Tamron 28-75 G2 vs Sony 24-70 GMII

Malling said:

fboss said:

Thanks Cyrculrar, very good summary indeed

I would be in the exact same situation

Pros = aperture ring and 24 mm ; I also don’t care of the 30fps vs 15 fps

The difference would be more noticeable with the Tamron G1 but the G2 is so good already.

Does the GM2 feel really heavier or front heavy when attached to the camera ?

Click to expand...

I didn’t find it front heavy but then I came from V.i GM 24-70, but I decided to go a different route. It’s a very good lens but unless you have a need for high fps and getting everything out of that AF-C capabilities of the A1 and up and coming A9iii I say it’s wasted money.

There are really only two GM zoom I think is currently worth it, the 70-200ii and 100-400 as these simply offer more then other lenses of their kind. But IQ you simply gain too little in the 12-24, 16-35 and 24-70ii compared to the alternatives, I can only see these lenses as a choice for pro or someone who need the AF-C and FPS capabilities, for the rest of us I think either third part or G versions are a better pick depending on your needs.

GM primes are a different story as these are just generally just better rendering then anything else for the mount unless you accept MF lenses where the APO 35 and 50 equal that of the GM, but then you also loose backgrounds separation and speed/lowlights capabilities as well. 14 & 24 there no real equal that was also the case with 135 but it seems Samyang levelled out the playing field there.

Click to expand...

mkfed said:

Malling said:

fboss said:

Thanks Cyrculrar, very good summary indeed

I would be in the exact same situation

Pros = aperture ring and 24 mm ; I also don’t care of the 30fps vs 15 fps

The difference would be more noticeable with the Tamron G1 but the G2 is so good already.

Does the GM2 feel really heavier or front heavy when attached to the camera ?

Click to expand...

I didn’t find it front heavy but then I came from V.i GM 24-70, but I decided to go a different route. It’s a very good lens but unless you have a need for high fps and getting everything out of that AF-C capabilities of the A1 and up and coming A9iii I say it’s wasted money.

There are really only two GM zoom I think is currently worth it, the 70-200ii and 100-400 as these simply offer more then other lenses of their kind. But IQ you simply gain too little in the 12-24, 16-35 and 24-70ii compared to the alternatives, I can only see these lenses as a choice for pro or someone who need the AF-C and FPS capabilities, for the rest of us I think either third part or G versions are a better pick depending on your needs.

GM primes are a different story as these are just generally just better rendering then anything else for the mount unless you accept MF lenses where the APO 35 and 50 equal that of the GM, but then you also loose backgrounds separation and speed/lowlights capabilities as well. 14 & 24 there no real equal that was also the case with 135 but it seems Samyang levelled out the playing field there.

Click to expand...

I fully agree with everything you said - but I have the need for 30fps so I waited for the GM2 and bought it. Up until the GM2 rumors the Tamron was on the top of my list, because it really delivers superb images. So anybody not into high fps save your money and backs

Click to expand...

mkfed said:

Side note: The aperture ring came in handy on a video shoot of a theatre piece. When the scene lights were dark I just had to walk up to my camera on tripod and turn the ring for proper exposure (which I figured out and scribbled down during the rehearsals) no looking at screen turning a dial. It's a gimmick but sometimes nice to have. I was able to do a two camera shoot as a single operator this way.

Click to expand...

fboss said:

Thanks Cyrculrar, very good summary indeed

I would be in the exact same situation

Pros = aperture ring and 24 mm ; I also don’t care of the 30fps vs 15 fps

The difference would be more noticeable with the Tamron G1 but the G2 is so good already.

Does the GM2 feel really heavier or front heavy when attached to the camera ?

Click to expand...

mkfed said:

Malling said:

fboss said:

Thanks Cyrculrar, very good summary indeed

I would be in the exact same situation

Pros = aperture ring and 24 mm ; I also don’t care of the 30fps vs 15 fps

The difference would be more noticeable with the Tamron G1 but the G2 is so good already.

Does the GM2 feel really heavier or front heavy when attached to the camera ?

Click to expand...

I didn’t find it front heavy but then I came from V.i GM 24-70, but I decided to go a different route. It’s a very good lens but unless you have a need for high fps and getting everything out of that AF-C capabilities of the A1 and up and coming A9iii I say it’s wasted money.

There are really only two GM zoom I think is currently worth it, the 70-200ii and 100-400 as these simply offer more then other lenses of their kind. But IQ you simply gain too little in the 12-24, 16-35 and 24-70ii compared to the alternatives, I can only see these lenses as a choice for pro or someone who need the AF-C and FPS capabilities, for the rest of us I think either third part or G versions are a better pick depending on your needs.

GM primes are a different story as these are just generally just better rendering then anything else for the mount unless you accept MF lenses where the APO 35 and 50 equal that of the GM, but then you also loose backgrounds separation and speed/lowlights capabilities as well. 14 & 24 there no real equal that was also the case with 135 but it seems Samyang levelled out the playing field there.

Click to expand...

I fully agree with everything you said - but I have the need for 30fps so I waited for the GM2 and bought it. Up until the GM2 rumors the Tamron was on the top of my list, because it really delivers superb images. So anybody not into high fps save your money and backs

Side note: The aperture ring came in handy on a video shoot of a theatre piece. When the scene lights were dark I just had to walk up to my camera on tripod and turn the ring for proper exposure (which I figured out and scribbled down during the rehearsals) no looking at screen turning a dial. It's a gimmick but sometimes nice to have. I was able to do a two camera shoot as a single operator this way.

Click to expand...

syrcular said:

It is worth noting that the 24-70mm f2.8 GM II Lens is better for video in two categories. It offers linear manual focus and as you mentioned another plus to having the aperture ring which is declickable. Another check mark for that specific use case, for sure. For me I tend to shoot with primes when shooting video, and if I'm shooting with a zoom I'm typically using autofocus on a gimbal, so it's not something I need as a priority...however that may change sometime, so it's nice that there's an option there.

Click to expand...

Making your Tamron lens fit you: A look at the Tamron Lens Utility

Similar to customizing the custom buttons and dials on a camera, Tamron lets you have reign over what certain things do on your lens.

photofocus.com

Member said:

Malling wrote:
There are really only two GM zoom I think is currently worth it, the 70-200ii and 100-400 as these simply offer more then other lenses of their kind. But IQ you simply gain too little in the 12-24, 16-35 and 24-70ii compared to the alternatives, I can only see these lenses as a choice for pro or someone who need the AF-C and FPS capabilities, for the rest of us I think either third part or G versions are a better pick depending on your needs.

Click to expand...

fboss said:

syrcular said:

It is worth noting that the 24-70mm f2.8 GM II Lens is better for video in two categories. It offers linear manual focus and as you mentioned another plus to having the aperture ring which is declickable. Another check mark for that specific use case, for sure. For me I tend to shoot with primes when shooting video, and if I'm shooting with a zoom I'm typically using autofocus on a gimbal, so it's not something I need as a priority...however that may change sometime, so it's nice that there's an option there.

Click to expand...

For video the Tamron has some customizations :

- the focus can be configured to linear or no linear

- the focus ring can be configure to aperture ring with no click

https://photofocus.com/photography/...ns-fit-you-a-look-at-the-tamron-lens-utility/

Click to expand...

fboss said:

Found one comparison on YouTube but I don't understand anything he says. And can't really see any difference between the 2 on the video :

Does anyone understand the conclusion ? or had a chance to compare these 2 lenses ?

Click to expand...

umbalito said:

Can anyone comment on how good the VXD motor is on the Tamron?

I know it won’t do 20fps on my a9 like the GM, but, for the sake of argument - if say the GM has a 10/10 tracking hit rate on a subject running towards the camera, what would the Tamron G2 do? 8/10?

Click to expand...

Kamil Cichy said:

Kamil Cichy said:

Found one comparison on YouTube but I don't understand anything he says. And can't really see any difference between the 2 on the video :

Does anyone understand the conclusion ? or had a chance to compare these 2 lenses ?

Click to expand...

Did you try turning on automatic captions with automatic translation? Sounds like two steps from rise of the machines, but it works surprisingly well.

Click to expand...

fboss said:

swoof said:

The difference grows larger when you can get the Tamron g2 for 725$ new on greentoe like I just did. If it was my main workhorse lens I'd still probably splurge for Sony but I generally favor primes. Also I shoot sports, more than 15 FPS is honestly unappealing and would rarely be using this class of lens in that situation too.

Click to expand...

At least you can sell the G2 for about the same price you paid, if that can help

I have a A7riii so limited to ~10fps. I may upgrade to the A1 if/when the price drops a bit. I have the 70-200GMII for fast actions.
I wonder if up to 15fps , the AF-C would make a difference with the Sony.

I guess for me it boils down to:
- aperture ring
- benefit of the 24mm that gives a FOV that I will never get with 28mm - I don't want to carry a 2nd body camera and add another wide-angle lens in my bag. I know I wouldn't use it enough.

Will continue to watch comparisons between these 2 lenses and decide. The new Sony is still available in stock after the launch date, so it may get a discount before the end of the year.

Click to expand...

Euell said:

fboss said:

swoof said:

The difference grows larger when you can get the Tamron g2 for 725$ new on greentoe like I just did. If it was my main workhorse lens I'd still probably splurge for Sony but I generally favor primes. Also I shoot sports, more than 15 FPS is honestly unappealing and would rarely be using this class of lens in that situation too.

Click to expand...

At least you can sell the G2 for about the same price you paid, if that can help

I have a A7riii so limited to ~10fps. I may upgrade to the A1 if/when the price drops a bit. I have the 70-200GMII for fast actions.
I wonder if up to 15fps , the AF-C would make a difference with the Sony.

I guess for me it boils down to:
- aperture ring
- benefit of the 24mm that gives a FOV that I will never get with 28mm - I don't want to carry a 2nd body camera and add another wide-angle lens in my bag. I know I wouldn't use it enough.

Will continue to watch comparisons between these 2 lenses and decide. The new Sony is still available in stock after the launch date, so it may get a discount before the end of the year.

Click to expand...

Difficult to justify paying three times as much for the Sony, unless you absolutely need the 24mm or the better AF. For maximum sharpness primes are the answer. A zoom is for convenience. Since the 24-70 ii came out I've been looking at a normal zoom for convenience, but the optical quality of the 24-70 and Tamron 28-75 G2 are so close that I chose the Tamron. For 24mm, I'll use the 24GM.

Click to expand...

Malling said:

Euell said:

fboss said:

swoof said:

The difference grows larger when you can get the Tamron g2 for 725$ new on greentoe like I just did. If it was my main workhorse lens I'd still probably splurge for Sony but I generally favor primes. Also I shoot sports, more than 15 FPS is honestly unappealing and would rarely be using this class of lens in that situation too.

Click to expand...

At least you can sell the G2 for about the same price you paid, if that can help

I have a A7riii so limited to ~10fps. I may upgrade to the A1 if/when the price drops a bit. I have the 70-200GMII for fast actions.
I wonder if up to 15fps , the AF-C would make a difference with the Sony.

I guess for me it boils down to:
- aperture ring
- benefit of the 24mm that gives a FOV that I will never get with 28mm - I don't want to carry a 2nd body camera and add another wide-angle lens in my bag. I know I wouldn't use it enough.

Will continue to watch comparisons between these 2 lenses and decide. The new Sony is still available in stock after the launch date, so it may get a discount before the end of the year.

Click to expand...

Difficult to justify paying three times as much for the Sony, unless you absolutely need the 24mm or the better AF. For maximum sharpness primes are the answer. A zoom is for convenience. Since the 24-70 ii came out I've been looking at a normal zoom for convenience, but the optical quality of the 24-70 and Tamron 28-75 G2 are so close that I chose the Tamron. For 24mm, I'll use the 24GM.

Click to expand...

With the Sony GM24 + Tamron you also basically invested an equal amount as with the Sony GM 24-70. You would also be carrying about 170g more… I’ll say you really need to shoot that 24gm wide open often to be worth it, it’s a good lens, but stopped down the difference is insignificant. I personally would rather have the GM zoom then.

Click to expand...

Euell said:

Malling said:

Euell said:

fboss said:

swoof said:

The difference grows larger when you can get the Tamron g2 for 725$ new on greentoe like I just did. If it was my main workhorse lens I'd still probably splurge for Sony but I generally favor primes. Also I shoot sports, more than 15 FPS is honestly unappealing and would rarely be using this class of lens in that situation too.

Click to expand...

At least you can sell the G2 for about the same price you paid, if that can help

I have a A7riii so limited to ~10fps. I may upgrade to the A1 if/when the price drops a bit. I have the 70-200GMII for fast actions.
I wonder if up to 15fps , the AF-C would make a difference with the Sony.

I guess for me it boils down to:
- aperture ring
- benefit of the 24mm that gives a FOV that I will never get with 28mm - I don't want to carry a 2nd body camera and add another wide-angle lens in my bag. I know I wouldn't use it enough.

Will continue to watch comparisons between these 2 lenses and decide. The new Sony is still available in stock after the launch date, so it may get a discount before the end of the year.

Click to expand...

Difficult to justify paying three times as much for the Sony, unless you absolutely need the 24mm or the better AF. For maximum sharpness primes are the answer. A zoom is for convenience. Since the 24-70 ii came out I've been looking at a normal zoom for convenience, but the optical quality of the 24-70 and Tamron 28-75 G2 are so close that I chose the Tamron. For 24mm, I'll use the 24GM.

Click to expand...

With the Sony GM24 + Tamron you also basically invested an equal amount as with the Sony GM 24-70. You would also be carrying about 170g more… I’ll say you really need to shoot that 24gm wide open often to be worth it, it’s a good lens, but stopped down the difference is insignificant. I personally would rather have the GM zoom then.

Click to expand...

I don't know that you are correct, about optical quality stopped down. I'd like to see the imatest numbers. But in any case, I already have the 24GM and am happy with it, so the choice is more limited. As for the economics, I'm picking up the Tamron for $725, so there is still a couple of hundred dollars difference. Your argument is convenience with a compromise in lens speed at the 24mm end, which will make sense for a lot of people, I'm sure, just not for me. As for carrying weight, the zoom will only be carried, where optical quality is a secondary consideration. I plan to fill out with primes. I think Sony did a wonderful job in designing the new 24-70, other than its performance contra light, but it's three times the discounted price of the Tamron with little more to offer, unless your needs demand.

Click to expand...

Malling said:

Euell said:

fboss said:

swoof said:

The difference grows larger when you can get the Tamron g2 for 725$ new on greentoe like I just did. If it was my main workhorse lens I'd still probably splurge for Sony but I generally favor primes. Also I shoot sports, more than 15 FPS is honestly unappealing and would rarely be using this class of lens in that situation too.

Click to expand...

At least you can sell the G2 for about the same price you paid, if that can help

I have a A7riii so limited to ~10fps. I may upgrade to the A1 if/when the price drops a bit. I have the 70-200GMII for fast actions.
I wonder if up to 15fps , the AF-C would make a difference with the Sony.

I guess for me it boils down to:
- aperture ring
- benefit of the 24mm that gives a FOV that I will never get with 28mm - I don't want to carry a 2nd body camera and add another wide-angle lens in my bag. I know I wouldn't use it enough.

Will continue to watch comparisons between these 2 lenses and decide. The new Sony is still available in stock after the launch date, so it may get a discount before the end of the year.

Click to expand...

Difficult to justify paying three times as much for the Sony, unless you absolutely need the 24mm or the better AF. For maximum sharpness primes are the answer. A zoom is for convenience. Since the 24-70 ii came out I've been looking at a normal zoom for convenience, but the optical quality of the 24-70 and Tamron 28-75 G2 are so close that I chose the Tamron. For 24mm, I'll use the 24GM.

Click to expand...

With the Sony GM24 + Tamron you also basically invested an equal amount as with the Sony GM 24-70. You would also be carrying about 170g more… I’ll say you really need to shoot that 24gm wide open often to be worth it, it’s a good lens, but stopped down the difference is insignificant. I personally would rather have the GM zoom then.

Click to expand...

Malling said:

Euell said:

Malling said:

Euell said:

fboss said:

swoof said:

The difference grows larger when you can get the Tamron g2 for 725$ new on greentoe like I just did. If it was my main workhorse lens I'd still probably splurge for Sony but I generally favor primes. Also I shoot sports, more than 15 FPS is honestly unappealing and would rarely be using this class of lens in that situation too.

Click to expand...

At least you can sell the G2 for about the same price you paid, if that can help

I have a A7riii so limited to ~10fps. I may upgrade to the A1 if/when the price drops a bit. I have the 70-200GMII for fast actions.
I wonder if up to 15fps , the AF-C would make a difference with the Sony.

I guess for me it boils down to:
- aperture ring
- benefit of the 24mm that gives a FOV that I will never get with 28mm - I don't want to carry a 2nd body camera and add another wide-angle lens in my bag. I know I wouldn't use it enough.

Will continue to watch comparisons between these 2 lenses and decide. The new Sony is still available in stock after the launch date, so it may get a discount before the end of the year.

Click to expand...

Difficult to justify paying three times as much for the Sony, unless you absolutely need the 24mm or the better AF. For maximum sharpness primes are the answer. A zoom is for convenience. Since the 24-70 ii came out I've been looking at a normal zoom for convenience, but the optical quality of the 24-70 and Tamron 28-75 G2 are so close that I chose the Tamron. For 24mm, I'll use the 24GM.

Click to expand...

With the Sony GM24 + Tamron you also basically invested an equal amount as with the Sony GM 24-70. You would also be carrying about 170g more… I’ll say you really need to shoot that 24gm wide open often to be worth it, it’s a good lens, but stopped down the difference is insignificant. I personally would rather have the GM zoom then.

Click to expand...

I don't know that you are correct, about optical quality stopped down. I'd like to see the imatest numbers. But in any case, I already have the 24GM and am happy with it, so the choice is more limited. As for the economics, I'm picking up the Tamron for $725, so there is still a couple of hundred dollars difference. Your argument is convenience with a compromise in lens speed at the 24mm end, which will make sense for a lot of people, I'm sure, just not for me. As for carrying weight, the zoom will only be carried, where optical quality is a secondary consideration. I plan to fill out with primes. I think Sony did a wonderful job in designing the new 24-70, other than its performance contra light, but it's three times the discounted price of the Tamron with little more to offer, unless your needs demand.

Click to expand...

You cannot see it to a high enough degree that you will actually be able to pick it out in a triangular test, there are a lot of confirmation biase, reality is on a print you will have very hard time seeing any difference between a GM prime and GM zoom when stopped down unless a lens deliver a noticeable different rendering effect like for example sunstars etc.

I would simply not pick a prime for sharpness over a zoom as seeing difference requires pixel peeping, the print that is after all the end goal where you stand a chance seeing a difference isn’t going to tell it to a very hight degree if at all, reality is most lenses the last few years are plenty sharp enough, if you don’t print the point is even less relevant unless you spend hours pixel peeping.

The main reason to pick primes are for speed/low light, separation and rendering effect, sharpness simple isn’t big enough a difference to be truly worth carrying around a prime for.

Click to expand...

swoof said:

You can easily get 24gm and 28-75 for under 1700. Plus you get 1.4 low light capability. The Sony 24-70ii is great but unless you're shooting professionally and that's your main lens, it is hard to justify. So many great options and hard decisions for what lenses to keep means we have a great ecosystem in e mount.

Click to expand...

fboss said:

swoof said:

You can easily get 24gm and 28-75 for under 1700. Plus you get 1.4 low light capability. The Sony 24-70ii is great but unless you're shooting professionally and that's your main lens, it is hard to justify. So many great options and hard decisions for what lenses to keep means we have a great ecosystem in e mount.

Click to expand...

The way I see it ... 24mm in a zoom lens, I will certainly use it. But if I have to switch lenses just to go from 28mm to 24mm, I will almost never use it. That's just me, I'm not a big fan of switching lenses. The sharpness of the 24-70GMII is so good at 24mm that I don't think I would get any benefit with the 24GM, besides the 1.4 in low light.

Click to expand...

fboss said:

24GM is a great lens for someone who likes to shoot at this focal length. But I prefer the flexibility of a zoom lens.

Click to expand...

fboss said:

swoof said:

You can easily get 24gm and 28-75 for under 1700. Plus you get 1.4 low light capability. The Sony 24-70ii is great but unless you're shooting professionally and that's your main lens, it is hard to justify. So many great options and hard decisions for what lenses to keep means we have a great ecosystem in e mount.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

fboss said:

The way I see it ... 24mm in a zoom lens, I will certainly use it. But if I have to switch lenses just to go from 28mm to 24mm, I will almost never use it. That's just me, I'm not a big fan of switching lenses. The sharpness of the 24-70GMII is so good at 24mm that I don't think I would get any benefit with the 24GM, besides the 1.4 in low light.

24GM is a great lens for someone who likes to shoot at this focal length. But I prefer the flexibility of a zoom lens.

Click to expand...