Reading mode: Light Dark

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

Go to last post
I have the 24-105 and it’s my favourite travel lens. I will also buy the Tamron 17-28 within the next 6 months to replace my Minolta 17-35 (used with LA-EA4 adaptor). This combo will work well for me. I don’t use UWA too often so the Tamron prices make more sense. For me personally prefer the Sony 24-105 over the Tamron 28-75 to cover that FL. I tend to alternate between Zoom and prime solutions depending on where I travel. For overseas trips I just take the 24-105 and the 55/1.8 whereas for trips in the UK I enjoy using Batis 25/40/85 and leave the Zoom at home. So for me the UWA Tamron Zoom is a perfect (and economical) solution to compliment the 24-105. Have considered Batis 18 but it’s pricey for a FL I would use the least.
 
DenImage said:
"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
Click to expand...
I've had this discussion on the A7iii Facebook page. When shooting landscapes, while the 4mm on the wide end isn't that much, one can lean back, the 30mm on the long end is. There are simply many a place where one can't step back or forward. It sounds easy but in many cases not doable.
 
So ALL 2.8 lenses are better than ALL F4 lenses?
 
Corelli said:
So ALL 2.8 lenses are better than ALL F4 lenses?
Click to expand...
No, I said "I will always prefer a lens with f2.8 over f4", that is not saying "ALL 2.8 lenses are better than ALL F4 lenses".

How about answering the question instead of diverting?

"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?"

Den
 
Last edited:
I'm not that committed. It was just something I thought the poster should consider.
 
Corelli said:
I'm not that committed. It was just something I thought the poster should consider.
Click to expand...
So you can't substantiate your comments?

"...aren't you forgetting the fact that OSS on the 24-105 F4 gives a significant advantage"

and

"The OSS easily gives a 2 stop advantage if not more"

and

"I don't think the shallow of DOF of 2.8 is really necessary or even desirable"

Den
 
I don't care enough to do so.

Have a nice day!
 
Corelli said:
I don't care enough to do so.

Have a nice day!
Click to expand...
Lol, I thought so.

You cared enough to post your reply to poipoipoi_2016, but when ask to substantiate yourself, you suddenly "don't care to do so".

Credibility comes into question if you can't substantiate your posts Corelli.

What you posted is clearly false and untrue, that's why you can't substantiate your claims.

"Have a nice day!" 😉

Den
 
You obviously have more at stake in this than I do.

Think whatever you like.
 
Corelli said:
Think whatever you like.
Click to expand...
Yeah I will,

I think anyone who can't substantiate their posts when challenged, has no credibility.

Den
 
Yes. I am indeed quite incredible ;)
 
Corelli said:
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.
Click to expand...
To find the minimal shutter speed I can use, I did couple of tests.
For example I photographed with a shutter 0.5 seconds with a 85 mm F/1.8 lens and with 24-105 mm set to approximately to 85 mm.

My results are 10% good pictures with the 85 mm lens and 25% good pictures with 24-105 mm.

I do not know if it means 2 stops, but for me it is significant.
 
Last edited:
dkeller said:
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.
Click to expand...
Not to mention the autofocus is so much better on the Sony, at least on the instore demo Tamron I used. I was pretty keen on the Tamron, but it’s autofocus was way slower than than the Sony. That’s a pretty bug deal imo.
 
I wasn't that terribly unhappy with the kit 28-70, but wanted to move up a bit in quality. No gain in either the wide or tele end of the Tamron just gave me no reason to move to it. After getting the 24-105 I found the increase in sharpness and micro contrast was a great bonus, and REALLY love the extra range on both ends.
 
DenImage said:
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
Click to expand...
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
Click to expand...
"lol"

anyway, got the 24-105 as well. the 28-75 is nice as im sure is the 17-28 but keep in mind theres a reason for these numbers. you always have a trade-off. thats why its not 24-70. pick your trade-offs. none of these are bad choices.

anyone saying you chose the lens due to its f number over anything else has no clue...
 
"anyone saying you chose the lens due to its f number over anything else has no clue..."

:

Please provide a link where I said that?

Pot calling the kettle black.

Den
 
Last edited:
Steak Face said:
dkeller said:
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.
Click to expand...
Not to mention the autofocus is so much better on the Sony, at least on the instore demo Tamron I used. I was pretty keen on the Tamron, but it’s autofocus was way slower than than the Sony. That’s a pretty bug deal imo.
Click to expand...
The Tamron AF speed and accuracy is fine. Here's a comparison test against the 2-3 times more expensive Sony 24-70 GM:


In comparison to the much more expensive GM lens, the Tamron is slightly slower (especially in lower light), but saying it's "way slower" is stretching it IMO.

Den
 
Last edited:
My DenImage said:
Steak Face said:
dkeller said:
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.
Click to expand...
Not to mention the autofocus is so much better on the Sony, at least on the instore demo Tamron I used. I was pretty keen on the Tamron, but it’s autofocus was way slower than than the Sony. That’s a pretty bug deal imo.
Click to expand...
The Tamron AF speed and accuracy is fine. Here's a comparison test against the 2-3 times more expensive Sony 24-70 GM:


In comparison to the much more expensive GM lens, the Tamron is slightly slower (especially in lower light), but saying it's "way slower" is stretching it IMO.

Den
Click to expand...
My comment was purely based on my experience in store between the 24-70 GM, 24-105 G and 28-75 Tamron all on the same camera - A73.

The difference was enough for me to rule the Tamron out, it was that noticeable. The two Sony’s were about the same.... I dunno why but that’s how it was for me.
 
Steak Face said:
My DenImage said:
Steak Face said:
dkeller said:
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.
Click to expand...
Not to mention the autofocus is so much better on the Sony, at least on the instore demo Tamron I used. I was pretty keen on the Tamron, but it’s autofocus was way slower than than the Sony. That’s a pretty bug deal imo.
Click to expand...
The Tamron AF speed and accuracy is fine. Here's a comparison test against the 2-3 times more expensive Sony 24-70 GM:


In comparison to the much more expensive GM lens, the Tamron is slightly slower (especially in lower light), but saying it's "way slower" is stretching it IMO.

Den
Click to expand...
My comment was purely based on my experience in store between the 24-70 GM, 24-105 G and 28-75 Tamron all on the same camera - A73.

The difference was enough for me to rule the Tamron out, it was that noticeable. The two Sony’s were about the same.... I dunno why but that’s how it was for me.
Click to expand...
The video link I posted shows acceptable AF performance with the Tamron on an a73.

Den
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

E
Zoom lens recommendation
Replies
9
Views
48K
Matt2134
Matt2134
Z
16+28-200 -> sony/canon + UWA (tamron 16-30, 17-50, sony 16-35, canon 14-35, 16-28)
Replies
10
Views
3K
zalmanium
Z
C
Tamron 28-75 G2 + A7C - a great combination
Replies
10
Views
6K
Yannis1976
Yannis1976
G
Zoom like 24..28 - 150-200 mm F2.8 - 4..5.6 + macro x0.4-0.5
Replies
4
Views
144
Craig Gillette
C
B
24-70 GM ii vs 28-70 f2 GM vs 20-70 f4 G
2 3
Replies
53
Views
14K
PWPhotography
P

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