Sony or Tamron? Help me decide…

Nikon_Nick

Nikon_Nick

Shirley
Suspended / Banned
Messages
6,637
Name
Nick
Edit My Images
Yes
I’m looking for a walk around lens for my Sony A7RIII, and have narrowed it down to either the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 or the Sony 24-105 f4. The Sony would probably be a second hand purchase and the Tamron probably new unless I find a minty one on here. Both have positives and negatives. I’d appreciate the extra reach, but also the wider available aperture on the Tamron. If anyone could kindly let me know their real world experiences with these lenses it would be appreciated; I don’t think there is a YouTube video I haven’t watched!

cheers

Nick
 
Tamron, I'm well impressed with mine ,£640 last time I looked on amazon , they come in a non sealed box so you could try it out then send it back if you're not happy but I think you'll be keeping it, 5 year guarantee form in the box too.
 
Sony. For the sake of a stop I'd rather have the extra range at both ends and stabilisation. The only advantage to the Tamron is the lower weight and size. Neither will be a bokeh monster at the long end. TBH I'd choose the Tamron 28-200 over the 28-70 for walkabout.
 
Having had all 3 i.e. Tamron 28-75mm, 24-105mm and tamron 28-200mm I'd say they all have thier pros and cons so depends on what you are after.

I first got tamron 28-75/2.8 as the 24-70GM was just too big and heavy for my liking. I really liked this lens as indoors lens and was also good enough at portraits too. For travel and general use I found it a bit limiting.
So I sold it and swapped to 24-105mm for travel and landscapes. The 24-105mm did most things I wanted it to in terms of general walkabout, travel and landscape lens with great sharpness across the range.
Not so good for indoors and I missed that about the 28-75mm f2.8 but I made do with primes for that.
More recently I swapped 24-105mm for tamron 28-200mm. I have liked having the longer end and the slightly smaller size. Between 28-105mm tamron is f2.8-4.5 so you don't lose much light, if anything you gain more than you lose thanks to the f2.8 at wide end. Between 28-75mm it'll be a f2.8-4.
So this is nice "middle-ground" between previous two lenses.
Still prefer the rendering from 24-105mm compared to both tamrons. Sony produces better bokeh and sunstars.

Tamron has announced a second updated version of 28-75mm to arrive later this year. So the first version is bound to lose some of its value.
In future I personally am considering going with a two zoom option with 16-35GM and newly announced tamron 35-150mm f2-2.8 if the tamron lens turns out to be excellent.
 
Last edited:
Thanks all for your comments so far. I really cannot seem to make a decision. I think I’m there, then I think of something else and that sets me back to square one. I think mostly, this would be used in two areas; a day of Street photography here and there, and also as a lens for landscapes. I’m happy that 28mm on full frame is wide enough for my landscape shots, so it’s really the tele end I can’t decide on. I appreciate that the Sony is probably the superior lens in general, but I’ve also seen some fantastic results achieved with the Tamron. I’m not particularly worried how good it is for portraits as I have a couple of primes I use for that purpose. One area I keep coming back to with the Tamron is the close focusing distance which is quite appealing.

decisions decisions…
 
Nikon_Nick said:
Thanks all for your comments so far. I really cannot seem to make a decision. I think I’m there, then I think of something else and that sets me back to square one. I think mostly, this would be used in two areas; a day of Street photography here and there, and also as a lens for landscapes. I’m happy that 28mm on full frame is wide enough for my landscape shots, so it’s really the tele end I can’t decide on. I appreciate that the Sony is probably the superior lens in general, but I’ve also seen some fantastic results achieved with the Tamron. I’m not particularly worried how good it is for portraits as I have a couple of primes I use for that purpose. One area I keep coming back to with the Tamron is the close focusing distance which is quite appealing.

decisions decisions…
Click to expand...

One possible workaround for lenses with a longer close focus distance is to use a close up filter. Fitting and removing them could be a pain but it's something I've learned to live with for the odd close up picture.
 
I've had a variety of zooms in this range, and can see nothing about the 28-70 that makes it compelling. If you're happy with 28 at the wide end then the 28-200 seems the obvious choice. None of these are really small enough to be ideal street lenses.
 
I've got the Sony 24-105mm and it's a great all-round lens, including for video thanks to the stabilisation. At 105mm f/4 the depth of field is perfect for a lot of shots because there's still some recognition of the background yet lovely separation of the subject. Good image resolution and contrast as well.

I bought it new in Feb this year, but unfortunately it doesn't spend much time on my camera because I prefer the 35mm prime for the majority of what I photograph, but I still pop it on when doing video or if I know I'll need the reach.
 
I have owned the Tamron for quite a while, I am not a big fan of mid range zooms as I prefer other lenses but for me it's a useful lens to have as a back up. When I have used it though have never been disappointed it isn't just as sharp wide open at the long end but all in all I am pretty happy with it. It's big advantage to me is with it being mainly a lens I just use as a back up is that is light weight and small, it also very cheap compared to the other options.

I also until recently had the 24-105, they were on a promo a while back and I bought a few to sell on as it was easy money. I kept one for myself for a little while but I found it a really boring lens and quickly realised that while it might be a handy focal length for a day out I was never going to use it, as I like to shoot wide open a lot and images at f/4 were very meh. The lens itself is decent enough for what it is.

Of the two I much prefer the Tamron, seems that most other people do too, it is supposed to be far and away the most sold lens for Sony e-mount and it's not hard to see why.

If you really want a lens in this range the Sigma 24-70 also seems to be a popular choice so might be worth having a look at. Some people also seem to like the 28-200 and it gets good reviews although personally I thought it was rubbish and the poorest of Tamron's e-mount range.
 
Last edited:
All comes down to where you'll be happiest making the compromise(s). I'd go for the Sony for the zoom range. Not so much at the long end (a bit of cropping will get the small amount of extra reach) but the 4mm at the wide end is harder to find. However, if you want/need the shallow DoF that f/2.8 gives, the Tamron is the choice.

Not handled or used either but I would guess that the Sony is better built.
 
Once again, thanks all for your replies, appreciate it. Just to throw a spanner in the works, I borrowed a friends Sigma 24-70 f2.8 Art lens today, and that could also be a possibility. I’ve watched a few videos, and the one thing that they all seem to be saying is that it is sharper than both the Sony and Tamron…
 
Nikon_Nick said:
Once again, thanks all for your replies, appreciate it. Just to throw a spanner in the works, I borrowed a friends Sigma 24-70 f2.8 Art lens today, and that could also be a possibility. I’ve watched a few videos, and the one thing that they all seem to be saying is that it is sharper than both the Sony and Tamron…
Click to expand...
Its is but its a f2.8 lens and bigger
sigma 28-70mm f2.8 is more on the level of tamron 28-75mm f2.8
 
The siggie 24-70 f2.8 is a cut above the tamron from what I read. If you're holding out for that zoom range then it's the one I'd pick.
 
Last edited:
I have the Tamron 28-75 F2.8 and its pin sharp as sharp as my canon 24-70 f2.8L. As other have said it's not as well made on mine the zoom rubber has gone out of shape. Have a look back through old photos to see how many times you needed f2.8 compared to the extra reach. If you are using a tripod a lot should also affect things
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top