Tamron 28-75 G2 vs Sony 24-70 GMII

Malling · Jul 5, 2022

Foto4x4 said:
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...

For some time I have shot with a TR 28-200. Until I got my 24GM, I was quite happily making do with 28mm at the wide end. Most of the time before that, I had either a 16-35/f4 or SY 24/f2.8 but rarely bothered to use them. But with the 24GM being so good, it begged to be used, so I did. No doubt I shot images I would earlier have just used the 28-200, but two lenses introduced the other issue of lens swaps or carry two bodies. If my budget was limited to say, just a 28-75G2 vs the 24-70GMII, I’d just stick with the former and be happy.

Foto4x4 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...

As I have both lenses, I think this is pretty much how I see it. The 24GM definitely has higher sharpness but to my viewing we’re talking about levels that are virtually undetectable with the naked eye even at 100%. But the 24GM is definitely a bit better in the corners. Again not glaringly obvious, but more easily noticeable than the centre.

In future travel, it’s quite likely that instead of the two bodies, the 24GM and 28-200, I’ll just carry one body with the 24-70GMII and my 20G on walks.

Exactly, it’s not very detectable with the human eye unless you do some serious pixel peeping and have them side by side at the same time, owning just the 24-70gm and you ain’t going to miss that slightest gain in sharpness of the 24gm.

I also agree in using 24mm less often if you have to swap lenses for it, it’s only 4mm from 28 and although there is a difference it’s rarely enough for one to bother switching lenses for it. The gain is in reality therefore that 1.4 and then we are really down in personal preference and needs.

I really never need 1.4 for anything. In reality I never shoot that much below f4 under 50mm. At 50mm and above I have yet seen much purpose under f/1.8-2. Why the fastest lenses I own are two 1.8 and one f2. Simply because I don’t have the need.

I sometimes shoot cycling at 50mm and wider but often I want either the DOF or I use slow shutter speed to create motion blur. Again I see little purpose in fast glass that wide, yes you do use wider lenses for cycling.

Fast 24mm is mostly for handheld lowlight, Astrophotography, wide portrait and distorted special effects.

Euell · Jul 5, 2022

Malling said:
Foto4x4 said:

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...

For some time I have shot with a TR 28-200. Until I got my 24GM, I was quite happily making do with 28mm at the wide end. Most of the time before that, I had either a 16-35/f4 or SY 24/f2.8 but rarely bothered to use them. But with the 24GM being so good, it begged to be used, so I did. No doubt I shot images I would earlier have just used the 28-200, but two lenses introduced the other issue of lens swaps or carry two bodies. If my budget was limited to say, just a 28-75G2 vs the 24-70GMII, I’d just stick with the former and be happy.

Member 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...

As I have both lenses, I think this is pretty much how I see it. The 24GM definitely has higher sharpness but to my viewing we’re talking about levels that are virtually undetectable with the naked eye even at 100%. But the 24GM is definitely a bit better in the corners. Again not glaringly obvious, but more easily noticeable than the centre.

In future travel, it’s quite likely that instead of the two bodies, the 24GM and 28-200, I’ll just carry one body with the 24-70GMII and my 20G on walks.

Click to expand...

Exactly, it’s not very detectable with the human eye unless you do some serious pixel peeping and have them side by side at the same time, owning just the 24-70gm and you ain’t going to miss that slightest gain in sharpness of the 24gm.

You say this without comparing photographs taken with the two lenses. Your assumption may or may not be correct. No point in arguing, but you are generalizing without having either lens in possession. Detail is extremely important in fall foliage shots, for example, and maybe the new 24-70 cuts the mustard there or maybe it's perceptibly not quite as quite as good as the prime.

Member said:
I also agree in using 24mm less often if you have to swap lenses for it, it’s only 4mm from 28 and although there is a difference it’s rarely enough for one to bother switching lenses for it. The gain is in reality therefore that 1.4 and then we are really down in personal preference and needs.

Disagree in part. There is a significant difference in perspective between 24 and 28mm. I would agree that using a zoom lens makes one lazy about switching lenses. Personally, I find 24mm to be a very useful focal length in many circumstances, It's wide enough to take in a lot, while capable of yielding the appearance of a natural perspective.

Member said:
I really never need 1.4 for anything. In reality I never shoot that much below f4 under 50mm. At 50mm and above I have yet seen much purpose under f/1.8-2. Why the fastest lenses I own are two 1.8 and one f2. Simply because I don’t have the need.

F2.8 will often require bumping ISO or using flash indoors. And, there is a lot of room between F1.4 and F2.8 for additional exposure. The 24Gm is pretty darn sharp at F2.

Member said:
I sometimes shoot cycling at 50mm and wider but often I want either the DOF or I use slow shutter speed to create motion blur. Again I see little purpose in fast glass that wide, yes you do use wider lenses for cycling.

Fast 24mm is mostly for handheld lowlight, Astrophotography, wide portrait and distorted special effects.

The nice thing about a fast, sharp lens is the versatility to use both in low light and for other purposes, such a landscape stopped down. The new Sony 24-70, from reviews and specs, seems to be a really good lens -- and it should be for the price. But, it doesn't do everything for everybody within its focal length range. It may be a good solution for you, but a fast 24mm prime with great resolution and rendering serves my needs very well, as does a 28-75 zoom for casual photography.

fboss · Jul 5, 2022

From all the reviews I have seen so far, I don't think I would ever notice any sharpness difference between the the 24GM and 24-70GMII.
They are too close to be a decision factor (for me):
https://www.opticallimits.com/sonyalphaff/1143-sony2470f28gm2?start=1
https://www.opticallimits.com/sonyalphaff/1070-sony24f14?start=1

I don't really have any interest in the 24GM anyway. I already own the 35GM if I want 1.4 and don't use as much as I used to.

24mm vs 28mm is another debate, I really notice a difference between these 2 FLs. 24mm is definitely a nice to have, can take different photos with a creative composition.

Besides the 24mm, the GM2 adds the aperture ring, a more accurate/fast AF, and presumably a bit more sharpness and a better bokeh at 70mm.

But the 28-75G2 is so good already. More than the price, I worry about the handling difference with the extra weight of the GM2. Price is a one time issue, I can always get most of my money back when I sell it. (especially when buying with the Edu discount and no tax). Handling is every time I go out with the lens

Euell · Jul 5, 2022

fboss said:
From all the reviews I have seen so far, I don't think I would ever notice any sharpness difference between the the 24GM and 24-70GMII.
They are too close to be a decision factor (for me):
https://www.opticallimits.com/sonyalphaff/1143-sony2470f28gm2?start=1
https://www.opticallimits.com/sonyalphaff/1070-sony24f14?start=1

I don't really have any interest in the 24GM anyway. I already own the 35GM if I want 1.4 and don't use as much as I used to.

24mm vs 28mm is another debate, I really notice a difference between these 2 FLs. 24mm is definitely a nice to have, can take different photos with a creative composition.

Besides the 24mm, the GM2 adds the aperture ring, a more accurate/fast AF, and presumably a bit more sharpness and a better bokeh at 70mm.

But the 28-75G2 is so good already. More than the price, I worry about the handling difference with the extra weight of the GM2. Price is a one time issue, I can always get most of my money back when I sell it. (especially when buying with the Edu discount and no tax). Handling is every time I go out with the lens

I love the 24GM. It's hard to take a bad picture with it -- unless you're trying.

New factory-warranted Tamron 28-75 G2: $725. I like aprerture rings, but a convenient wheel is nearly as good.

Malling · Jul 5, 2022

Euell said:
Malling said:

Foto4x4 said:

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...

For some time I have shot with a TR 28-200. Until I got my 24GM, I was quite happily making do with 28mm at the wide end. Most of the time before that, I had either a 16-35/f4 or SY 24/f2.8 but rarely bothered to use them. But with the 24GM being so good, it begged to be used, so I did. No doubt I shot images I would earlier have just used the 28-200, but two lenses introduced the other issue of lens swaps or carry two bodies. If my budget was limited to say, just a 28-75G2 vs the 24-70GMII, I’d just stick with the former and be happy.

Euell 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...

As I have both lenses, I think this is pretty much how I see it. The 24GM definitely has higher sharpness but to my viewing we’re talking about levels that are virtually undetectable with the naked eye even at 100%. But the 24GM is definitely a bit better in the corners. Again not glaringly obvious, but more easily noticeable than the centre.

In future travel, it’s quite likely that instead of the two bodies, the 24GM and 28-200, I’ll just carry one body with the 24-70GMII and my 20G on walks.

Click to expand...

Exactly, it’s not very detectable with the human eye unless you do some serious pixel peeping and have them side by side at the same time, owning just the 24-70gm and you ain’t going to miss that slightest gain in sharpness of the 24gm.

Click to expand...

You say this without comparing photographs taken with the two lenses. Your assumption may or may not be correct. No point in arguing, but you are generalizing without having either lens in possession. Detail is extremely important in fall foliage shots, for example, and maybe the new 24-70 cuts the mustard there or maybe it's perceptibly not quite as quite as good as the prime.

The details are fine on the 24-70GM ii I seen it, had it in hand, seen enough pictures and charts… I cannot come up with one scenario where I actually will notice any gain in sharpness in print over what it offers.. I used my old GM even that was rarely a problem unless you used the long end in certain situations. I seen plenty of the old next to the GM24 and the new version is sharper across the range and in the same 24-35mm range so is the 16-35g, that’s obvious if you pixel peep. But in where you use it, like print the difference is irrelevant and is often just confirmation biase. I gladly see you pick one out in a triangular test, I really would love that. People say they can, but rarely they can when you put it to the test. As often it requires tremendous amount off experience with the tested lenses for people to reliably and consistently pick the odd one out and be able to tell what lens it belongs too.

Euell said:
Euell said:

I also agree in using 24mm less often if you have to swap lenses for it, it’s only 4mm from 28 and although there is a difference it’s rarely enough for one to bother switching lenses for it. The gain is in reality therefore that 1.4 and then we are really down in personal preference and needs.

Click to expand...

Disagree in part. There is a significant difference in perspective between 24 and 28mm. I would agree that using a zoom lens makes one lazy about switching lenses. Personally, I find 24mm to be a very useful focal length in many circumstances, It's wide enough to take in a lot, while capable of yielding the appearance of a natural perspective.

I would not say it’s lazy, it’s more like it’s time spend on something that just ain’t make it and break it, if a scenario can handle a 24mm it can usually also handle a 28mm. You might have a preference one over the other but that’s really what it is a preference.

As I wrote there is a difference but it ain’t massive.

If 24mm is important to you and one intend to bring a zoom I certainly would have a zoom that cover it rather then bringing a prime unless I needed that speed.

Euell said:
Euell said:

I really never need 1.4 for anything. In reality I never shoot that much below f4 under 50mm. At 50mm and above I have yet seen much purpose under f/1.8-2. Why the fastest lenses I own are two 1.8 and one f2. Simply because I don’t have the need.

Click to expand...

F2.8 will often require bumping ISO or using flash indoors. And, there is a lot of room between F1.4 and F2.8 for additional exposure. The 24Gm is pretty darn sharp at F2.

As I wrote needs.

Euell said:
Euell said:

I sometimes shoot cycling at 50mm and wider but often I want either the DOF or I use slow shutter speed to create motion blur. Again I see little purpose in fast glass that wide, yes you do use wider lenses for cycling.

Fast 24mm is mostly for handheld lowlight, Astrophotography, wide portrait and distorted special effects.

Click to expand...

The nice thing about a fast, sharp lens is the versatility to use both in low light and for other purposes, such a landscape stopped down. The new Sony 24-70, from reviews and specs, seems to be a really good lens -- and it should be for the price. But, it doesn't do everything for everybody within its focal length range. It may be a good solution for you, but a fast 24mm prime with great resolution and rendering serves my needs very well, as does a 28-75 zoom for casual photography.

I never proclaimed it did, I specifically said if you have the need for faster glass then it something else. But I would never own a prime just for sharpness today.

fboss · Jul 5, 2022

Euell said:
I love the 24GM. It's hard to take a bad picture with it -- unless you're trying. New factory-warranted Tamron 28-75 G2: $725. I like aprerture rings, but a convenient wheel is nearly as good.

I tried to use the ring on the Tamron, it definitely doesn't work for me as an aperture ring for photos. It needs to be rotated too much to change a stop increment , no click, and no indication of the aperture. Should be Ok for videos maybe.
24GM is certainly a great lens but is not for me.
It's really nice to have zoom lenses with prime like sharpness now.

I think I'm starting to be convinced to try this new 24-70GMII

Euell · Jul 5, 2022

fboss said:
Euell said:

I love the 24GM. It's hard to take a bad picture with it -- unless you're trying. New factory-warranted Tamron 28-75 G2: $725. I like aprerture rings, but a convenient wheel is nearly as good.

Click to expand...

I tried to use the ring on the Tamron, it definitely doesn't work for me as an aperture ring for photos. It needs to be rotated too much to change a stop increment , no click, and no indication of the aperture. Should be Ok for videos maybe.
24GM is certainly a great lens but is not for me.
It's really nice to have zoom lenses with prime like sharpness now.

I think I'm starting to be convinced to try this new 24-70GMII

Was referring to the wheel on the camera body.

Euell · Jul 5, 2022

Euell said:
fboss said:

Euell said:

I love the 24GM. It's hard to take a bad picture with it -- unless you're trying. New factory-warranted Tamron 28-75 G2: $725. I like aprerture rings, but a convenient wheel is nearly as good.

Click to expand...

I tried to use the ring on the Tamron, it definitely doesn't work for me as an aperture ring for photos. It needs to be rotated too much to change a stop increment , no click, and no indication of the aperture. Should be Ok for videos maybe.
24GM is certainly a great lens but is not for me.
It's really nice to have zoom lenses with prime like sharpness now.

I think I'm starting to be convinced to try this new 24-70GMII

Click to expand...

Was referring to the wheel on the camera body. The 24-70 is not as sharp as the 24 GM, but it's very sharp for a zoom particularly. It was argued by a participant who has neither lens that the difference in sharpness is inconsequential. Maybe but contrast also matters.

Foto4x4 · Jul 5, 2022

fboss said:
From all the reviews I have seen so far, I don't think I would ever notice any sharpness difference between the the 24GM and 24-70GMII.
They are too close to be a decision factor (for me):
https://www.opticallimits.com/sonyalphaff/1143-sony2470f28gm2?start=1
https://www.opticallimits.com/sonyalphaff/1070-sony24f14?start=1

Those MTF charts confirm what I see when comparing images in Lr with both lenses. Image sharpness is so close to be irrelevant most of the time.

fboss said:
I don't really have any interest in the 24GM anyway. I already own the 35GM if I want 1.4 and don't use as much as I used to.

I have the 35GM as well as the 24GM. The 35 is a stunning lens for street and if I couldn’t have a zoom and limited to one lens, that would be it. But it’s not wide enough some of the time and while one can stitch narrower FL lenses for landscapes you can’t really do that for things like astro where the 24GM’s f1.4 is very useful nor in dark architecture like cathedrals etc.

fboss said:
24mm vs 28mm is another debate, I really notice a difference between these 2 FLs. 24mm is definitely a nice to have, can take different photos with a creative composition.

Besides the 24mm, the GM2 adds the aperture ring, a more accurate/fast AF, and presumably a bit more sharpness and a better bokeh at 70mm.

But the 28-75G2 is so good already. More than the price, I worry about the handling difference with the extra weight of the GM2. Price is a one time issue, I can always get most of my money back when I sell it. (especially when buying with the Edu discount and no tax). Handling is every time I go out with the lens

I think we are on the same page…

Foto4x4 · Jul 5, 2022

Euell said:
Malling said:

Foto4x4 said:

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...

For some time I have shot with a TR 28-200. Until I got my 24GM, I was quite happily making do with 28mm at the wide end. Most of the time before that, I had either a 16-35/f4 or SY 24/f2.8 but rarely bothered to use them. But with the 24GM being so good, it begged to be used, so I did. No doubt I shot images I would earlier have just used the 28-200, but two lenses introduced the other issue of lens swaps or carry two bodies. If my budget was limited to say, just a 28-75G2 vs the 24-70GMII, I’d just stick with the former and be happy.

Euell 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...

As I have both lenses, I think this is pretty much how I see it. The 24GM definitely has higher sharpness but to my viewing we’re talking about levels that are virtually undetectable with the naked eye even at 100%. But the 24GM is definitely a bit better in the corners. Again not glaringly obvious, but more easily noticeable than the centre.

In future travel, it’s quite likely that instead of the two bodies, the 24GM and 28-200, I’ll just carry one body with the 24-70GMII and my 20G on walks.

Click to expand...

Exactly, it’s not very detectable with the human eye unless you do some serious pixel peeping and have them side by side at the same time, owning just the 24-70gm and you ain’t going to miss that slightest gain in sharpness of the 24gm.

Click to expand...

You say this without comparing photographs taken with the two lenses.

But I have and I agree with what Malling wrote. The difference is not as significant as I expected.

Euell said:
Your assumption may or may not be correct. No point in arguing, but you are generalizing without having either lens in possession. Detail is extremely important in fall foliage shots, for example, and maybe the new 24-70 cuts the mustard there or maybe it's perceptibly not quite as quite as good as the prime.

The 24-70GMII definitely cuts the mustard in the above scenarios. But that is not to say it’s better than the 24GM at the shared FL. Sony has created a number of outstanding lenses these past few years. There is joy in using them if not experienced before.

Euell said:
Euell said:

I also agree in using 24mm less often if you have to swap lenses for it, it’s only 4mm from 28 and although there is a difference it’s rarely enough for one to bother switching lenses for it. The gain is in reality therefore that 1.4 and then we are really down in personal preference and needs.

Click to expand...

Disagree in part. There is a significant difference in perspective between 24 and 28mm. I would agree that using a zoom lens makes one lazy about switching lenses. Personally, I find 24mm to be a very useful focal length in many circumstances, It's wide enough to take in a lot, while capable of yielding the appearance of a natural perspective.

Correct. When I only had a zoom that started at 28mm, I really didn’t miss the 24mm end very much. But then I could swap to a wider lens if absolutely needed. Once I got the 24GM got much more use than I expected. That increased my interest in the new 24-70 as it allows me to reduce weight on hikes and walks.

Euell said:
Euell said:

I really never need 1.4 for anything. In reality I never shoot that much below f4 under 50mm. At 50mm and above I have yet seen much purpose under f/1.8-2. Why the fastest lenses I own are two 1.8 and one f2. Simply because I don’t have the need.

Click to expand...

F2.8 will often require bumping ISO or using flash indoors. And, there is a lot of room between F1.4 and F2.8 for additional exposure. The 24Gm is pretty darn sharp at F2.

It’s darn sharp at f1.4. It just gets even sharper from around f2.

Euell said:
Euell said:

I sometimes shoot cycling at 50mm and wider but often I want either the DOF or I use slow shutter speed to create motion blur. Again I see little purpose in fast glass that wide, yes you do use wider lenses for cycling.

Fast 24mm is mostly for handheld lowlight, Astrophotography, wide portrait and distorted special effects.

Click to expand...

The nice thing about a fast, sharp lens is the versatility to use both in low light and for other purposes, such a landscape stopped down. The new Sony 24-70, from reviews and specs, seems to be a really good lens -- and it should be for the price. But, it doesn't do everything for everybody within its focal length range. It may be a good solution for you, but a fast 24mm prime with great resolution and rendering serves my needs very well, as does a 28-75 zoom for casual photography.

Agreed. Even with the advantages that persuaded me to get the new GMII, the fast primes will be more useful at times and I don’t see me dispensing with them at this time.

Euell · Jul 5, 2022

fboss said:
Euell said:

I love the 24GM. It's hard to take a bad picture with it -- unless you're trying. New factory-warranted Tamron 28-75 G2: $725. I like aprerture rings, but a convenient wheel is nearly as good.

Click to expand...

I tried to use the ring on the Tamron, it definitely doesn't work for me as an aperture ring for photos. It needs to be rotated too much to change a stop increment , no click, and no indication of the aperture. Should be Ok for videos maybe.
24GM is certainly a great lens but is not for me.
It's really nice to have zoom lenses with prime like sharpness now.

I think I'm starting to be convinced to try this new 24-70GMII

Give it a try. You can always return it.

Denis06150 · Aug 10, 2022

hello, to answer your post I have the g2 and I have just bought the gm ii and I can tell you that the tamron is much sharper,

the gm ii seems much heavier because the weight is in front

the daytime autofocus is better on the sony but at night the tamron is much better

on the sony I almost have to use the manual focus

result I keep the tamron and I return the gm



Filmore Eastman · Aug 10, 2022

Denis06150 said:
hello, to answer your post I have the g2 and I have just bought the gm ii and I can tell you that the tamron is much sharper,

the gm ii seems much heavier because the weight is in front

the daytime autofocus is better on the sony but at night the tamron is much better

on the sony I almost have to use the manual focus

result I keep the tamron and I return the gm

I have the G2 and enjoy it very much. But ... Wow, that was unexpected about the GM II.

fboss · Aug 10, 2022

Denis06150 said:
hello, to answer your post I have the g2 and I have just bought the gm ii and I can tell you that the tamron is much sharper,

the gm ii seems much heavier because the weight is in front

the daytime autofocus is better on the sony but at night the tamron is much better

on the sony I almost have to use the manual focus

result I keep the tamron and I return the gm



Surprising results. Tamron much sharper at 28, 35, 50, 70 mm ? Something may be wrong with your copy of the GMII. I wouldn't expect any focus advantage with the Tamron either.

Now the fact that you feel the lens is front heavy is more concerning to me as it was the main reason why I sold the Sigma 24-70DG DN.

Which camera is it ?

Please can you post a couple of pictures at f/2.8 of the same subject with the Sony and Tamron ? thanks.

PWPhotography · Aug 10, 2022

Denis06150 said:
hello, to answer your post I have the g2 and I have just bought the gm ii and I can tell you that the tamron is much sharper,

the gm ii seems much heavier because the weight is in front

the daytime autofocus is better on the sony but at night the tamron is much better

on the sony I almost have to use the manual focus

result I keep the tamron and I return the gm



I have Tamron G2 that is really sharp. But likely you get a lemon copy of Sony GM II that should be a very sharp lens from all reviews I have seen. Tamron G2 basically can match in sharpness and lighter and much cheaper. But Sony starts at 24mm that is a very important factor to many while none to me as said at in my earlier posts.

Again the above is a great review if you can understand Chinese.

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

fboss · Aug 11, 2022

PWPhotography said:
Again the above is a great review if you can understand Chinese.

you can enable subtitles with auto-translate to English ( suggested by a member in this thread)

Video summary :

Sony better sharpness at the telephoto
Tamron better in the corners at the wide angle.
Better flare resistance for the Tamron
As expected better AF (speed and accuracy) for the Sony
He says he prefers the bokeh of the Sony, but I can't see it in the video.

jhunna · Aug 11, 2022

Buy the best lens you can afford, even if it is a struggle. Once you have it you will forget the struggle it took to get it, and have the enjoyment of the lens foreever. Also I rarely see people buy a GM and then go to Tamron, wheras the I see the opposite from time to time. (Which costs more money).

If you can afford the GM, get it. If you can't get the Tamron...

There are no bad lenses...

Fwiler1 · Aug 24, 2022

I rented the 24-70 GMII to see if it was worth it for me.

No.

I realize people are adamant about 24 vs 28mm but I have yet to be in a situation where it made any difference. Honestly when I see 24mm images from people, I always think a little cropping could be done anyway and improve the picture. Or they are in a place they really could take a step or 2 back.

If I'm in a position where the difference between 24 and 28 is a big deal, 24 really isn't going to cut it either. That's when I will switch to 16-35 and have even better range for framing, especially in landscape or tight indoors.

As far as usability, I couldn't tell a big difference in focusing speed or sharpness. I never found myself using the aperture ring, but I could see how that might be desirable.

fboss · Aug 24, 2022

Fwiler1 said:
I rented the 24-70 GMII to see if it was worth it for me.

No.

I realize people are adamant about 24 vs 28mm but I have yet to be in a situation where it made any difference. Honestly when I see 24mm images from people, I always think a little cropping could be done anyway and improve the picture. Or they are in a place they really could take a step or 2 back.

If I'm in a position where the difference between 24 and 28 is a big deal, 24 really isn't going to cut it either. That's when I will switch to 16-35 and have even better range for framing, especially in landscape or tight indoors.

As far as usability, I couldn't tell a big difference in focusing speed or sharpness. I never found myself using the aperture ring, but I could see how that might be desirable.

Thanks for your feedback.

I have decided to buy the GM II to get the 24mm and aperture ring. But I will carefully test and compare with my Tamron G2 before I decide to keep it and sell the Tamron. For me 24mm has a different perspective compared to 28mm, the 24mm field of view allows shooting a bit differently. I would like to have this flexibility. That, or the new Tamron 20-40mm

(tempting but I don't think I would use much because it's an extra lens to carry )

Domantas · Aug 25, 2022

fboss said:
Fwiler1 said:

I rented the 24-70 GMII to see if it was worth it for me.

No.

I realize people are adamant about 24 vs 28mm but I have yet to be in a situation where it made any difference. Honestly when I see 24mm images from people, I always think a little cropping could be done anyway and improve the picture. Or they are in a place they really could take a step or 2 back.

If I'm in a position where the difference between 24 and 28 is a big deal, 24 really isn't going to cut it either. That's when I will switch to 16-35 and have even better range for framing, especially in landscape or tight indoors.

As far as usability, I couldn't tell a big difference in focusing speed or sharpness. I never found myself using the aperture ring, but I could see how that might be desirable.

Click to expand...

Thanks for your feedback.

I have decided to buy the GM II to get the 24mm and aperture ring. But I will carefully test and compare with my Tamron G2 before I decide to keep it and sell the Tamron. For me 24mm has a different perspective compared to 28mm, the 24mm field of view allows shooting a bit differently. I would like to have this flexibility. That, or the new Tamron 20-40mm (tempting but I don't think I would use much because it's an extra lens to carry )

24 is good but I would take 28-70 f2 over it if it existed on sony line (it exists on canon and I would def grab it)

Tamron 28-75 G2 vs Sony 24-70 GMII

Malling

Guest

Veteran Member

Forum Enthusiast

Veteran Member

Malling

Guest

Forum Enthusiast

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

New member

Well-known member

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Pro

Forum Enthusiast

Veteran Member

Active member

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Enthusiast

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts