Tamron 28-75 & 17-28 vs Sony 24-105 & prime lens

1201313 · Jun 25, 2019

Hi,

I recently bought a Sony A7iii and I was able to get my hands on both the Sony 24-105 f4 and Tamron 28-75 f2.8. I wanted a lens that can be very versatile since I like shooting many different styles (landscape, street, portrait). I shoot just for fun, and I am on a budget and I was able to get the 24-105 for $300 more than the Tamron. I like the range of the Sony, but a lot of the workers at B&H I spoke to, said they would choose f2.8 over f4. I know the a7III has good low light capabilities, so f4 isn't that big of a deal in terms of low light since I can raise the ISO without too much problem, however, I do like the look of shallow depth of field.

I originally got the Sony 24-105 f4 and the Sony 50 f1.8 to cover portraits/low light (I know a lot of people aren't the biggest fan of this lens but I am on a budget, so it works good enough for me haha). Now that Tamron is coming out with the 17-28, it got me thinking that maybe I should return both of the Sony lenses, keep the Tamron 28-75, and buy the Tamron 17-28. I would love to have a wide lens like the 17-28 for landscape, but I also like the reach of 105.

What are your thoughts on the Sony 24-105 f4 plus a prime portrait lens vs Tamron 28-75 plus the Tamron 17-28. Or possibly I can keep the Sony 24-105, return the prime, and get the Tamron 17-28.

Thanks

Robb

AZheaven · Jun 25, 2019

I have gone through this battle myself. I have the 24-105 f4. I don't think the f2.8 vs f4 is an issue for your described needs. 24mm is wide enough for most cases imho. And the 24-105 is more versatile, and one lens vs 2.

richpjr · Jun 25, 2019

AZheaven said:
I have gone through this battle myself. I have the 24-105 f4. I don't think the f2.8 vs f4 is an issue for your described needs. 24mm is wide enough for most cases imho. And the 24-105 is more versatile, and one lens vs 2.

It really comes down to what is more important - the extra range on both ends vs the speed. I ended up going with the 24-105 myself and it is a great lens. I have some fast primes when I need more light or want to do portrait type work.

JahRo · Jun 25, 2019

I have both and have a slight preference to the Sony. The Tamron is nice and all, but sometimes the bokeh can be ugly, it doesn't have the best build quality, and I really like the 24mm on a standard zoom. I find the corners can also be pretty meh, even when stopping down.

That being said, it is lighter, cheaper, sharper in the center, and obviously better in low light. I typically use the Tamron for family events and indoor shooting, and the Sony mostly for hiking and travel.

I use the 24-105 with a Batis 18 and feel that I have everything covered.

Eager to see how the 17-28 performs!

Asheth · Jun 25, 2019

I'd go 17-28 + 24-105mm.

On paper the 17-28+28-75 sounds good, but there is no overlap. It kind of sounds like it would have people switching lenses more often than a traditional 16-35+24-70 combo.

Steak Face · Jun 25, 2019

richpjr said:
AZheaven said:

I have gone through this battle myself. I have the 24-105 f4. I don't think the f2.8 vs f4 is an issue for your described needs. 24mm is wide enough for most cases imho. And the 24-105 is more versatile, and one lens vs 2.

Click to expand...

It really comes down to what is more important - the extra range on both ends vs the speed. I ended up going with the 24-105 myself and it is a great lens. I have some fast primes when I need more light or want to do portrait type work.

Imo the advantage of 2.8 over F4 is marginal in most situations. If you really like low light and depth of field a prime 1.8 or 1.4 will be much better than a 2.8.

I recently bought the 24-105 over the Tamron 28-75 as I thought the Tamron autofocus was fairly slow, much slower than the Sony. Also the Sony has better range and build quality, not to mention it's a native Sony lens, I'm not a big fan of third party. I also considered the 24-70GM but it's disadvantages for me (weight, size, cost) out weighted its advantages (F2.8).

JPatrick · Jun 25, 2019

1201313 said:
Hi,

I recently bought a Sony A7iii and I was able to get my hands on both the Sony 24-105 f4 and Tamron 28-75 f2.8. I wanted a lens that can be very versatile since I like shooting many different styles (landscape, street, portrait). I shoot just for fun, and I am on a budget and I was able to get the 24-105 for $300 more than the Tamron. I like the range of the Sony, but a lot of the workers at B&H I spoke to, said they would choose f2.8 over f4. I know the a7III has good low light capabilities, so f4 isn't that big of a deal in terms of low light since I can raise the ISO without too much problem, however, I do like the look of shallow depth of field.

I originally got the Sony 24-105 f4 and the Sony 50 f1.8 to cover portraits/low light (I know a lot of people aren't the biggest fan of this lens but I am on a budget, so it works good enough for me haha). Now that Tamron is coming out with the 17-28, it got me thinking that maybe I should return both of the Sony lenses, keep the Tamron 28-75, and buy the Tamron 17-28. I would love to have a wide lens like the 17-28 for landscape, but I also like the reach of 105.

What are your thoughts on the Sony 24-105 f4 plus a prime portrait lens vs Tamron 28-75 plus the Tamron 17-28. Or possibly I can keep the Sony 24-105, return the prime, and get the Tamron 17-28.

Thanks

Robb

As an all purpose lens, I think the 24-105 f/4 can be a very useful 1 lens solution. I don't have the Sony 24-105, but I shot with the Canon 24-105 f/4 for several years as my only lens. However, I really like a wider FOV for landscape work, so the 16-35 f/2.8 is a favorite. The 17-28 is a nice focal range, but the 16-35 is a touch more versatile. I can't help but think I'd be getting stuck in no-man's land at 28mm.

dv9973 · Jun 26, 2019

I frequently use the 24-105 as 22.5 mm. The lens correction discards 1.5 mm of the image, but for me this area is sometimes very useful.
In this screenshot the internal rectangle is 24 mm.

1201313 · Jun 26, 2019

Thanks for your responses. It’s interesting as so far, everyone in this thread so far seems recommended the Sony 24-105. However, when I went to B&H, I spoke to a few employees and each one of them recommended both Tamrons. I do realize that for hiking/outdoor activities in good light, the Sony would be the better choice because of its range, but they were saying for versatility as both an indoor/outdoor lens, the Tamron would be better.

I don’t know if it was just luck of my subjects and/or lighting, but when shooting with both so far, the Tamron shots i got seemed to “pop” a little more. Although there were times where I did wish I had a little more reach (however, I was able to crop in post). And unfortunately, I haven’t been able to take them out to shoot landscape/nature as i’m in NYC currently (moving to Hawaii where I will have plenty of that), so I didn’t really get to test how I feel about 24 vs 28 for those type of shots yet.

I’m still very torn between the two haha. The 24 would be nice for landscape and the extra reach would be nice for wildlife, and I would have to switch lenses less often which is very appealing. But I do also want a good versatile lens to capture things like my dog when indoors and my (future) kids. I know the a7iii has good low light and f4 is capable at capturing good images indoor, but 2.8 is just better for that.

If budget weren’t an option, I’d think about keeping the 24-105 and the 50mm f1.8 and buying the new tamron 17-28 when it comes out or even better, the 16-35. However, budget is an issue at this point, and I don’t think that would be a smart choice for me financially right now haha. But if i returned the 24-105 and the 50mm, I would save >$500 which could go towards the 17-28. Otherwise, realistically, I’d just only have the 24-105 and 50mm for the time being and not have an ultra wide angle (not saying that’s a bad option, since 24-105 covers such a broad range)

JPatrick · Jun 26, 2019

Well, I can't speak to B&H, I'm sure they have their reasons. For one, there is the 1 stop difference in light gathering. For me, it's probably a personal thing. I've been burned by Tamron's quality control in the past, so I don't really trust them. Plus I've owned 28mm lenses in the past, and I just wouldn't want to go that way again. Personal choice...

Here is a really good comparison review I would trust. One of the problem areas he mentions with the Tamron is chromatic aberrations. I think that's the problem I had with my Tamron lens. Anyway, the Tamron comes out pretty well.

https://phillipreeve.net/blog/sony-...8-28-75-di-iii-rxd-part-2-macro-capabilities/

Patrick

JahRo · Jun 26, 2019

JPatrick said:
Well, I can't speak to B&H, I'm sure they have their reasons. For one, there is the 1 stop difference in light gathering. For me, it's probably a personal thing. I've been burned by Tamron's quality control in the past, so I don't really trust them. Plus I've owned 28mm lenses in the past, and I just wouldn't want to go that way again. Personal choice...

Here is a really good comparison review I would trust. One of the problem areas he mentions with the Tamron is chromatic aberrations. I think that's the problem I had with my Tamron lens. Anyway, the Tamron comes out pretty well.

https://phillipreeve.net/blog/sony-...8-28-75-di-iii-rxd-part-2-macro-capabilities/

Patrick

This is really interesting. I have gone through two copies of the Sony 24-105. The first one had terrible CA and was soft at certain focal lengths, and my Tamron has always had basically non-existent CA. I gave the Sony another try and it is much better, and only shows very slight CA with hard contrasting edges like tree branches against the sky, so I think both lenses should be extensively tested before deciding to keep.

dkeller · Jun 26, 2019

I will take the range of the Sony 24-105 over the extra stop or so of the Tamron with no hesitation. Love the lens. Only complaint might be the weight, but it is worth it.

LenRivers · Jun 26, 2019

1201313 said:
Hi,

I recently bought a Sony A7iii and I was able to get my hands on both the Sony 24-105 f4 and Tamron 28-75 f2.8. I wanted a lens that can be very versatile since I like shooting many different styles (landscape, street, portrait). I shoot just for fun, and I am on a budget and I was able to get the 24-105 for $300 more than the Tamron. I like the range of the Sony, but a lot of the workers at B&H I spoke to, said they would choose f2.8 over f4. I know the a7III has good low light capabilities, so f4 isn't that big of a deal in terms of low light since I can raise the ISO without too much problem, however, I do like the look of shallow depth of field.

I originally got the Sony 24-105 f4 and the Sony 50 f1.8 to cover portraits/low light (I know a lot of people aren't the biggest fan of this lens but I am on a budget, so it works good enough for me haha). Now that Tamron is coming out with the 17-28, it got me thinking that maybe I should return both of the Sony lenses, keep the Tamron 28-75, and buy the Tamron 17-28. I would love to have a wide lens like the 17-28 for landscape, but I also like the reach of 105.

What are your thoughts on the Sony 24-105 f4 plus a prime portrait lens vs Tamron 28-75 plus the Tamron 17-28. Or possibly I can keep the Sony 24-105, return the prime, and get the Tamron 17-28.

Thanks

Robb

I will tell you this from first hand experience as much as i like B&H and shop there. A camera sales person may not be a photographer not a requirement let alone shoot the same stuff you do.

This is in mind. I shot the Nikon D750/D850 with Nikon 24-70 2.8 VR, 70-200 2.8 VR ii and 5 other F 1.4 Nikon Primes.

I really wanted a mirrorless solution and it made zero sense to sell Nikon for Sony if I was just going to buy the same lenses in a different lens mount.

I will tell you and I do use flash as needed but to me the Nikon D850 with 24-70 2.8 was replaced with the Sony A73 and 24-105 even at F 4.0, we are talking one stop, that is nothing today. One stop lower shutter speed one stop higher ISO.

I do have prime lenses for specialty stuff that may duplicate the same zoom lens range BUT I decided on the Batis lenses so for really compressing the shot I have a 135 mm or I can use the 24-105 at 105 mm or 85 mm etc.

*SO

To me the Tamron 28-75 mm at 75 mm is too short of a focal length for me for my zoom to stop and not wide enough, I mean do you need a 28 mm F 2.8 lens ?

poipoipoi_2016 · Jun 26, 2019

1201313 said:
Thanks for your responses. It’s interesting as so far, everyone in this thread so far seems recommended the Sony 24-105. However, when I went to B&H, I spoke to a few employees and each one of them recommended both Tamrons. I do realize that for hiking/outdoor activities in good light, the Sony would be the better choice because of its range, but they were saying for versatility as both an indoor/outdoor lens, the Tamron would be better.

1201313 said:
I know the a7iii has good low light and f4 is capable at capturing good images indoor, but 2.8 is just better for that.

My experience is that f/4 vs. f/2.8 really matters for going inside. It's ISO 400 vs. ISO 800 in my experience in say... an art museum. Except that 24-28 also matters because you're in small spaces. And I think it matters more. If anything, 24 isn't wide enough.

At night, f/4 drops you to ISO 12800. Getting a stop gets you up to ISO 6400 handheld. That's not a difference you care about.

Worst case, there's nothing preventing you from adding 17-28 at a later date when your budget permits. Overlap is not world-ending, there's a reason the 16-35 + 24-105 pairing works.

/Maybe sell the 50 and replace it with the Samyang 35/2.8?

Corelli · Jun 28, 2019

While what you say is true, aren't you forgetting the fact that OSS on the 24-105 F4 gives a significant advantage, particularly in museum where you are not allowed to use a tripod?

The OSS easily gives a 2 stop advantage if not more and in a museum I don't think the shallow of DOF of 2.8 is really necessary or even desirable.

Cheers

poipoipoi_2016 · Jun 28, 2019

Corelli said:
While what you say is true, aren't you forgetting the fact that OSS on the 24-105 F4 gives a significant advantage, particularly in museum where you are not allowed to use a tripod?

The OSS easily gives a 2 stop advantage if not more and in a museum I don't think the shallow of DOF of 2.8 is really necessary or even desirable.

Cheers

dkeller · Jun 28, 2019

It has been my understanding that the Sony system combines the stabilization of the camera's in body system with the stabilization of the lens for an extra degree of stabilization which neither gives alone.

poipoipoi_2016 · Jun 28, 2019

dkeller said:
It has been my understanding that the Sony system combines the stabilization of the camera's in body system with the stabilization of the lens for an extra degree of stabilization which neither gives alone.

You are correct.

I haven't noticed any difference with these shaking hands.

DenImage · Jun 28, 2019

"do you need a 28 mm F 2.8 lens?"

:

The same can be said about the Sony.

Do you need a 24mm f4 lens?

Also, if you need to go up to 105mm equivalent focal length with the Tamron, just take a few steps closer.

Den

DenImage · Jun 28, 2019

Corelli said:
While what you say is true, aren't you forgetting the fact that OSS on the 24-105 F4 gives a significant advantage, particularly in museum where you are not allowed to use a tripod?

The OSS easily gives a 2 stop advantage if not more and in a museum I don't think the shallow of DOF of 2.8 is really necessary or even desirable.

Cheers

Lol,

If you compare the Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 lens on a body with IBIS, are you saying the Sony 24-105mm f4 lens has noticeably better stabilisation performance in the 28-75mm focal range?

Please post a link to a test that substantiates that claim?

Also, I will always prefer a lens with f2.8 over f4 any day of the week, and any other reasonable photographer would too. To argue otherwise is nonsense.

Den

Tamron 28-75 & 17-28 vs Sony 24-105 & prime lens

New member

Senior Member

Forum Enthusiast

Member

Active member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Leading Member

New member

Well-known member

Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts