Re: Sony 24-105 still a (really) good choice in 2025 (soon 2026)?
zeitlos wrote: Ross Martin wrote:
I have an excellent copy of the 24-105 and it was one of my main lenses on my 3-month fall photography trip - check the last 3 pages of the official image thread:
I carefully tested against my 24-70/2.8 GMII and at landscape apertures there is almost no difference - adding a mere 5 points of clarity and sharpness in Lightroom makes the 24-105 image noticeably better than the 24-70, that’s how close my copies are. Of course the 24-70/2.8 is better for low light travel, but for me the 50% increase in tele focal length on the 24-105 is much appreciated.
Many members here love the 20-70/4. It does not appeal to me because I almost never need 20mm, instead I usually jump to 16mm when 28/24 is not wide enough (so I use the 16-35 f/4 PZ or Sigma 14-24/2.8).
Additionally I have the Tamron 28-75/2.8 G2 and it’s a gem.
Thank you so much for your reply! Your pictures are truly exceptional. And of course, I tell myself that if the 24-105 is good enough for you, then it's a hundred times better than enough for me.
I would have assumed that you didn't get the 20-70 because you prefer the telephoto range of the 24-105. But now I read that it's the 20mm difference that's not quite enough. Yes, of course, that makes sense.
It's interesting that you also have the 28-75 Tamron! I haven't quite taken it off my list yet. But I know that 28mm is often just a tad too long for me when traveling. For many years, I used the APS-C 16-50mm on my Pentax K-5, etc., and that was a great focal length range.
So why/what do you use the 28-75mm Tamron for? What makes it a "gem" in your opinion? That brings me back to the question of whether the 24-70 GM II wouldn't be the better solution, to avoid needing another zoom lens later. Although I do already have the Tamron 35-150 2.0-2.8, which I plan to use for events, etc.
Thanks for the image examples! Yes, there really isn't much of a difference to see.
Thank you for your kind word! I’ve migrated to the 24-105 because of the range, especially when I have the 100-400 on my 2nd body. And at landscape apertures I’m not missing out on IQ. But the 24-70/2.8 GMII is a fantastic lens and would be my choice if shooting a lot of work at f/2.8 and f/4. Plus it has the aperture ring, a control to make the zoom smoother or tighter, and a door in the hood to access your polarizing filter. It’s hard to go wrong with that 24-70/2.8 GMII.
I said the Tamron 28-75/2.8 G2 is a gem (to me) because its size, weight, optical quality, and price make it an outstanding value for many people (I got mine here at FM for around $400 like new). I have not used mine as much yet as other lenses but it might become my main lens photographing my niece on a Disneyworld trip next month in place of the 24-70/2.8 GMII which I just sold.
The Tamron 35-150 you own is pretty much a legendary lens by now and one I have wanted to buy. That’s a beautiful range for how I see and the faster apertures would be very useful for candids and portraits of my niece. I used to shoot with the f/2.8-f/4 version of that lens on Nikon (DSLR) and I loved it for my landscape shoots.
Re: Sony 24-105 still a (really) good choice in 2025 (soon 2026)?
zeitlos wrote: Ross Martin wrote:
I have an excellent copy of the 24-105 and it was one of my main lenses on my 3-month fall photography trip - check the last 3 pages of the official image thread:
I carefully tested against my 24-70/2.8 GMII and at landscape apertures there is almost no difference - adding a mere 5 points of clarity and sharpness in Lightroom makes the 24-105 image noticeably better than the 24-70, that’s how close my copies are. Of course the 24-70/2.8 is better for low light travel, but for me the 50% increase in tele focal length on the 24-105 is much appreciated.
Many members here love the 20-70/4. It does not appeal to me because I almost never need 20mm, instead I usually jump to 16mm when 28/24 is not wide enough (so I use the 16-35 f/4 PZ or Sigma 14-24/2.8).
Additionally I have the Tamron 28-75/2.8 G2 and it’s a gem.
Thank you so much for your reply! Your pictures are truly exceptional. And of course, I tell myself that if the 24-105 is good enough for you, then it's a hundred times better than enough for me.
I would have assumed that you didn't get the 20-70 because you prefer the telephoto range of the 24-105. But now I read that it's the 20mm difference that's not quite enough. Yes, of course, that makes sense.
It's interesting that you also have the 28-75 Tamron! I haven't quite taken it off my list yet. But I know that 28mm is often just a tad too long for me when traveling. For many years, I used the APS-C 16-50mm on my Pentax K-5, etc., and that was a great focal length range.
So why/what do you use the 28-75mm Tamron for? What makes it a "gem" in your opinion? That brings me back to the question of whether the 24-70 GM II wouldn't be the better solution, to avoid needing another zoom lens later. Although I do already have the Tamron 35-150 2.0-2.8, which I plan to use for events, etc.
Thanks for the image examples! Yes, there really isn't much of a difference to see.
Thank you for your kind word! I’ve migrated to the 24-105 because of the range, especially when I have the 100-400 on my 2nd body. And at landscape apertures I’m not missing out on IQ. But the 24-70/2.8 GMII is a fantastic lens and would be my choice if shooting a lot of work at f/2.8 and f/4. Plus it has the aperture ring, a control to make the zoom smoother or tighter, and a door in the hood to access your polarizing filter. It’s hard to go wrong with that 24-70/2.8 GMII.
I said the Tamron 28-75/2.8 G2 is a gem (to me) because it’s size, weight, optical quality, and price make it an outstanding value for many people (I got mine here at FM for around $400 like new). I have not used mine as much yet as other lenses but it might become my main lens photographing my niece on a Disneyworld trip next month in place of the 24-70/2.8 GMII which I just sold.
The Tamron 35-150 you own is pretty much a legendary lens by now and one I have wanted to buy. That’s a beautiful range for how I see and the faster apertures would be very useful for candids and portraits of my niece. I used to shoot with the f/2.8-f/4 version of that lens on Nikon (DSLR) and I loved it for my landscape shoots.
Dec 26, 2025 at 10:08 AM
Previous versions of Ross Martin's message #16955369 « Sony 24-105 still a (really) good choice in 2025 (soon 2026)? »
That brings me back to the question of whether the 24-70 GM II wouldn't be the better solution, to avoid needing another zoom lens later. Although I do already have the Tamron 35-150 2.0-2.8, which I plan to use for events, etc.