) good choice in 2025 (soon 2026)?"
not for me, owner of an A7RV and A7cR.
I used to have the Sony 24-105, very practical range, but when I upgraded to 61 megapixes I saw its image quality limitations, so I ended up selling it and buying the GM 2,8/24-70mm II.
Image quality is excellent, but for what I do, I really miss that 70-105mm tele range.
The 24-70mm is the perfect companion to my 2,8/70-200mm II, but sometimes I do need to be taking only one lens, and there I'm not happy with the range of a 24-70mm.
I'm considering...Show more →
That was my thinking as well. It’s Boxing Day too so the temptation of the Sigma 28-105/2.8 might not last :-) well maybe not until this summer again.
Dec 26, 2025 at 11:04 AM
p.2 #3Sony 24-105 still a (really) good choice in 2025 (soon 2026)?
Luballs wrote:
...the GM ii is noticeably better in the extreme edges even when viewed at 100%.
Thanks for your insights. Is your quote above still valid at f/8.0 or only at wider apertures?
Luballs wrote:
it gets soft at 105 when pixel peeping.
Same question as above.
...the GM ii is noticeably better in the extreme edges even when viewed at 100%.
Thanks for your insights. Is your quote above still valid at f/8.0 or only at wider apertures?
Luballs wrote:
it gets soft at 105 when pixel peeping.
Same question as above.
Dec 26, 2025 at 11:31 AM
p.2 #4Sony 24-105 still a (really) good choice in 2025 (soon 2026)?
Maximilian wrote:
Thanks for your insights. Is your quote above still valid at f/8.0 or only at wider apertures?
Same question as above.
yes at f5.6 and f8. both lenses are very good wide open and only marginally improve in the periphery upon stopping down. i cannot find the freakin thread on the 28-105 where i posted in depth descriptions of my tripod/brick wall comparisons between the 28-105 and 24-70 gm ii. i think it may have been deleted? they are both better at the wider end and get worse at the very long end on my copies
Luballs wrote
...the GM ii is noticeably better in the extreme edges even when viewed at 100%.Luballs wrote
it gets soft at 105 when pixel peeping.yes at f5.6 and f8. both lenses are very good wide open and only marginally improve in the periphery upon stopping down. i cannot find the freakin thread on the 28-105 where i posted in depth descriptions of my tripod/brick wall comparisons between the 28-105 and 24-70 gm ii. i think it may have been deleted? they are both better at the wider end and get worse at the very long end on my copies
Dec 26, 2025 at 11:49 AM
p.2 #5Sony 24-105 still a (really) good choice in 2025 (soon 2026)?
Kund wrote:
Pardon my question, but since you already have the 35-150, what more do you think the Sony 24-105 will give you?
I understand that Tamron is big and heavy, but Sony isn't much more different...
If I were in your place, I would use the Tamron (which also has a much better aperture range) and buy a UWA prime (if you dont already have anything similar), just in case...
Thank you for your reply to my question. It may sound trivial, but the answer to your question is simply: "24-34mm". In other words, as stated in my initial posting, I cannot imagine that I could live with a lens starting at 28mm since I regularly find it not wide enough whereas 24 seems to be really good in my experience.
I know that the Tamron 35-150 once was introduced as the new/best travel lens. I wouldn't generally object to this assessment, however, I doubt that I would be fully happy. But maybe more than I might think right now.
I have thought about your suggestion myself as well before, so just adding a 16-35 lens for example. But I fear that I would hardly need the 16-23mm. I had some wide angle lenses with me when traveling and basically not used it once (or almost never). I remember the Tamron 17-28 which I had with me while traveling and sold it afterwards. The only one I really made use of (not often) was the Batis 18. I still have it and like its results.
I suppose, the 24 – xxx lens would be more practical for what I shoot. But well, never say never
zeitlos wrote
Although I do already have the Tamron 35-150 2.0-2.8, which I plan to use for events, etc.I understand that Tamron is big and heavy, but Sony isn't much more different...
If I were in your place, I would use the Tamron (which also has a much better aperture range) and buy a UWA prime (if you dont already have anything similar), just in case...
Thank you for your reply to my question. It may sound trivial, but the answer to your question is simply: "24-34mm". In other words, as stated in my initial posting, I cannot imagine that I could live with a lens starting at 28mm since I regularly find it not wide enough whereas 24 seems to be really good in my experience.
I know that the Tamron 35-150 once was introduced as the new/best travel lens. I wouldn't generally object to this assessment, however, I doubt that I would be fully happy. But maybe more than I might think right now.
I have thought about your suggestion myself as well before, so just adding a 16-35 lens for example. But I fear that I would hardly need the 16-23mm. I had some wide angle lenses with me when traveling and basically not used it once (or almost never). I remember the Tamron 17-28 which I had with me while traveling and sold it afterwards. The only one I really made use of (not often) was the Batis 18. I still have it and like its results.
I suppose, the 24 – xxx lens would be more practical for what I shoot. But well, never say never
Dec 26, 2025 at 01:38 PM
p.2 #6Sony 24-105 still a (really) good choice in 2025 (soon 2026)?
BigBabyMoses06 wrote:
Had the 24-105. Best focal range variety available imo if you need wider than 35. Only negative for me was it was far too soft in the corners for me, even in studio at F8. I switched to the 20-70, found it better in every regard but I miss the extra focal range. So, it's a trade off, but I'm being hyper hyper critical here. My last studio session I found I was moving too much and will need something with more reach, and 24mm was plenty wide. Might try the samyang 35/150 next. Had the Tamron 35/150 and didn't...Show more →
Thank you! Yes, I suppose I will most likely also tend to miss more focal length range than wide angle since I am obviously not really capable of shooting wide.
Interesting that you didn't really like the Tamron 35-150. I think it's an incredible lens.
Had the 24-105. Best focal range variety available imo if you need wider than 35. Only negative for me was it was far too soft in the corners for me, even in studio at F8. I switched to the 20-70, found it better in every regard but I miss the extra focal range. So, it's a trade off, but I'm being hyper hyper critical here. My last studio session I found I was moving too much and will need something with more reach, and 24mm was plenty wide. Might try the samyang 35/150 next. Had the Tamron 35/150 and didn't...Show more →
Thank you! Yes, I suppose I will most likely also tend to miss more focal length range than wide angle since I am obviously not really capable of shooting wide.
Interesting that you didn't really like the Tamron 35-150. I think it's an incredible lens.
Dec 26, 2025 at 01:40 PM
p.2 #7Sony 24-105 still a (really) good choice in 2025 (soon 2026)?
jojib wrote:
Sometimes getting a new camera brings more GAS :-) I know, I just got the A7V too. Interesting dilemma you have there since you have the Tamron 35-150. Maybe look into the Sigma 24-70/2.8 II? I'm becoming to be a Sigma guy as I used my 35/1.4 ART FE with the A7V. I also have the new 17-40/1.8 ART for my A6700. I don't have a standard zoom lens for my new camera. If I am getting one I am debating between the aforementioned 24-70, the lighter 28-70/2.8 or the one I am salivating for---the 28-105/2.8------all Sigmas. A couple well...Show more →
Thank you!
As I understood the Sony 24-70 GM II is more or less the same size/weight than the Sigma 24-70 Art II, right?
Of course the Sigma is much cheaper. Still, I would probably go for the Sony if it's the 24-70mm focal range I will decide for in the end. Btw. Last week or so I had the chance to grab one Sony 24-70 GM II in a store, mounted on a Sony A7 IV. I was surprised how "small/light" it was. I remember the older Sony 24-70 GM and next to the new one in this store was the Nikon 24-70mm.. A beast in comparison.
Sometimes getting a new camera brings more GAS :-) I know, I just got the A7V too. Interesting dilemma you have there since you have the Tamron 35-150. Maybe look into the Sigma 24-70/2.8 II? I'm becoming to be a Sigma guy as I used my 35/1.4 ART FE with the A7V. I also have the new 17-40/1.8 ART for my A6700. I don't have a standard zoom lens for my new camera. If I am getting one I am debating between the aforementioned 24-70, the lighter 28-70/2.8 or the one I am salivating for---the 28-105/2.8------all Sigmas. A couple well...Show more →
Thank you!
As I understood the Sony 24-70 GM II is more or less the same size/weight than the Sigma 24-70 Art II, right?
Of course the Sigma is much cheaper. Still, I would probably go for the Sony if it's the 24-70mm focal range I will decide for in the end. Btw. Last week or so I had the chance to grab one Sony 24-70 GM II in a store, mounted on a Sony A7 IV. I was surprised how "small/light" it was. I remember the older Sony 24-70 GM and next to the new one in this store was the Nikon 24-70mm.. A beast in comparison.
Dec 26, 2025 at 01:43 PM
p.2 #8Sony 24-105 still a (really) good choice in 2025 (soon 2026)?
Jeffrey wrote:
Do you mean the Sigma 28-70?
Or actually the Sony 24-70 2.8?
Or the Sony 28-70 2.0
I suppose the second one. Well, I could afford it. Not sure if it makes sense. In a way I think: Okay, this is the real deal, go for it. But then again...Sorry, I should have been more clear. The SONY 28-70 f2.8.
Probably it's me. I still don't know which lens it is that you are talking about.
I have to do more research.
zeitlos wrote
Jeffrey wrote
I don't know your financials, but the 28-70 2.8 is extraordinary.Or actually the Sony 24-70 2.8?
Or the Sony 28-70 2.0
I suppose the second one. Well, I could afford it. Not sure if it makes sense. In a way I think: Okay, this is the real deal, go for it. But then again...
Probably it's me. I still don't know which lens it is that you are talking about.
I have to do more research.
Dec 26, 2025 at 01:45 PM
p.2 #9Sony 24-105 still a (really) good choice in 2025 (soon 2026)?
Copy variation was mentioned a lot in combination with the Sony 24-105. This might be one of the reasons why I'm leaning towards the 24-70mm GM II for the moment.
Dec 26, 2025 at 01:48 PM
p.2 #10Sony 24-105 still a (really) good choice in 2025 (soon 2026)?
I have been very happy with my 24-105 for landscape. If you are pixel peeping in the corners or are shooting in low light, you might prefer another lens.
Dec 26, 2025 at 02:19 PM
|
p.2 #11Sony 24-105 still a (really) good choice in 2025 (soon 2026)?
zeitlos wrote:
Do you mean the Sigma 28-70?
Or actually the Sony 24-70 2.8?
Or the Sony 28-70 2.0
I suppose the second one. Well, I could afford it. Not sure if it makes sense. In a way I think: Okay, this is the real deal, go for it. But then again...Sorry, I should have been more clear. The SONY 28-70 f2.8.Probably it's me. I still don't know which lens it is that you are talking about.
I have to do more research.
I believe he's talking about the Sigma 28-70/2.8.
Jeffrey wrote
zeitlos wrote
Jeffrey wrote
I don't know your financials, but the 28-70 2.8 is extraordinary.Or actually the Sony 24-70 2.8?
Or the Sony 28-70 2.0
I suppose the second one. Well, I could afford it. Not sure if it makes sense. In a way I think: Okay, this is the real deal, go for it. But then again...
I have to do more research.
I believe he's talking about the Sigma 28-70/2.8.
Dec 26, 2025 at 02:23 PM
p.2 #12Sony 24-105 still a (really) good choice in 2025 (soon 2026)?
zeitlos wrote:
Do you mean the Sigma 28-70?
Or actually the Sony 24-70 2.8?
Or the Sony 28-70 2.0
I suppose the second one. Well, I could afford it. Not sure if it makes sense. In a way I think: Okay, this is the real deal, go for it. But then again...Sorry, I should have been more clear. The SONY 28-70 f2.8.Probably it's me. I still don't know which lens it is that you are talking about.
I have to do more research.
---------------------------------------------
mudlake wrote:
Do you mean the Sigma 28-70?
Or actually the Sony 24-70 2.8?
Or the Sony 28-70 2.0
I suppose the second one. Well, I could afford it. Not sure if it makes sense. In a way I think: Okay, this is the real deal, go for it. But then again...Sorry, I should have been more clear. The SONY 28-70 f2.8.Probably it's me. I still don't know which lens it is that you are talking about.
I have to do more research.I believe he's talking about the Sigma 28-70/2.8.
I seem to recall Jeffrey talking about the newer Sony 28-70 f/2.0 GM at one point so I’m thinking that’s the one he means, which is why he mentioned ‘financials’ because it is a higher category in cost. But I could be mistaken
Jeffrey wrote
zeitlos wrote
Jeffrey wrote
I don't know your financials, but the 28-70 2.8 is extraordinary.Or actually the Sony 24-70 2.8?
Or the Sony 28-70 2.0
I suppose the second one. Well, I could afford it. Not sure if it makes sense. In a way I think: Okay, this is the real deal, go for it. But then again...
I have to do more research.
---------------------------------------------
mudlake wrote:
zeitlos wrote
Jeffrey wrote
zeitlos wrote
Jeffrey wrote
I don't know your financials, but the 28-70 2.8 is extraordinary.Or actually the Sony 24-70 2.8?
Or the Sony 28-70 2.0
I suppose the second one. Well, I could afford it. Not sure if it makes sense. In a way I think: Okay, this is the real deal, go for it. But then again...
I have to do more research.
I seem to recall Jeffrey talking about the newer Sony 28-70 f/2.0 GM at one point so I’m thinking that’s the one he means, which is why he mentioned ‘financials’ because it is a higher category in cost. But I could be mistaken
Dec 26, 2025 at 02:29 PM
p.2 #13Sony 24-105 still a (really) good choice in 2025 (soon 2026)?
zeitlos wrote:
Copy variation was mentioned a lot in combination with the Sony 24-105. This might be one of the reasons why I'm leaning towards the 24-70mm GM II for the moment.
bad news time: i think the 24-70 gm ii is above average copy variation too. this is based solely on reading about it on this forum and a hand full of reviews. i only had one copy and i tested it fairly thoroughly and it definitely was far from perfect centering. but it moved from one corner to another throughout the zoom range so it wasn't clearly decentered or tilted in a way i would consider defective at all. quite frankly it was pretty "normal," in that regard. but if you are looking to make an upgrade that will clearly give you BETTER results no matter where you look in the frame or throughout the zoom range then buckle up...
with that said, my copy of the 24-70 gm ii was shockingly good from corner to corner at 24mm even at 200% magnification, very good at 35 and 50mm viewed at normal magnification with a few slightly weaker spots here and there when viewed at 100-200%, and 70mm was very good everywhere except the extreme corners even at normal viewing magnification.
what these newer lenses are (unless you have a terribly defective copy):
-much more contrasty
-much more veiling flare resistant. ghosting flare resistance goes to sigma, with the gm ii being only moderately better than a 24-105 at ghosting
-extremely sharp in the central 2/3 even wide open
-much, much smaller and lighter (at least the gm ii's) than you would expect
if you are like me, all your suffering will come from looking at extreme corners performance. otherwise these much newer lenses are great
Copy variation was mentioned a lot in combination with the Sony 24-105. This might be one of the reasons why I'm leaning towards the 24-70mm GM II for the moment.
bad news time: i think the 24-70 gm ii is above average copy variation too. this is based solely on reading about it on this forum and a hand full of reviews. i only had one copy and i tested it fairly thoroughly and it definitely was far from perfect centering. but it moved from one corner to another throughout the zoom range so it wasn't clearly decentered or tilted in a way i would consider defective at all. quite frankly it was pretty "normal," in that regard. but if you are looking to make an upgrade that will clearly give you BETTER results no matter where you look in the frame or throughout the zoom range then buckle up...
with that said, my copy of the 24-70 gm ii was shockingly good from corner to corner at 24mm even at 200% magnification, very good at 35 and 50mm viewed at normal magnification with a few slightly weaker spots here and there when viewed at 100-200%, and 70mm was very good everywhere except the extreme corners even at normal viewing magnification.
what these newer lenses are (unless you have a terribly defective copy):
-much more contrasty
-much more veiling flare resistant. ghosting flare resistance goes to sigma, with the gm ii being only moderately better than a 24-105 at ghosting
-extremely sharp in the central 2/3 even wide open
-much, much smaller and lighter (at least the gm ii's) than you would expect
if you are like me, all your suffering will come from looking at extreme corners performance. otherwise these much newer lenses are great
Dec 26, 2025 at 02:32 PM
p.2 #14Sony 24-105 still a (really) good choice in 2025 (soon 2026)?
Ross Martin wrote:
I seem to recall Jeffrey talking about the newer Sony 28-70 f/2.0 GM at one point so I’m thinking that’s the one he means, which is why he mentioned ‘financials’ because it is a higher category in cost. But I could be mistaken
Correct. Look up about 5 or 6 posts.
I seem to recall Jeffrey talking about the newer Sony 28-70 f/2.0 GM at one point so I’m thinking that’s the one he means, which is why he mentioned ‘financials’ because it is a higher category in cost. But I could be mistaken
Correct. Look up about 5 or 6 posts.
Dec 26, 2025 at 02:36 PM
p.2 #15Sony 24-105 still a (really) good choice in 2025 (soon 2026)?
Jeffrey wrote:
Correct. Look up about 5 or 6 posts.
That’s what we all did
Ross Martin wrote
I seem to recall Jeffrey talking about the newer Sony 28-70 f/2.0 GM at one point so I’m thinking that’s the one he means, which is why he mentioned ‘financials’ because it is a higher category in cost. But I could be mistakenThat’s what we all did
Dec 26, 2025 at 02:47 PM
p.2 #16Sony 24-105 still a (really) good choice in 2025 (soon 2026)?
zeitlos wrote:
jojib wrote
Sometimes getting a new camera brings more GAS :-) I know, I just got the A7V too. Interesting dilemma you have there since you have the Tamron 35-150. Maybe look into the Sigma 24-70/2.8 II? I'm becoming to be a Sigma guy as I used my 35/1.4 ART FE with the A7V. I also have the new 17-40/1.8 ART for my A6700. I don't have a standard zoom lens for my new camera. If I am getting one I am debating between the aforementioned 24-70, the lighter 28-70/2.8 or the one I am salivating for---the 28-105/2.8------all Sigmas. A couple well known lens reviewers are not so thrilled with the bokeh but I saw sample images from photographers on youtube showing the silky smoothness of the background separation at 105mm. Weight is not a concern, I immediately bought the Sony vertical grip with the A7V. Nor is the fps restriction as I don't plan to shoot sports with a standard zoom lens. The only caveat here is I got the A7V mainly because I want to shoot my 135GM with it (sometimes it's a bit too long for my A6700). Thus the Sigma 24-70/2.8 II might be a better choice.As I understood the Sony 24-70 GM II is more or less the same size/weight than the Sigma 24-70 Art II, right?
Of course the Sigma is much cheaper. Still, I would probably go for the Sony if it's the 24-70mm focal range I will decide for in the end. Btw. Last week or so I had the chance to grab one Sony 24-70 GM II in a store, mounted on a Sony A7 IV. I was surprised how "small/light" it was. I remember the older Sony 24-70 GM and next to the new one in this store was the...Show more →
The Sony is a stellar lens but I couldn’t afford it. But I really love the range of the Sigma 28-105/2.8 lens. Perfect for portraiture! I can go from environmental street portraits straight to head shots. And an f/2.8 to boot! Plus I don’t need to change lenses on the beach.
Dec 26, 2025 at 02:56 PM
p.2 #17Sony 24-105 still a (really) good choice in 2025 (soon 2026)?
Jeffrey wrote:
Correct. Look up about 5 or 6 posts.
I fear that for travel photography it may be not wide enough (I prefer 24 mm) and maybe too big and heavy.
But I am sure you are right that it’s a stellar lens.
Ross Martin wrote
I seem to recall Jeffrey talking about the newer Sony 28-70 f/2.0 GM at one point so I’m thinking that’s the one he means, which is why he mentioned ‘financials’ because it is a higher category in cost. But I could be mistakenI fear that for travel photography it may be not wide enough (I prefer 24 mm) and maybe too big and heavy.
But I am sure you are right that it’s a stellar lens.
Dec 26, 2025 at 03:15 PM
p.2 #18Sony 24-105 still a (really) good choice in 2025 (soon 2026)?
My main zoom is the Tamron 35–150, and I added the Sony 20–70 G to cover the wider end while giving myself a more portable option for day trips and travel. I’m really happy with this combo. I used to own the 24–105, but I ended up selling it. I never did any technical comparisons, but the images always felt a bit flat and uninspiring to me, and the lens itself was too bulky for what it offered as a slow f/4.
Dec 26, 2025 at 03:30 PM
p.2 #19Sony 24-105 still a (really) good choice in 2025 (soon 2026)?
zeitlos wrote:
Correct. Look up about 5 or 6 posts.That’s what we all did
I thought he meant the Sony 24-70 f2?
All joking aside I'll take the Sigma 20-200 over the 24-105. The newer tech is hard to beat.
Jeffrey wrote
Ross Martin wrote
I seem to recall Jeffrey talking about the newer Sony 28-70 f/2.0 GM at one point so I’m thinking that’s the one he means, which is why he mentioned ‘financials’ because it is a higher category in cost. But I could be mistaken I thought he meant the Sony 24-70 f2?
All joking aside I'll take the Sigma 20-200 over the 24-105. The newer tech is hard to beat.
Dec 26, 2025 at 07:34 PM
p.2 #20Sony 24-105 still a (really) good choice in 2025 (soon 2026)?
zeitlos wrote:
Having said all that I find the Nikon Z 24-120mm better than anything that is Sony compatible.Indeed, the Nikon 24-120 sounds like a great offer.
But well, (still) not available as a Sony lens. (24-120). Maybe they will offer a new 24-105 someday as a 24-120?
Why was it that you liked the 24-105 better than the 24-70 GM (Mk I)? And why did you not really fall in love with it?
What I didn't like about the 24-70 GM (Ver 1) was the weight, 82mm filter size which made the use of split ND filters impractical since you needed 100mm size, and stopped down to f7.1 didn't seem any sharper than the 24-105 G. Why I never fell in love with the 24-105mm was the color and contrast of the G lens coatings. It doesn't match the 16-35 GM, and while it could be made better in post, never really satisfied. The Tamron is sharper, smaller and faster than the 24-105, but the zoom range is very limited. Colors are different but nice.
billsnature wrote
My experience is similar to Ross's post above. I liked the 24-105 better than the 24-70 GM (ver 1) but never really loved the lens. I wound up with the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 Gen. 2 which I found better than the two Sony's. I have not tried the Sony 20-70 as I believe my 16-35 GM II would be way better between 20 and 35mm. Tamron is a great lens for the price if you can live with 28mm as the widest.Having said all that I find the Nikon Z 24-120mm better than anything that is Sony compatible.
But well, (still) not available as a Sony lens. (24-120). Maybe they will offer a new 24-105 someday as a 24-120?
Why was it that you liked the 24-105 better than the 24-70 GM (Mk I)? And why did you not really fall in love with it?
What I didn't like about the 24-70 GM (Ver 1) was the weight, 82mm filter size which made the use of split ND filters impractical since you needed 100mm size, and stopped down to f7.1 didn't seem any sharper than the 24-105 G. Why I never fell in love with the 24-105mm was the color and contrast of the G lens coatings. It doesn't match the 16-35 GM, and while it could be made better in post, never really satisfied. The Tamron is sharper, smaller and faster than the 24-105, but the zoom range is very limited. Colors are different but nice.
Dec 26, 2025 at 11:47 PM