Reading mode: Light Dark

Sony 24-105/4 or Tamron 28-75/2.8?

Sony 24-105/4 or Tamron 28-75/2.8?

  • Total voters
    0
Go to last post
blue_skies

blue_skies

Forum Pro
Messages
12,391
Solutions
36
Reaction score
8,352
Location
CA, US
I see that a lot of reviewers are actually comparing between these two lenses, but I can't find any consensus from the actual Sony FE user base within the archives.

So, here is a quick poll, if you had to buy a standard zoom lens TODAY, which would you prefer? Share your comments in the thread.

The Tamron 28-75 seems to be a winner as a general standard zoom lens with its f/2.8 aperture and excellent sharpness, albeit with some minor needed corrections. It definitely seems to be a no-brainer when comparing to the Sony 24-70 f/4 zoom lens.

The Sony 24-105 hits this 'magical' zoom range of old days, and the f/4.0 compromise is offset by excellent sharpness across the range. 24mm vs 28mm doesn't sound like much, but it can be a big difference, at times.

Price may play a factor, there is a $500 difference between the two lenses.
So is heft, the Sony is a bit larger and a tad heavier.

If an only lens, I can see the pull for the f/2.8 aperture, e.g. for day trips or evenings. However, I do imagine to also be carrying at least one fast prime (cover speed), and likely a wide angle (e.g. 16-35Z f/4.0) lens (cover wider angle).

Please vote in the poll and leave a comment if you have specific thought about either lens. Thanks in advance!

... Note, this is intended for use on the 42Mp A7rII/A7rIII sensor (not the 24Mp A7ii/A7iii).
 
LOL, so many threads on the choices between these days. Really you cannot go wrong with either choice that is solely on your personal priority. My choice on my priority may not apply to others or vice versa.

To me I chose Tamron because,

I carry other lenses - FE 16-35 GM, FE 70-200 G etc so not missing 24 or 105mm

F2.8 and overall sharpness that this Tamron is slightly better

Weight and size. Already carry too many lenses.

Price that is the least factor to me.

So far I am very happy as this lens even beats my trusted Canon 24-70L/2.8 II in all shared FL range, amazing.

--
https://www.flickr.com/photos/55485085@N04/albums
 
Last edited:
blue_skies said:
I see that a lot of reviewers are actually comparing between these two lenses, but I can't find any consensus from the actual Sony FE user base within the archives.

So, here is a quick poll, if you had to buy a standard zoom lens TODAY, which would you prefer? Share your comments in the thread.

The Tamron 28-75 seems to be a winner as a general standard zoom lens with its f/2.8 aperture and excellent sharpness, albeit with some minor needed corrections. It definitely seems to be a no-brainer when comparing to the Sony 24-70 f/4 zoom lens.

The Sony 24-105 hits this 'magical' zoom range of old days, and the f/4.0 compromise is offset by excellent sharpness across the range. 24mm vs 28mm doesn't sound like much, but it can be a big difference, at times.

Price may play a factor, there is a $500 difference between the two lenses.
So is heft, the Sony is a bit larger and a tad heavier.

If an only lens, I can see the pull for the f/2.8 aperture, e.g. for day trips or evenings. However, I do imagine to also be carrying at least one fast prime (cover speed), and likely a wide angle (e.g. 16-35Z f/4.0) lens (cover wider angle).

Please vote in the poll and leave a comment if you have specific thought about either lens. Thanks in advance!

... Note, this is intended for use on the 42Mp A7rII/A7rIII sensor (not the 24Mp A7ii/A7iii).
Click to expand...
Currently using a set of primes to cover this focal range (loxia 25, Sony 50mm macro, loxia 85) but I just ordered a Sony 24-105mm f4 to see how I would like it when paired with my Sony 16-35mm f2.8 GM.

I love my prime lenses but I'm looking for a more minimalist setup with less lens swapping while traveling so giving it a shot. I don't think I really need f2.8 for the outdoors hiking and photography trips that I tend to do and I have the 16-35mm if I do need it. I can see how the Tamron might pair better with the f4 zoom.

I had the Tamron before, nothing wrong with it and it's certainly a great value but the extra reach is more valuable and I prefer first party lenses. I also had some AF issues where eye AF was never truly spot on - I compared it to a 55mm f1.8 I tried before settling on the 50mm f2.8 macro.
 
tonyz1 said:
blue_skies said:
I see that a lot of reviewers are actually comparing between these two lenses, but I can't find any consensus from the actual Sony FE user base within the archives.

So, here is a quick poll, if you had to buy a standard zoom lens TODAY, which would you prefer? Share your comments in the thread.

The Tamron 28-75 seems to be a winner as a general standard zoom lens with its f/2.8 aperture and excellent sharpness, albeit with some minor needed corrections. It definitely seems to be a no-brainer when comparing to the Sony 24-70 f/4 zoom lens.

The Sony 24-105 hits this 'magical' zoom range of old days, and the f/4.0 compromise is offset by excellent sharpness across the range. 24mm vs 28mm doesn't sound like much, but it can be a big difference, at times.

Price may play a factor, there is a $500 difference between the two lenses.
So is heft, the Sony is a bit larger and a tad heavier.

If an only lens, I can see the pull for the f/2.8 aperture, e.g. for day trips or evenings. However, I do imagine to also be carrying at least one fast prime (cover speed), and likely a wide angle (e.g. 16-35Z f/4.0) lens (cover wider angle).

Please vote in the poll and leave a comment if you have specific thought about either lens. Thanks in advance!

... Note, this is intended for use on the 42Mp A7rII/A7rIII sensor (not the 24Mp A7ii/A7iii).
Click to expand...
Currently using a set of primes to cover this focal range (loxia 25, Sony 50mm macro, loxia 85) but I just ordered a Sony 24-105mm f4 to see how I would like it when paired with my Sony 16-35mm f2.8 GM.

I love my prime lenses but I'm looking for a more minimalist setup with less lens swapping while traveling so giving it a shot. I don't think I really need f2.8 for the outdoors hiking and photography trips that I tend to do and I have the 16-35mm if I do need it. I can see how the Tamron might pair better with the f4 zoom.

I had the Tamron before, nothing wrong with it and it's certainly a great value but the extra reach is more valuable and I prefer first party lenses. I also had some AF issues where eye AF was never truly spot on
Click to expand...
Did you update FW that early batches had issue but fixed after FW update? Later batches that already have the latest FW don't have this issue. My Tamron copy AF fast and accurate including eye-AF @F2.8 in entire range.
tonyz1 said:
- I compared it to a 55mm f1.8 I tried before settling on the 50mm f2.8 macro.
Click to expand...
--
https://www.flickr.com/photos/55485085@N04/albums
 
Last edited:
PWPhotography said:
Did you update FW that early batches had issue but fixed after FW update? Later batches that already have the latest FW don't have this issue. My Tamron copy AF fast and accurate including eye-AF @F2.8 in entire range.
Click to expand...
I did - it just wasn't as good as native Sony AF lenses or maybe my expectations were too high. The other big negative is the ergonomics of the lens - while it's small (huge plus), the lack of a AF/MF switch and the reversed zoom/focus rings are huge negatives. I thought I could live with the poor ergonomics until I had the lens and couldn't stand it.
 
Last edited:
tonyz1 said:
PWPhotography said:
Did you update FW that early batches had issue but fixed after FW update? Later batches that already have the latest FW don't have this issue. My Tamron copy AF fast and accurate including eye-AF @F2.8 in entire range.
Click to expand...
I did - it just wasn't as good as native Sony AF lenses or maybe my expectations were too high.
Click to expand...
Maybe latter batches improved? I just received recently and its eye-AF works very well on A7r III and A9.
tonyz1 said:
The other big negative is the ergonomics of the lens - while it's small (huge plus), the lack of a AF/MF switch
Click to expand...
Some Sony and Zeiss Batis lenses also don't have this switch. I assigned this function to C3 button (far left) on A7r III to toggle between AF/MF.
tonyz1 said:
and the reversed zoom/focus rings are huge negatives.
Click to expand...
Yes it's a bit annoying but I get used to it quickly.
tonyz1 said:
I thought I could live with the poor ergonomics until I had the lens and couldn't stand it.
Click to expand...
It is not the best built but still quite acceptable to me. The bottom line is that it's relative light and small and very sharp, surprisingly even beats my trusted Canon EF 24-70L/2.8 II via MB4 or MC-11 in my side by side test .

But Sony 24-105G is also excellent. Personally I carry multiple lenses including FE 16-35 GM and 70-200 G so FL is not a concern but F2.8 and size/weight are more important to me.

--
https://www.flickr.com/photos/55485085@N04/albums
 
Last edited:
PWPhotography said:
Some Sony and Zeiss Batis lenses also don't have this switch. I assigned this function to C3 button (far left) on A7r III to toggle between AF/MF.
Click to expand...
Yeah I meant that only as a comparison vs the Sony 24-105mm f4. I didn't realize how useful that switch was until I had it on the 50mm macro and 16-35mm GM.
PWPhotography said:
PWPhotography said:
and the reversed zoom/focus rings are huge negatives.
Click to expand...
Yes it's a bit annoying but I get used to it quickly.
PWPhotography said:
I thought I could live with the poor ergonomics until I had the lens and couldn't stand it.
Click to expand...
It is not the best built but still quite acceptable to me. The bottom line is that it's relative light and small and very sharp, surprisingly even beats my trusted Canon EF 24-70L/2.8 II via MB4 or MC-11 in my side by side test .

But Sony 24-105G is also excellent. Personally I carry multiple lenses including FE 16-35 GM and 70-200 G so FL is not a concern but F2.8 and size/weight are more important to me.
Click to expand...
Yeah, agree, you can't go wrong with either lenses and the Tamron is better as a supplement to other gear.

I'm mostly solving for a specific use case of traveling with non-photographers on challenging hikes where I have to be fast (light gear and minimize lens switching) and still try to get some good photos in. My "take it easy" travel kit would be the Loxia primes and the 50mm macro.
 
If you want a "Do it all travel lens" I think the Sony might be better, if you want an everyday carry lens and you intend having other lenses, I'd go with the Tamron.
 
I own the a7III but rented an A7RIII as a backup.

The Tamron is so sharp that one can greatly enlarge even A7III images to get outstanding quality.

Look at how sharp this image is, just a fragment of a blowup from an A7III image shot with the A7III. This degree of cropping is unusual for me.

a5fb113557c147bb9a32e7728a459ba7.jpg

As for the difference between 28mm and 24mm, 24mm is obviously wider, but when one needs a wide angle, one wants something much wider than a 24mm. I own a 24mm (Canon FD 24mm f2) that I stopped carrying once I got the Tamron, and use the tiny 15mm Voigtlander.

6b037fb792c44dbb97ae9728e49bfd4d.jpg



f6a4c22b0ec242ec98192fb1a865a05f.jpg



f2b74754c899418c817dd0d209859e3a.jpg



4303a8dbc0f84a479ca305b76f5dc935.jpg

I rented the 24-105 from LensProToGo, and I acknowledge it’s a great lens. But the extra stop of speed with the Tamron lets me shoot in lower light - and saves meaningtful money.
 
I only have the Tamron 28-75 and am extremely happy with it. With its outstanding sharpness, the f2.8 over the full zoom range, the narrow closest focus distance, the light weight and comparably small size it is such a universal lens, all from closeups, landscape to sharp and shallow DOF portraits, low light indoor shots and good for city and outdoor walks. Because this lens is so good, I just ordered the EF-version of the new Tamron 17-35 f2.8-4 for wider angles and will use it on my A7R2 with the MC11. And for longer lengths I have the Sony 70-300. Just waiting for the rumoured e-mount Tamron 70-200 f2.8 now :)
 
Last edited:
I chose the 24-105 because I wanted an "all-in-one" lens that was "good enough" that I wouldn't be kicking myself that I didn't bring one of my primes with me.

It fully serves that purpose for ME since most of my photography is done when travelling with family. When I'm by myself doing "serious" photography I take along my primes.

I had a very good 28-75 2.8 with my a6000, but found it rather limiting compared to my 16-105.

For low light situations, I always have the 28 F2 and/or the Samyang 35 2.8 in my bag since they're both light and compact. They seldom get used however.

I have a nice lightweight and compact tripod that I take with me when I think I could use it.

I also have the 16-35 F4 and 70-300 G to cover wide and long, but the 24-105 F4 is as sharp or sharper over the overlapping ranges.

Cheers
 
Interesting, the Tamron is pulling well ahead of the Sony ...
 
In what sense?
 
It's a pretty small sample size. But hey, whatever floats your boat :)

Cheers
 
What focal lengths are both zooms strongest at? where are they weakest at?

been eyeballing both of them but leaning towards the Tamron due to close focusing and cost overall.
 
Why not try both and decide?

AFAIK, Amazon let's you use a product for a month.

Why not get both and compare to see which one you prefer?
 
I would think about your long term plan, what are the lenses you're planning to buy in the future? I ended up with the 24-105 because my lens plan turned into:

12-24mm
24-105mm
100-400mm

So with these three lenses I covered 12mm to 400mm with just a 5mm overlap. So for example, if you're planning to get the 70-200 in the future then the 28-75mm might be the better choice for you.
 
I have both- started with the Tamron, then got the Sony for more reach for landscape. Told myself I’d be selling the Tamron to fund the Sony but, dang, I really like the Tamron. The macro-like ability and the f2.8 will probably make it a keeper. (I voted for the Sony.)
 
blue_skies said:
Corelli said:
In what sense?
Click to expand...
By the number of votes in this poll.
Click to expand...
I don't think the poll tells you much. You should pick based on what your needs are and as someone else mentioned, try both. I got the Tamron based on the review and price but ultimately determined the 24-105mm f4 is a better fit for my needs. These are two lenses where image quality doesn't really matter - pick based on what you care about f2.8 or 76mm to 105mm, price and size.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top