Tamron 28-75 or Sony 24-105

Philnw2 · Aug 14, 2018

Just got an email from BH Photo that my 28-75 has shipped - yes - amazing to me that i've kept the same opinion for over a month

Ordered it July 1st - shipped Aug 13th.

--
Phil B

jor23 · Aug 14, 2018

lol

i know i won't be able to ...

Scrollop · Aug 14, 2018

You'll know that when you review your photos and you have a lot of 80-105mm and 24mm photos that you made a good choice.

If you find that most of your photos are <75mm, maybe not (though that's less likely, I'd say).

I agree that the 24-105 plus 35mm 1.4 is a great combo, and what I now use (throwing in a 16-35F4).

If you didn't have the 35mm 1.4 and weren't thinking of purchasing one, the tamron would have been more attractive, one could say.

Yosuke_Yamamoto · Aug 14, 2018

Trollmannx said:
Have been using the 4/24-105 G for a while now. Terrific sharpness and contrast for a zoom lens, not too limited range, and f/4 is only one ISO stop from f/2.8.

For portraits I often use f/4 at 105mm (actually giving slightly less DOF than 75mm at f/2.8. With eye focus portraits generally turn out sharp where it matters.

In my case the 28-75 range is a bit lacking given that the 24-105mm G lens is around. But we are different, and so it is here...

I think both are fine lenses.

I was wondering how you calculate DOF at given focal lengths/aperture/subject distance from lens? I use the website linked below with the comparison between 105 f/4 and 75 f/2.8, which shows the background blur is similar and slightly more on the 75 f/2.8 lens (i.e. less DOF). In actual practice I'm sure they will look very similar...

How Much Blur

Corelli · Aug 14, 2018

How often are going to "need" the extra stop and how often are you going to "need" the extra 4mm on the wide end and the 30mm on the long end?

For me, the choice was clear and I went for the 24-105 F4 and I sleep easy at night.

I have the very light and compact 28 F2 for low light situations which fits easily in my bag next to the zoom.

Cheers

robpaub · Aug 14, 2018

I was in the same boat as you a few days ago and I ended up cancelling my pre-order for the 28-75 and got the 24-105 instead. 2.8 is not important to me since I mainly shoot landscapes at F8 or F11. The extra reach at on both ends is indispensable for my application. Plus with the bonus of OSS and better construction and weather sealing makes it an easier choice.

Grats on the purchase.

Philnw2 · Aug 14, 2018

Corelli said:
How often are going to "need" the extra stop and how often are you going to "need" the extra 4mm on the wide end and the 30mm on the long end?

For me, the choice was clear and I went for the 24-105 F4 and I sleep easy at night.

I have the very light and compact 28 F2 for low light situations which fits easily in my bag next to the zoom.

Cheers

DenImage · Aug 14, 2018

Corelli said:
How often are going to "need" the extra stop and how often are you going to "need" the extra 4mm on the wide end and the 30mm on the long end?

For me, the choice was clear and I went for the 24-105 F4 and I sleep easy at night.

I have the very light and compact 28 F2 for low light situations which fits easily in my bag next to the zoom.

Cheers

Been said many times before.

Take a couple of steps back for the extra 4mm, take a few steps forward for the extra 30mm. You can't turn an f4 into an f2.8 no matter how you spin it.

If you absolutely must have 24mm, get the new Samyang 24mm f2.8 as well.

Another way to think about it is:

Would you consider buying a wide or normal or short tele f2.8 prime lens? Yes I would.

Would you consider buying a wide or normal or short tele f4 prime lens? No, I wouldn't.

Den

Tristimulus · Aug 14, 2018

Yosuke_Yamamoto said:
Trollmannx said:

Have been using the 4/24-105 G for a while now. Terrific sharpness and contrast for a zoom lens, not too limited range, and f/4 is only one ISO stop from f/2.8.

For portraits I often use f/4 at 105mm (actually giving slightly less DOF than 75mm at f/2.8. With eye focus portraits generally turn out sharp where it matters.

In my case the 28-75 range is a bit lacking given that the 24-105mm G lens is around. But we are different, and so it is here...

Click to expand...

I think both are fine lenses.

I was wondering how you calculate DOF at given focal lengths/aperture/subject distance from lens? I use the website linked below with the comparison between 105 f/4 and 75 f/2.8, which shows the background blur is similar and slightly more on the 75 f/2.8 lens (i.e. less DOF). In actual practice I'm sure they will look very similar...

Physical aperture is the key to DOF (the quality of the bokeh will vary but basically DOF is DOF anyway). Divide the focal lenght by the f/number to get the physical aperture.

75mm / 2.8 = 26.8mm physical aperture (entrance pupil)

105 / 4 = 26.2mm physical aperture

So my memory failed - my initial calculation was for the 2.8/24-70mm lens, and NOT the Tamron 2.8/75mm lens. The added 5mm tip the scale the other way around!

So the Tamron at 2.8/75mm has a miniscule edge when it comes to DOF, then next is the 4/24-105mm at 4/105mm - and as a close third the 2.8/24-70mm at 70mm. The real life differences are miniscule and the quality of the bokeh would be more visible.

Great question, got an opportunity to refresh my memory! ;-)

Guess DOF and bokeh is kind of blurry concepts... :-D

Kansas Ron · Aug 14, 2018

Excellent travel lens. The range covered is near perfect, unless you need wider than 24 mm.

DP13Photo · Aug 14, 2018

jor23 said:
ended up ordering a 24-105. will use it mainly for travel.

The 24-105 is now my most used lens. You will be happy with your choice.

Damiroz · Aug 14, 2018

robpaub said:
robpaub wrote: Plus with the bonus of OSS and better construction and weather sealing makes it an easier choice.

Actually the Tamron is better weather sealed than the Sony, beacuse it has rubber gasket around the mount.

Corelli · Aug 14, 2018

Fail to see how I was "turning this into a religion", but hey whatever floats your boat.

Cheers

Corelli · Aug 14, 2018

DenImage said:
Corelli said:

How often are going to "need" the extra stop and how often are you going to "need" the extra 4mm on the wide end and the 30mm on the long end?

For me, the choice was clear and I went for the 24-105 F4 and I sleep easy at night.

I have the very light and compact 28 F2 for low light situations which fits easily in my bag next to the zoom.

Cheers

Click to expand...

Been said many times before.

Take a couple of steps back for the extra 4mm, take a few steps forward for the extra 30mm. You can't turn an f4 into an f2.8 no matter how you spin it.

Sounds easy enough, but it often isn't when in crowded European cities and you have limited time due to the limited patience of the people you may be traveling with

DenImage said:
If you absolutely must have 24mm, get the new Samyang 24mm f2.8 as well.

Another way to think about it is:

Would you consider buying a wide or normal or short tele f2.8 prime lens? Yes I would.

Not for the OP's stated purpose as a travel lens. As a low light option, yes and I have.

DenImage said:
Would you consider buying a wide or normal or short tele f4 prime lens? No, I wouldn't.

Sure. I would seriously consider a 20 or 18mm F4 if it were exceptional in other regards. I would use it as a landscape or cityscape lens on a tripod stopped down to F8 which is what I often do anyway. Why would I spend possibly double the price for the extra stop if that is my intended purpose?

DenImage said:
Den

James Stirling · Aug 14, 2018

DenImage said:
Corelli said:

How often are going to "need" the extra stop and how often are you going to "need" the extra 4mm on the wide end and the 30mm on the long end?

For me, the choice was clear and I went for the 24-105 F4 and I sleep easy at night.

I have the very light and compact 28 F2 for low light situations which fits easily in my bag next to the zoom.

Cheers

Click to expand...

Been said many times before.

Take a couple of steps back for the extra 4mm, take a few steps forward for the extra 30mm. You can't turn an f4 into an f2.8 no matter how you spin it.

If you absolutely must have 24mm, get the new Samyang 24mm f2.8 as well.

Another way to think about it is:

Would you consider buying a wide or normal or short tele f2.8 prime lens? Yes I would.

Would you consider buying a wide or normal or short tele f4 prime lens? No, I wouldn't.

I just read your post in this very thread . Apparently you would also buy an F/4.5 prime and a T: 5.6 prime { which by the way is not a macro lens }

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/61493708

DenImage said:
Den

captura · Aug 14, 2018

I going to keep my FE 28-70 and wait a few months to get the forth-coming Canon version of the new Tamron 17-35mm F2.8-4 Di OSD, or I will wait for the eventual Sony FE version.

https://www.dpreview.com/products/tamron/lenses/tamron_17-35_2p8-4_di_osd

W3PYF · Aug 14, 2018

Damiroz said:
Damiroz said:

robpaub wrote: Plus with the bonus of OSS and better construction and weather sealing makes it an easier choice.

Click to expand...

Actually the Tamron is better weather sealed than the Sony, beacuse it has rubber gasket around the mount.

Fascinating - didn't know that!

I rented a 24-105mm for a weekend, and it was FABULOUS.

But its front element is huge - 77mm vs 67mm for the Tamron. Neither lens is wide enough for dedicated landscape use, and neither is long enough to be a suitable long lens for travel.

I decided that since I'd be shooting it on either my A7III or A7II - both with IBIS - OSS was less important. The $500 difference between the 2 lenses will pay for a lot on my upcoming Italy-Croatia trip - like, 5+ days of Airbnb, or most of the fuel for a 3-week trip.

Tamron: Faster. 6 year warranty. Lighter. Fits in my current camera bags

Easy decision.

And the results are very pleasing.

Mike Fewster · Aug 14, 2018

jor23 said:
Both seem to be good choice for travel.

I am looking for a zoom to use during travel with family, with a7riii.

The plan is to carry this zoom alone; or zoom with 35mm f1.4 for low light; or this zoom with 16-35 f2.8 when needed.

I am leaning towards 24-105, as I do have other options for indoor low light (35 f1.4 or 16-35 f2.8). The only concern is if environmental portrait would look much better with f2.8 (i.e. around 35mm - 50mm). I doubt the difference would be that much. Survived with Olympus 12-40mm f2.8 for years.

Any thoughts?

For me, 24-70 and maybe 24-105 is perfect for a walkaround lens. I want a walkaround lens for its versatility so I can respond quickly in walkaround situations. Especially when travelling, I dont want to be changing a lens in busy and often dusty situations and when photo opportunities may be changing fast. For me, alot of those opportunities are in the less than 28mm length. I had the 28-70 kit originally and I went nuts travelling having to change it for something a bit wider repeatedly. For me, the extra 24-28 range is far more important all the time than the rare occasions I might have seen some advantage in having 2.8.

ChitesLV · Aug 14, 2018

My local camera store actually had both in stock when I bought my A7III. I didn't "feel" much difference in size or weight in my camera bag so I called the carry factor a tie. The Tamron at F2.8 was tempting but the A7III is great with higher ISO I son't feel I was missing anything with a constant F4. In the end I wanted a bit wider and bit more reach so the 24-105 came home with me. I could have been very happy with either as they are both excellent lenses.

captura · Aug 14, 2018

James Stirling said:
captura said:

I going to keep my FE 28-70 and wait a few months to get the forth-coming Canon version of the new Tamron 17-35mm F2.8-4 Di OSD, or I will wait for the eventual Sony FE version.

https://www.dpreview.com/products/tamron/lenses/tamron_17-35_2p8-4_di_osd

Click to expand...

I wondered if an FE version of that lens would be the rumoured wide angle Tamron lens it looks interesting

I expect that any Tamron FE version might more expensive than the EF or Nikon lenses, whatever.

But I wonder if they will just rework the Canon /Nikon mount or build a new lens....the latter may be more likely. And the same design may be used as a basis for new 17-35 Tamron lenses for CaNikon full-frame cameras, since they will undoubtedly be short-registry designs like Sony.

Maybe I will just get the new EF Tamron 17-35, it should be OK with the Sigma adapter?

Tamron 28-75 or Sony 24-105

Senior Member

Senior Member

Leading Member

Member

Senior Member

Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Well-known member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Leading Member

Forum Pro

Member

Forum Pro

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts