Would you sacrifice a sony zeiss 55mm 1.8 over getting a Tamron 28-75mm 2.8 ?

A similar thread from a year ago: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4281677

Easy answer: No, you won't get similar results on the Tamron as on the Sony 55/1.8.

Explanation: The 55/1.8 will give you better subject isolation and background blur on all focal lengths over the Tamron 28-75/2.8 (you also get better sharpness using the 55).

The 55 (on aps-c crop sensor cameras or using crop mode) equals an 85/2.8 (which is beyond the Tamron focal lengths).

But is the Tamron better for you? - Only you know, the 55 has the size, sharpness, aperture (shooting in low light) and subject isolation advantage over the Tamron. What it doesn't have is the flexibility.

Do you shoot a lot of events and so forth, then most likely the Tamron is a "better choice" because it enables you to get the shot you want (which is always better than not to get the shot at all), but it doesn't grant you the same optical qualities as the 55.

I, on the other hand, have the 55 and I rarely use it since I feel it falls between my 16-35 and 85 (I almost exclusively shoot outdoors). It's always too short or not wide enough. But I won't trade it in for the Tamron since for me the optical qualities it has when the moment is right is so good that I'm willing to keep it for that moment.

Yes I would, you can find plenty of old-ish primes for excellent money in the 50-55 f/1.8 range. They won't be as good optically as the Zeiss but especially for portraiture, being razor sharp doesn't matter as much.

Can you find an affordable equivalent for the 28-75? Nope, not really.

Mind, I have a 17-35, a 50 f/1.8 and a 80-200 myself but a 28-75 f/2.8 can be quite handy. Even if I lost my 50 f/1.8 I have an old Helios that would serve just as well for the use I make of it 95% of the time, which is why I think it's more replaceable.

hectorveega said:

Right now I've been thinking if it would be a good idea to sell my zeiss 55mm to get a tamron 28-75mm 2.8 for being more convenient in focal lenghts, would the bokeh and sharpness difference be so noticeable comparing the tamron to the zeiss 55mm 1.8?

Click to expand...

Ask yourself what types of photography you are doing.

If you have Lightroom or another library software, you can find out if you often or rarely use your 55 mm at wider aperture than f:2.8.

And if you really WANT the Tamron, no matter, go for it!

Here's the 55 vs 28-70 sharpness score.

The 55 is the faded straight line (I just copied the sharpness scores and pasted them on top of each other for reference).



As you can see the Tamron is really sharp in the centre while the 55 is sharp across the entire frame / the Tamron also dips closer to 70mm at lower apertures.

This makes the 55 great for more than just portraits (landscape, cityscapes, street).

But, again, only you will know

(I had the 24-70/2.8 on my Canon and never took it off, that's also why I changed to Sony and opt to shoot with primes)

Only you know the answer (e.g. you know better if you're "prime"-guy or "zoom"-guy)

I sold 50mm f1.8 and Batis 85mm when 28-75mm was released. Never looked back)

For low light I'm thinking about getting Samyang 45mm f1.8 (400$ is a bargain for that lens).

hectorveega said:

Hi! so that's basically my question, just to add more information I currently have a sony 16-35mm f4 for wide shots and a zeiss 55mm 1.8/ sony 85mm 1.8 for portraits and bokeh shots.

Right now I've been thinking if it would be a good idea to sell my zeiss 55mm to get a tamron 28-75mm 2.8 for being more convenient in focal lenghts, would the bokeh and sharpness difference be so noticeable comparing the tamron to the zeiss 55mm 1.8?

My zeiss is awesome, it's definitely a killer lens, it's reputation talks enough for itself, but i'm interested to know what would you do? would you keep a legendary prime lens such as the zeiss 55mm or would you get a zoom lens that could be more convenient for your usage? I guess i just want to know i there's much of a huge difference in bokeh and sharpness.

What would you do ?



my current gear is:

sony a7iii

sony zeiss 55mm 1.8

sony 85mm 1.8

sony zeiss 16-35mm f4

Click to expand...

The 50-55mm range is really easy to duplicate with the Tamron - and so, yes, I would surely NOT buy a 55 over it.

There is SO much lore about the 55, about its micro contrast, its Zeiss color yadiyadiyah.

And there are an almost endless supply of used ones constantly churning through the market.

My excellent Leica 50mm f2 Summicron-M sits home. My Tamron travels. The f1.8/f2 aperture is not very useful or necessary for portraits. F2.8 is just fine.

Check out https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/62940240 and see the ~50mm images there with the Tamron. And the one at 75mm.

Go buy a 55mm, and join the masses trying to peddle theirs on eBay, Craig's List, Fred Miranda, etc. They don't move because they're overpriced.

Don't look for a Tamron there. They're perpetually out of stock because the beat the hell out of the 55, except for people who buy into the hype.

I think Magnar gave you good advice. If you really use and like the 55 a lot then trading for something else may be a sacrifice. The 55 1.8 was the first lens I bought for the a7ii, and the first lens I sold. Nice lens but I just did not like it so rarely used it. I used the Loxia 50 f2 and Batis 25 much more. I do enjoy the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 but I shoot more primes.

In the past I have sold many highly regarded lenses because I just did not use them that much.

As others above have just said, it really depends the FL you shoot most. Since you have the 16-35 already, I’d guess you are a wide shooter. That’s plus 55 makes a great travel setup. Two zooms for travel would be too big for me. 16-35 plus 85 could work, but I find 85 long for a travel prime. Maybe you don’t. The Tam would give you flexibility for sure. If you find yourself swapping between your zoom and the 55 often now then that suggests you would benefit from the convenience of a normal zoom like the Tam. I own both the Tam and 55 and really like both. I have the new 17-28 Tam zoom on order and anticipate that plus the 55 as my travel kit. I don’t like big lenses and the 28-75 counts as big to me. I use it at home for routine family captures and close outings.

No

I will not say sacrifice in my case. I bought Tamron before sold FE 55/1.8 ZA, two actions not directly related.

However I did a side by side test between two lenses around 50mm FL. Tamron amazingly hold very well.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/62352930

Then I realized I had not used FE 55/1.8 ZA often. So like I sold other three early adopted FE lenses recently I also sold FE 55/1.8 ZA. It's still a very good lens but not outstanding. I now interested in the relative new CV FE 50/1.2 for extreme shallow DOF for different look, much better sunstar and maybe also better micro contrast.

Mike Fouc said:

As others above have just said, it really depends the FL you shoot most. Since you have the 16-35 already, I’d guess you are a wide shooter. That’s plus 55 makes a great travel setup. Two zooms for travel would be too big for me. 16-35 plus 85 could work, but I find 85 long for a travel prime. Maybe you don’t. The Tam would give you flexibility for sure. If you find yourself swapping between your zoom and the 55 often now then that suggests you would benefit from the convenience of a normal zoom like the Tam. I own both the Tam and 55 and really like both. I have the new 17-28 Tam zoom on order and anticipate that plus the 55 as my travel kit. I don’t like big lenses and the 28-75 counts as big to me. I use it at home for routine family captures and close outings.

Click to expand...

I carried both Tamron and FE 55 ZA among other 4 lenses (total 6) in my Iceland trip in January. I used all other 5 lenses but not FE 55 as I did not find a chance to use it. Sharpness wide Tamron is very close but with zoom versatility. Then FE 55 ZA doesn't have other characters I needed - sunstar or Loxia like color rendering. I used FE 55 often in the first two years then I found less and less used it except for portrait therefore I sold it. In addition I found 50/55mm is not a FL I have used often. I found I have used 85mm often since I acquired Loixa 85 in landscape for close up. Just a personal experience and preference.

--
https://www.flickr.com/photos/55485085@N04/albums

Are you cool if your fastest lens is at 85mm range?

And also your priority is quality of bokeh and sharpness, prime has an edge on this over zooms.

hectorveega said:

Hi! so that's basically my question, just to add more information I currently have a sony 16-35mm f4 for wide shots and a zeiss 55mm 1.8/ sony 85mm 1.8 for portraits and bokeh shots.

Right now I've been thinking if it would be a good idea to sell my zeiss 55mm to get a tamron 28-75mm 2.8 for being more convenient in focal lenghts, would the bokeh and sharpness difference be so noticeable comparing the tamron to the zeiss 55mm 1.8?

My zeiss is awesome, it's definitely a killer lens, it's reputation talks enough for itself, but i'm interested to know what would you do? would you keep a legendary prime lens such as the zeiss 55mm or would you get a zoom lens that could be more convenient for your usage? I guess i just want to know i there's much of a huge difference in bokeh and sharpness.

What would you do ?



my current gear is:

sony a7iii

sony zeiss 55mm 1.8

sony 85mm 1.8

sony zeiss 16-35mm f4

Click to expand...

I actually did the opposite. I recently sold my Tamron (great copy) for the Zony 55mm to make up a convenient two prime lens travel kit. I now have:

Voigtlander FE 21mm f3.5

and the Zony FE 55mm f1.8

The Tamron is a great lens, but the 21mm and 55mm combo is just perfect for me.

Den

Yeah, for landscape shooting where you need a wide set of focal lengths and where, as in Iceland, lens changes aren't all that easy, I wouldn't think the 55 would be all that useful. For shooting people, though, the F1.8, better bokeh, smaller form factor, and faster AF start to matter. That the 55 is also very sharp for buildings or landscape is handy. While traveling, if one needs a single fast prime com complement zooms, this is the prime I'd take. Small, fast, not too long (for me, an 85 in urban settings is really hard to make work. Hard to shoot a person indoors with the 85 without others getting in the way or bumping into walls). I could see doing the Tam 28-75 plus a prime (I have done that many times), but I don't think the Tam eliminates the need for a prime, as the OP is asking about, for this type of use. As others have said, there are cheaper 50mm alternatives, but the native options aren't satisfactory to me. The 50/1.8 has poor AF. The Samyang 45/1.8 could be a good alternative, but its firmware isn't yet sorted and from the samples it isn't up to the 55 standard if that's a FL you'll use often. The Batis 40 is much bigger and pricier. Adapted options are great if you don't need AF.

That's why if the OP is generally a wide shooter, the 16-35 that s/he has already plus the 55 would make sense for certain kinds of shooting. I have and love the Tamron, don't get me wrong. I do feel there is a certain IQ compromise with most zooms, though, this one included.

I considered the possibility of replacing my 55/1.8 to 28-75/2.8. Ultimately I decided that extra subject isolation, better bokeh and sharpness across the frame are more important for me, so I kept the 55/1.8.

I'd have purchased the 28-75 immediately if I worked with my camera, shooting various events, where it's necessary to switch between wide and telephoto almost constantly. But, as a hobbyist, I prefer enjoying the F1.8 and bokeh. Also 55/1.8 is smaller and lighter, and its filters are very cheap.

BTW, a useful review of 28-75 was released today: https://www.opticallimits.com/sonyalphaff/1064-tamron2875f28e

For as quality and nicely sized lens the 55 is I never attached to it. I think its a focal length thing. I'd go with the zoom.

Considering what you have in the bag, hell no.

Wow, and you happen to have the same lenses as me, such a good answer, it reinforced my love for my zeiss 55mm.