Best Walkaround lens?

[JamminHyaku]

I am looking for a replacement walkaround lens for my 28-70mm F3.5-5.6 kit lens, and have researched a few popular options but am not sold on anything yet.

I do want it to be a zoom lens, around the 24-100 range is optimal or even 24-70 could work as I have the Sony 70-300 as my walkaround zoom lens. Light/small is definitely a benefit. So far I have been looking at the Sony 24-105, Tamron 28-75, Tamron 28-200, and Zeiss 24-70.

The Tamron 28-200 seems like a great value, but I would honestly love a bit wider than 28, and if I am going to go to 200 I figure I will be switching to my Sony telephoto anyways. This coupled with the lack of OSS just doesn't have me sold on this lens right now.

The Tamron 28-75 is similar, id love it to be wider. The constant aperture is lovely, but I believe the 28-200 is only at F3.5 by the time it reaches 75mm, so the extra range is really a much better value than the small light difference if you ask me (the 70-180 looks stellar, though not what I need as a walkaround lens). I've seen it used locally for 900$ CAD, but its few and far between to see the Tamrons used anywhere.

The Sony 24-105 is probably my favorite option so far. It loses some range to gain some wide-angle, and adds OSS. Its drawbacks come from its heavier weight, thicker diameter, only being F4, and pricier price tag (about 1650$ CAD new, 1300$ roughly used)

Then the Zeiss 24-70, it is smaller, lighter, wider than the Tamrons, not nearly as telephoto, F4, and some people say it isn't very sharp. However, used locally it can be found around 700$, being the cheapest of the bunch (as the newer Tamrons have almost no used market)

Does anyone have any other lens recommendations worth noting? Not many third parties tend to make zoom lenses. Out of these options, which do you recommend? I believe personally I would choose the 24-105, if it wasn't due to the price. 1300$ is a little high for me used, If I could find it around 1000$ I would buy it in a heartbeat (as I found my Sony 70-300G for 1000$ used, and it is 1700$ new CAD)

 

[FarHagh]

I am looking for a replacement walkaround lens for my 28-70mm F3.5-5.6 kit lens, and have researched a few popular options but am not sold on anything yet.

I do want it to be a zoom lens, around the 24-100 range is optimal or even 24-70 could work as I have the Sony 70-300 as my walkaround zoom lens. Light/small is definitely a benefit. So far I have been looking at the Sony 24-105, Tamron 28-75, Tamron 28-200, and Zeiss 24-70.

The Tamron 28-200 seems like a great value, but I would honestly love a bit wider than 28, and if I am going to go to 200 I figure I will be switching to my Sony telephoto anyways. This coupled with the lack of OSS just doesn't have me sold on this lens right now.

The Tamron 28-75 is similar, id love it to be wider. The constant aperture is lovely, but I believe the 28-200 is only at F3.5 by the time it reaches 75mm, so the extra range is really a much better value than the small light difference if you ask me (the 70-180 looks stellar, though not what I need as a walkaround lens). I've seen it used locally for 900$ CAD, but its few and far between to see the Tamrons used anywhere.

The Sony 24-105 is probably my favorite option so far. It loses some range to gain some wide-angle, and adds OSS. Its drawbacks come from its heavier weight, thicker diameter, only being F4, and pricier price tag (about 1650$ CAD new, 1300$ roughly used)

Then the Zeiss 24-70, it is smaller, lighter, wider than the Tamrons, not nearly as telephoto, F4, and some people say it isn't very sharp. However, used locally it can be found around 700$, being the cheapest of the bunch (as the newer Tamrons have almost no used market)

Does anyone have any other lens recommendations worth noting? Not many third parties tend to make zoom lenses. Out of these options, which do you recommend? I believe personally I would choose the 24-105, if it wasn't due to the price. 1300$ is a little high for me used, If I could find it around 1000$ I would buy it in a heartbeat (as I found my Sony 70-300G for 1000$ used, and it is 1700$ new CAD)

I doubt anyone can help you decide, as you pretty much know all the facts and advantages/disadvantages. Make the decision and enjoy shooting!

I personally don't consider lenses below 1Kg heavy and have never found the 24-105 a problem to carry around. For those low light situations, I usually have the Rokinon 45mm with me which is a favorite FL for me, and featherweight

 

[dkeller]

I was in the same situation and went with the Sony 24-105. Great flexibility on both ends and very sharp and fast focusing. Only drawback is that it is a bit on the heavy side.

I would back it up with a 70-300 for cases when you need that extra reach. Don't worry about the overlap, you'll actually appreciate it in a lot in instances. Actually the 100-400 would be even better except it is a really big lens for a walk around-but if you don't mind that size and weight I don't think it can be beat.

 

[Foto4x4]

Well as a walk around lens, I would choose the 28-200. I own the 24-105, have owned the 24-70Z but not the Tamron 28-75. These are my reasons.

1. 24-105. Great lens, very sharp but it is relatively bulky and heavy, expensive, and f4 has its limitations.
2. 24-70Z. Not worth the investment. Barely better than your kit lens. The number for sale second hand tells you something owners feel about this one.
3. 28-75. Best feature is f2.8 in compact lens. Sharp and good AF

The slightly wider 28mm starting point of the 28-200 is hardly an issue. Often it’s just a matter of how you compose the subject, of step back a foot or two. In a month with this lens I haven’t been cramped by the 28mm. On the other hand, it’s as sharp as the 24-105, lighter, no longer, has an incredibly useful range. Means virtually no lens swapping. On my A7RIII, I can even crop to 300mm in a pinch or stitch a couple images for a wide angle. So far I’m not finding many compromises with this lens. For those times I do need wider or longer, I have a 16-35 and 100-400 + 1.4 TC. As for lack of OSS? Not found this an issue. My fast primes don’t have OSS, and the A7RIII IBIS works very well with the Tamron.

 

[Jostian]

Tough choice, I think its between the 24 105 and the Tamron 28 75, both are great, Sony has OSS which the Tammy doesnt have and is wider and longer, bit better build quality imho, but the Tammy is sharper in the 28 to 75 range, is lighter and better for lower light, and its a lot cheaper.

See here the resolution analyses of the 2, Tammy is sharper but the Sony isn't far off.

https://www.opticallimits.com/sonyalphaff/1064-tamron2875f28e?start=1

https://www.opticallimits.com/sonyalphaff/1034-sony24105f4goss?start=1

I dont think you can go wrong with either.

 

[stash_story]

No Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 Art?

 

[Chris Crevasse]

I have both the 24-70/4 and the 24-105/4. If I had to keep only one, I would keep the 24-105/4. However, in many ways, the 24-70/4 is a better walkaround lens; it is noticeably smaller and lighter than the 24-105/4. The price you pay for the portability is a small decrease in measurable IQ, noticeable only with pixel peeping. I say "measurable" because the images from the 24-70/4 have a slightly different -- often "better" -- look to them that won't show up on resolution charts, which unfortunately is the sole criteria most people use to judge a lens. As for the Tamron or any other walkaround zoom lens that begins at 28mm, that would not be wide enough for me.

 

[ahaslett]

I picked the 28-75/2.8 because it’s smaller, cheaper and has a better shooting envelope for me than the 24-105/4. 24mm isn’t wide enough for me, so I have a Loxia 21/2.8 and CV 15/4.5. The 24-105/4 would definitely be too heavy for me.

If I were to go on an exotic holiday, my kit would be Tamron 17-28 and 28-75, with Sigma 100-400. That would mean buying 2 lenses and a tripod foot for the Sigma (to carry it on a strap)

Have you thought which lenses you might add later?

I agree with the post that says you should consider the Sigma 24-70.

You don’t mention bokeh quality, maybe that would be important for you.

Andrew

--
Infinite are the arguments of mages. Truth is a jewel with many facets. Ursula K LeGuin
Please feel free to edit any images that I post

 

[PWPhotography]

I am a multi-lens and multi-camera person. For me it's FE 16-35 GM that default on A7r IV and Tamron FE 28-75 that default on A7r III. And then FE 100-400 GM is also another lens that I carry into trips these days.

 

[Austinian]

The 24-105 has worked well for me; when I had a 28mm-equivalent lens in APS-C it seemed like it never went quite wide enough. Sometimes you just can't zoom with your feet, like when I had my back against a wall of rock at Arches.

 

[Cato1040]

You seem to have all the information you need to make a decision. I chose the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 as my walk-around lens for the image quality, weight, size, aperture, and price. They do float around on the used market (in Ontario) now so you can definitely find a deal on them though the Zeiss 24-70mm f/4 is definitely cheaper on the used market.

If you want wider than 28mm, I'd recommend looking at the 16-35mm f/4. I've gotten one almost new from Kijiji for $900 (though I bought it to flip it for $1100). Super sharp and compact. That would pair well with your telephoto lens.

 

[olstrup]

It depends on how much weight and bulk you will accept to walk around with.

10 years ago, I walked around with a Nikon D700 with battery grip and a 24-70/2.8 plus a 80-200/2.8.

Now, I am 10 years older and have osteoarthitis so now I walk around with a sony A7/9 with a Leica M Summicron 35mm (foot zoom model), a Tele-Elmarit 90/2.8 and a WATE - all in a small and light bag.

Sic transiit gloria mundi.

 

[Craig Gillette]

I think experience, trial and error, etc., unfortunately is the answer. Maybe even, "Location, location, location?" I've gone through this on the aps-c side, mirrorless and dslr. I carried "too much" when visiting Washington, DC., and went mirrorless for Italy, and maybe, "too little."

What I found in Italy was 16-50, or 24-75 in ff terms, was quite often not wide enough nor long enough. Nor was it a fixed aperture. So it was conveniently light and handy and useful a lot of the time and not any where near as heavy as my dslr kit with 4 lenses which I used 2 frequently and two almost never (on that reference trip). Aperture? Generic day time, outdoors or tripod (a series of compromises it it's own right), etc. wasn't an issue except when it was and in the poorly lit cathedrals and churches and the like, even f2.8, is often not enough. I happen to have since then added a light wider lens, a light fast prime and the 18-135. Wide you can sometimes fix with stitching, aperture, sometimes multi-frame noise reduction, etc., and the longer focal length needs longer focal length although maybe sometimes there is some crop space.

The "best" really depends on the given circumstances. Even the body can shape the compromised. High resolution gives crop room but uses up some of the "FF advantage."

 

[YY101]

I went to a store and tested the 24-105f4 and decide that it is a tad too heavy for my liking. YMMV.

So I got a Tamron 28-75f2.8 instead. Even though it was a 110g difference, it felt significant. You really can't go wrong with either lenses. You get a wider range for the Sony and brighter aperture with the Tamron. Pick 1 and be happy.

That said, I would strongly consider the Tamron 28-200 as a 3rd alternative. It wasn't available when I got the 28-75f2.8. I would pick this over the f2.8 version since it is f4.5 at 75mm and I get 75-200 for 1.5 stop and a slight degrade in quality from 28-75. Reasonable tradeoff I think.

 

[AGshots]

The decision will ultimately come down to what you need and where you’ll be shooting most of the time. But I will give my experience with Teo of the lenses you are considering if it helps.

i have both the tamron 28-75 and the Sony 24-105

they are both AMAZING lenses and use both of them often. I will say I use the tamron more though.

basically if I’m indoors and need a walk around zoom I will always pick the Tamron every time no question. If I’m outside then it’s a toss up between both and more comes down to the range I might need. The tamron NOT having OSS doesn’t really bother me either. Being inside the wider aperture of the tamron helps get fast shutter anyway and if shooting outdoors then both with be at very high shutter anyway.

if you are mainly doing video then I would say they are about equal there as well. But once if I had to keep only one I would still keep the tamron. It is an incredible lens and can really help indoor shots!