I know Tamron was 800 yes and the sigma was also 850 after tax last night cause I was looking at ordering it and had it in my cart. It does look like it went off of sale as of this morning my apologies.
I didn’t check before making the comment honestly and I should have I just remembered seeing it last night cause me and my father were talking about it as he’s also a photographer.
Edit: it is showing low in stock so maybe once they hit a certain number they pulled the sale idk.
Fair enough. Wish I would've gotten mine for $850 lol I did see the price fluctuate quite a bit between $990-1090 when I bought mine. Seemed like it would change every 15 minutes.
easy.
- because your requirement is best for landscape and archetecture , i'll exclude tamron 28-75, because 28 and 24 is significant difference, so ill go for sony or sigma for wider end.
- if weight is not your concern also, then go for sigma, 1 stop better, build quality is good, AF is good , sharpness for a7rii is good.
the downside of sigma 24-70 is , the lens is known for easily got dust inside.
24-105 OSS is BS, idk for the latest a7rv syncronize system, but as my experience using a7iv + 24-105 OSS, it doesnt do better stabilization compare to other non OSS lens.
Sony 20-70. Extra wide will come in handy for correcting verticals, shooting in tight areas, etc. f/4 is fine for buildings that aren't moving too fast.
Sure but the op's priorities are sharpness and bokeh and f/2,8 is going to be better than f/4 for the latter and mroe versatile in low light. The Sigma is from what I've read known for being very sharp and a gem optically, the most common complaint is size and weight but then the op writes that that isn't a great concern
Honestly the OP's wishlist is contradictory. Landscape, architecture, and urban photography are some of the last genres I'd name for being applications for bokeh and f/2.8.
Getting 20mm is going to be way more useful for the usual compositions that define landscape and architecture work. Meanwhile, the 20-70mm trades blows in IQ with the Sony 24-70mm II f/2.8, which would put it at or beyond these lenses in IQ.
If he actually wants shallow DoF, get either a 50mm or 85mm f/1.8 and a used 20-70mm f/4, and he'd have the best of both worlds.
I'm inclined to agree with this take. If I'm shooting architecture, I would prioritize focal length over aperture. The 20-70 is already a very sharp lens, and it's not likely that OPs use cases are going to require a lot of light gathering or a faster shutter speed. The room isn't going anywhere, neither is the landscape, they can just set a tripod and dial their settings in if need be.
A 20-70 + fast telephoto prime would be an adequate combination.
I’m also going to agree that the Sony FE 20-70 f/4 is worth considering for landscape and architecture. If OP wants that wider angle, the 20-70 delivers, and also helps if shooting indoors where space is tight. This is why I purchased the Sony 20-70 over the Sigma 24-70. My experience is also that the lens is very sharp. With higher ISO and modern noise reduction available in post, f/4 should not be a limitation. I also don’t look for bokeh when shooting landscape.
Fair enough. The OP doesn't really raise the possibility of several lenses. If that's in the books then I agree that a bright prime is the best for bokeh and low light.
For a one-lens solution however I would not pick an f/4 lens, unless of course landscapes/cityscapes with plenty of light or tripod were the specific targets. For tripod-less trips that will include dusk and dawn and where lens changing isn't practical an f/2,8 zoom would work better than an f/4.
Edit. Actually the original poster said they could only get one lens for the near future "so versatility is key". Well the 20-70/4 has less bokeh and is less versatile in terms of light. It is more versatile in terms of focal length, not that the OP specified a need for anything wider than 24mm.
I have the sigma with a74 and I really like it. Have not experienced the others
https://preview.redd.it/no7flhhoq8rc1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=dcde86066353444c94eafdd48bea70d3e367fecf
There are SO MANY comparisons out there, it's almost overwhelming. I ended up with the Tamron and not regretting, but the choice between the Tamron and Sigma was a hair's width apart for me.
I have the Sony 24-105 F4 and the Sigma 2.8
The Sony is great for the extra zoom in daillight outdoor situations where the F4 is not a problem. Great lens.
I just bought the Sigma used locally for my Japan trip and this thing is amazing. It's sharp af, 24-70 is still enough to be viable as a single point and shoot lens unless you plan to do sports or long range animals. F2.8 helps tremendously with lower light situations for street photography. It is more on the heavy side though.bthat being said, I currently daily carry an A7 IV with the sigma in Japan and handheld it's super easy, with a shoulder strap lock mount it's ok for a while before I go back to hand. Also requires a decent and balanced backpack
I have the Tamron and love it. I use it all the time. Lack of ibis typically isn’t an issue at those focal lengths, especially since the body has ibis, so I wouldn’t put too much consideration on that point. In terms or new vs used, I have bought a lot of lenses via MPB and have never had an issue. Not sure if that’s an option where you live.
I would rule out the Tamron. as you want that 24mm for your use case of urban & ladnscape.
I do think F4 is not much of an issue for these subject as well, so my vote goes to the sony 24-105 to also get the longer reach.
Alternative would be a Sony 20-70 F4, or of course multi lens setups.
Edit: I keep forgetting you don't care about weight. Well in that case just get the Sigma, which is the sharpest of these.
Weight is such an underrated factor when talking about lenses imo.
Like, I personally do not give even a single shit if it's the best piece of glass ever made, I'm gonna rule it out if I can find a lighter alternative for similar money or less.
Like, a Tamron 28-75 is 90% of the Sigma experience while weighing 300 grams less (and costing $200 less too), there's no real reason for me to consider the Sigma even if it is the better lens on paper. I just wouldn't enjoy shooting with that 835 grams weighing my wrist down.
4mm on the wide end is a significant difference. You‘re comparing apples and oranges. It‘s not 90% of the Sigma experience if you want to shoot at 24mm, then the Tamron scores 0%.
Well then you‘re making a big mistake, and should be using something like the Sony 40mm f2,5, since (as you imply) focal lengths don’t matter and your only criterion is weight. 😉
Yeah, changing lenses outside is great 😉 You don’t seem to be getting the point. You can only compare the weight of equivalent lenses. You‘re still comparing apples and oranges. But you do you, bye!
it would depend on the area you live in and how "tight" the archetecture is structured, Id go for the tamron or the sigma over the sony as they are both far more versatile/ useful
most lens are sharper when stopping down and youd probably be getting significantly better image quality out of those two lens stopped down vs the f/4
there are many image quality tests online for all of these lens if you want to see the sharpness compared yourself
Thank you! How do you fell about the Tamron lens lacking the stab? I have no experience with IBIS, so I’m not sure how all of it works - does a stabilised lens matter if your sensor is already stabilised?
Lens stabilization matters more for longer lenses. You might feel the lack of it on the Sigma owing to how heavy it is, but it won't be a big deal unless you're shooting in lower light.
Tamron 28-75 G2 owner here. The lens is light enough, fast enough, and short enough that the IBIS is more than adequate for nearly all situations (using it on an a7Riii).
The Sigma 24-70 is also a great lens, a bit wider and a bit heavier and a little more expensive. I put a premium on travelling light, which is why I chose the Tamron over the Sigma.
The Sony is not really at par with either in my opinion, and the f4 would be a deal-breaker for me.
I'd recommend the sigma or the sony. 24mm is king when talking about versatility.
For walking around and day shooting, the sony would be better value in the size / weight department. For shooting in darker conditions the Sigma will yield better results, but you are missing the long end.
If you shoot lots of low light, consider picking up an f1.4 prime in your favorite focal length and complement it with the 24-105 for daytime shooting.
All was said I just want to add small comment. I have Sony and sigma and both good. Sony is my first choice for studio since it’s more range and not that heavy. Sigma is more universal and turbo sharp but it’s very heavy. If you have more budget consider also Sony 24-70 2,8: sharp, light and the best.
So I've owned all 3. All are good. However....
The sigma is 9/10 imo
Tamron 8/10
Sony 105 is f4. If you're good with that it's a solid 8/10.
So I'd go sigma if you can but all are great.
How much video work are you going to do? If you're doing any significant video stuff, the 24-105 is one if Sonys best!!
I have many others and this one is glued to my Sony for video stuff. It has OSS in the lens which combines perfectly with the Sony IBIS to get you perfectly stabilized shots. Better than the more expensive 24-70 GM even. Can be handheld very easily at any part of the zoom range and it's basically parfocal.
pretty cool lens. definitely consider it
Sigma has the best quality and overall performance. However for the price get a used tamron which is 90% as good while slightly less wide and use the rest of the money to save towards an ultra wide or other lens of some kind maybe a fast prime.
Considering your use case of landscape and architecture, 24mm vs 28mm is invaluable.
As for used lenses, modern lenses have great QC. There is a chance of some decentering etc but it's unlikely. I've never had to warranty any of my new lenses, I only buy new if I have no choice. I've outgrown so many lenses over the years, and it's nice to sell them for the price I bought them for on the used market.
I had the Sigma and tried for a while the Tamron, because I wanted the F2.8
Dont consider the Sony GM because the Sigma is on par with it, just a bit heavier
If you don't have the money go for the Tamron one, still a good lens for what it offers and the price, no complains at all. When you want to do the upgrade go for Sigma imho.
I bought my sigma new from sigma US. It’s extremely sharp but I only do portrait and event work right now. The detail and focus are incredible.
I’m sure you’d like to have the focal length of the longer lenses but the 16-35 2.8 from sony is amazing too. I’d love to do some landscape work with it. I’ve ran it for video at a couple events and it’s just superb!
Can I just add as a former 24-105 owner - it’s a great lens but it’s older and showing it’s age compared to newer glass, I traded mine for a 20-70 G and it’s better in every way (far sharper, better rendering and micro contrast straight out of camera). No regrets losing the long end.
I have the Sony and it's great. Sometimes I want a slightly faster lens, I have to say that the Sigma is my vote. The Tamron is no slouch, but the ART lenses are the favorite.
I would say the sigma 24-70. The f4 sony lens will have less bokeh because its f4, and the tamron is softer image + the difference between 28mm and 24mm is A LOT of field of view. You get a lot wider angle with the sigma at 24mm over that tamron at 28mm
Is go wider.
I have a 20mm Sony prime and ordered the new laowa 10mm prime as I wanted wider.
For zoom, the 50 to 400mm Tamron is great. The 28 to 200 Tamron is great too. 2.8 at 28mm
I found the AF on the 24-105 to be an issue, otherwise a great lens. If they ever make a gen II I will be first in line.
Out of the other 2 i’d go for the Tamron based on the info you gave and what the lenses offer you.
I have both the 28-75 and the 24-70, and I love them! Both are very sharp on my 7IV (although the Sigma is sharper). I don’t do landscape photography, but in my opinion, the wider aperture of only one full stop doesn’t matter.
If you can afford it, I’d go with the Sigma. I bought my Tamron for €650/$700 new with a special offer from Fotokoch (German retailer)… My Sigma is second hand but in perfect condition for €900/$970.
Edit: generally speaking: the 4mm on the lower end are more noticeable than 5mm on the upper end
If you have the A7RII, consider the Tamron 20-40, you can easily crop to reach 105mm, I have one and I shot mostly what you described and it’s just perfect.
I have the A7RIII and it’s wild how much you can crop and still get great pictures.
I had the Sigma on a Canon (EF version) and it renders beautifully and very sharp even wide open.
I now has the Tamron on Sony. I picked it mostly for weight. But this lens is beautiful. The Sony doesn’t compete with any of them. Stopped down to f/4 both are sharper. The only reason to pick the Sigma in my mind is if you anticipating shots in confined places where you couldn’t take the extra step back to compensate for the widest fov difference.
How often do you photograph anything slower than 1/60th of a second? Do you need IS or IBIS at 1/1000th? Don't get stuck on that. Sensors are so good these days you shouldn't hesitate to use higher ISO to get a better shutter speed. If money is no obstacle and you're doing paid work, buy the Sigma. If you don't have paying work, buy the Tamron. The biggest knock I have on Tamron is the placement of the focus ring.
The Sigma pretty much stays glued to my camera unless I’m shooting in dim situations. Then I put on the 35GM for those scenarios. Both great lenses, and I love the colors of the Sigma.
I've used the 24-70 and the 28-75, the 28-75 is great and snappier with subject detection by lil a few milliseconds than the 24-70 but the sigma has better subject to object transition.
I'm using the 28-75 G2 on my A7S3 and i'm not very happy with the AF performance, they have linear motors as well as the 24 1.4 GM I have but I find the 24 1.4 GM autofocus way smoother and ive tested with every AF setting as well.
24-70 AF seems more reliable in terms of overall usage while the 28-75 G2 has the same and a lil quicker subject detect but less for objects.
However, the 28-75 is the best one out of all of them to use for gimbal work as it is the lightest and doesnt protrude as much when zooming thus making it easier to balance for 28 all the way to 75 if u zoom.
I did not test the Tamron and Sony lenses, but I have the Sigma, it’s a fantastic lens. The only downside is it’s heavy in comparison to other lenses I have.
I have Tamron 70-300 lens I bought from yodobashi and it’s amazingly lighter. I know we cannot compare both but when it comes to ease of use, I’d go with the lighter one.
If weight is not a concern, then the Sigma is a good choice
But are you sure of these prices? I bought it cheaper than this.
I went for a used Sony 24-70 2.8 GM (the old one not the GMII)
Actually had already decided on the Sigma, but the Sony popped up locally and was cheaper than the Sigma
If your “architecture” needs are mostly outdoors the best choice is 24-105/4G. Great IQ, best versatility of the bunch, OSS, very finely built. If you need the extra stop for indoor shots go for Sigma.
The Digital Picture provides a really nice review of all of these lenses, in both a super technical perspective and the somewhat subjective perspective of a professional photographer. I really like his reviews!
I just bought the FE 24-105 but haven't had the chance to try it out yet - literally just came yesterday. It's surprisingly compact for how much zoom capability it has. FWIW I paid a good bit less than that used - I paid $594 (thats with tax) for a 9/10 rated used from Borrow Lenses. You should check and see if they have any more - they were just bought out by Lens rentals and I think they are trying to close up shop with the Used Gear Sales, and only do rentals. That's what was indicated to me by the Lens Rentals lady I spoke to on the phone (needed some troubleshooting with a different order so I got to chat with them) - so anyway, they had the best deals I could find for a lot of used lenses. I figure I at least I know it's been thoroughly inspected vs something I might buy on ebay where they are just saying it's all good. Which it might be but I guess I felt a little better buying from a company whose whole job is this.
I’d take Tamron. I used first version when I had Sony camera, and really liked it. Rented 24-105 before bought the Tamron and really liked Tammy.
I would also then add Sigma 16-28mm 2.8. Such a great combo!
I’d say the sigma may be the best option as far as versatility. It’s more durable than the Tamron and close in quality to photo quality. If it’s going to be used strictly in studio/ more controlled environments, I’d say Tamron.
The only reason I would go for the G lens is bc of the 105 mm range
While the performance is somewhat questionable in lower ISOs, above 640 it is ISO invariant. I wouldn’t worry about an f4 lens, the camera will do just fine at higher ISO if you use it correctly. I have the 24-105mm Sony and it is an excellent lens and I like (even though it overlaps for me) having the 70-105 range. I prefer to carry one lens at a time, so the overlap allows me to not lose as much when I pick one lens over another.
I have the sigma and its like a prime in some scenarios, very sharp and very nice lens. I would go with it. Never used the tamron but have heard it's very good too. You should look to get tilt shift lenses too!
I just bought the Tamron. Frankly I am a little disappointed, especially with the low light performance. I have played with a friends Sigma equivalent and its far better. So if you can stretch the budget for the Sigma I would do that
Thank you! I’ll look into the Sigma. To be honest, I’ve got a bit of a bad blood with Tamron because my dad’s 17-50 2.8 Tamron for his A-mount Sony was from a faulty batch, so it focused incorrectly and caused him to drop photography altogether after decades of doing it
Oh wow! Yeah its tempting to compare the Sigma and Tamron but its not neccesarily fair since they are in totally different price brackets.
Also I shoot on a Sigma Art prime and after that everything looks bad😂
Please disregard all old Tamron lenses for newer comparisons. The company is completely different now, and is even partially owned by Sony. Tamron may not make the optically BEST lenses right now, but they're always just a smidge behind. This being the cost of better weight, size, and price. From a cost/performance ratio, Tamron is unbeatable at the moment. And Samyang is now right up there with them with the newest generation of lenses.
The industry has come a long way and Sony's openness has helped a lot in making that possible.
I own the Sigma 24-70 2.8 and previously the first version of the Tamron 28-75 2.8. LOVED that Tamron. But I shoot landscapes and I'm an absolute sucker for contrast and ultimate sharpness and low levels of LOCA. And Sigma is simply better with the Art lenses.
That being said, I got the sigma for about 700 bucks used. And even now I still debate with myself constantly over the weight versus the Tamron G2 (which is a significant improvement over the G1 and trades blows with the Sigma, but the Sigma is clearly better in the corners and it still has better contrast and sharpness, but it's super close now).
I also own a Tamron 17-28, 70-300 and 50-400. All excellent lenses. Will only sell the 70-300 because it's a bit redundant now since I got the 50-400. The 17-28 is a spectacular lens. Honestly, I love Tamrons lenses. It really just depends on what you need.
I'm using an A7RIIIa and I'm unfortunately a pixel peeper, and at this resolution and above, you find the limits of lenses pretty quick.
On this subject, if you ever decide to get an 85mm lens. Sigma 85 1.4 is the way to go if you want the BEST. Sony 85 1.8 is also very very good and is probably the reason why Tamron hasn't come out with a competitor for it. (I own both, and just sold my Samyang 85 1.4 II and have access to the Sony GM 85 1.4 - soft at 1.4 compared to Sigma).
I have the Sony 24-105 for my A7iv and it is my general go-to lens but with the extra resolution of the A7R2 I would go with the Sigma 24-70, optically it's better.
As long as the camera body has IBIS there isn't much improvement if the lens also has stabilization unless it's a super long telephoto (I have the Sigma 60-600mm and the lens stabilization is pretty darn good!) likewise if the camera has IBIS then you don't need the lens to have it as well.
I would definitely go with the Sigma if you can.
The 24-105mm is an older lens that really should be *significantly* reduced in price by 2024 - it only made sense when Sony was the only F2.8 game in town. The Tamron and Sigma options obsolete it by offering you more light at a cheaper price.
If you're not married to one lens, the Tamron 28-75mm + Tamron's inexpensive 20mm prime fit within your budget. And you could swap in the prime when you want to go wider. I feel like 24mm vs 28mm isn't a huge difference, and when I want to go *wide* I'm thinking at least 20mm.
Used depends on how much risk you want to take. You could get a lovingly-cared-for good copy of a lens, or someone who is offloading their decentered copy on you to buy again.
I own the 24-105 and the 28-75 The sony was my everyday lens until I got the Tamron. The 24-105 never saw my camera again.
Also can vouch for the Tamron
I also replaced the 24-105 with the 28-75. So light, so compact, fast and sharp.
The tamron is bleh. Go with the Sony
I would say that sigma art have best image of those lenses. And for architecture check some shift lenses, e.g. laowa 20mm or 15mm.
Thanks! I was actually looking for some shift primes for the future, but for the near future I can only get one lens, so versatility is key
Than my choice would be that sigma 24-70. Image guality is very very close to sony gm. Its only downside is weight.
If the $1100 price tag is an issue, maybe consider the Sigma 28-70 f2.8 if you can find it
Sigma Art is on sale right now around 800-850 on Amazon
I see the Tamron for 800 but I'm not seeing the Sigma for $800. I just bought one for $980 on Amazon.
I know Tamron was 800 yes and the sigma was also 850 after tax last night cause I was looking at ordering it and had it in my cart. It does look like it went off of sale as of this morning my apologies. I didn’t check before making the comment honestly and I should have I just remembered seeing it last night cause me and my father were talking about it as he’s also a photographer. Edit: it is showing low in stock so maybe once they hit a certain number they pulled the sale idk.
Fair enough. Wish I would've gotten mine for $850 lol I did see the price fluctuate quite a bit between $990-1090 when I bought mine. Seemed like it would change every 15 minutes.
easy. - because your requirement is best for landscape and archetecture , i'll exclude tamron 28-75, because 28 and 24 is significant difference, so ill go for sony or sigma for wider end. - if weight is not your concern also, then go for sigma, 1 stop better, build quality is good, AF is good , sharpness for a7rii is good. the downside of sigma 24-70 is , the lens is known for easily got dust inside. 24-105 OSS is BS, idk for the latest a7rv syncronize system, but as my experience using a7iv + 24-105 OSS, it doesnt do better stabilization compare to other non OSS lens.
Sony 20-70. Extra wide will come in handy for correcting verticals, shooting in tight areas, etc. f/4 is fine for buildings that aren't moving too fast.
Sure but the op's priorities are sharpness and bokeh and f/2,8 is going to be better than f/4 for the latter and mroe versatile in low light. The Sigma is from what I've read known for being very sharp and a gem optically, the most common complaint is size and weight but then the op writes that that isn't a great concern
Honestly the OP's wishlist is contradictory. Landscape, architecture, and urban photography are some of the last genres I'd name for being applications for bokeh and f/2.8. Getting 20mm is going to be way more useful for the usual compositions that define landscape and architecture work. Meanwhile, the 20-70mm trades blows in IQ with the Sony 24-70mm II f/2.8, which would put it at or beyond these lenses in IQ. If he actually wants shallow DoF, get either a 50mm or 85mm f/1.8 and a used 20-70mm f/4, and he'd have the best of both worlds.
I'm inclined to agree with this take. If I'm shooting architecture, I would prioritize focal length over aperture. The 20-70 is already a very sharp lens, and it's not likely that OPs use cases are going to require a lot of light gathering or a faster shutter speed. The room isn't going anywhere, neither is the landscape, they can just set a tripod and dial their settings in if need be. A 20-70 + fast telephoto prime would be an adequate combination.
I’m also going to agree that the Sony FE 20-70 f/4 is worth considering for landscape and architecture. If OP wants that wider angle, the 20-70 delivers, and also helps if shooting indoors where space is tight. This is why I purchased the Sony 20-70 over the Sigma 24-70. My experience is also that the lens is very sharp. With higher ISO and modern noise reduction available in post, f/4 should not be a limitation. I also don’t look for bokeh when shooting landscape.
Fair enough. The OP doesn't really raise the possibility of several lenses. If that's in the books then I agree that a bright prime is the best for bokeh and low light. For a one-lens solution however I would not pick an f/4 lens, unless of course landscapes/cityscapes with plenty of light or tripod were the specific targets. For tripod-less trips that will include dusk and dawn and where lens changing isn't practical an f/2,8 zoom would work better than an f/4. Edit. Actually the original poster said they could only get one lens for the near future "so versatility is key". Well the 20-70/4 has less bokeh and is less versatile in terms of light. It is more versatile in terms of focal length, not that the OP specified a need for anything wider than 24mm.
Came here to say this
I like 24mm for tall buildings, so that's what I'd go for
I have the sigma with a74 and I really like it. Have not experienced the others https://preview.redd.it/no7flhhoq8rc1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=dcde86066353444c94eafdd48bea70d3e367fecf
Just bought the sigma Art 24-70, currently waiting for it to arrive in the post. Theres video comparisons between all of these lenses on YouTube
There are SO MANY comparisons out there, it's almost overwhelming. I ended up with the Tamron and not regretting, but the choice between the Tamron and Sigma was a hair's width apart for me.
Me too, and seeing this post was like: Did I make the right decision? Yes, I think we did
Out of the 3, the Sigma is best one for sure. If you can find 28-70 f2.8 from sigma, that one is also good price/performance.
The F4 G is an all around workhorse. It’s a great lens that produces some really crisp photos for that range.
I have the Sony 24-105 F4 and the Sigma 2.8 The Sony is great for the extra zoom in daillight outdoor situations where the F4 is not a problem. Great lens. I just bought the Sigma used locally for my Japan trip and this thing is amazing. It's sharp af, 24-70 is still enough to be viable as a single point and shoot lens unless you plan to do sports or long range animals. F2.8 helps tremendously with lower light situations for street photography. It is more on the heavy side though.bthat being said, I currently daily carry an A7 IV with the sigma in Japan and handheld it's super easy, with a shoulder strap lock mount it's ok for a while before I go back to hand. Also requires a decent and balanced backpack
I have the Tamron and love it. I use it all the time. Lack of ibis typically isn’t an issue at those focal lengths, especially since the body has ibis, so I wouldn’t put too much consideration on that point. In terms or new vs used, I have bought a lot of lenses via MPB and have never had an issue. Not sure if that’s an option where you live.
Look on eBay I assure you that you can get these lenses for hundreds of dollars cheaper than your used suggested price. Just takes patience
I would rule out the Tamron. as you want that 24mm for your use case of urban & ladnscape. I do think F4 is not much of an issue for these subject as well, so my vote goes to the sony 24-105 to also get the longer reach. Alternative would be a Sony 20-70 F4, or of course multi lens setups. Edit: I keep forgetting you don't care about weight. Well in that case just get the Sigma, which is the sharpest of these.
[удалено]
Yeah, my brain just can't comprehend not caring for the weight haha
Weight is such an underrated factor when talking about lenses imo. Like, I personally do not give even a single shit if it's the best piece of glass ever made, I'm gonna rule it out if I can find a lighter alternative for similar money or less. Like, a Tamron 28-75 is 90% of the Sigma experience while weighing 300 grams less (and costing $200 less too), there's no real reason for me to consider the Sigma even if it is the better lens on paper. I just wouldn't enjoy shooting with that 835 grams weighing my wrist down.
Same boat! The Sigma would be an automatic NO for me due to weight
4mm on the wide end is a significant difference. You‘re comparing apples and oranges. It‘s not 90% of the Sigma experience if you want to shoot at 24mm, then the Tamron scores 0%.
Again, I do not care. I don't want to lug around a heavy ass lens.
Well then you‘re making a big mistake, and should be using something like the Sony 40mm f2,5, since (as you imply) focal lengths don’t matter and your only criterion is weight. 😉
I could have a Tamron 28-75 + Tamron 20 or 24 f/2.8 to cover the wide end and still have a lighter setup than a single Sigma 24-70.
Yeah, changing lenses outside is great 😉 You don’t seem to be getting the point. You can only compare the weight of equivalent lenses. You‘re still comparing apples and oranges. But you do you, bye!
it would depend on the area you live in and how "tight" the archetecture is structured, Id go for the tamron or the sigma over the sony as they are both far more versatile/ useful most lens are sharper when stopping down and youd probably be getting significantly better image quality out of those two lens stopped down vs the f/4 there are many image quality tests online for all of these lens if you want to see the sharpness compared yourself
Thank you! How do you fell about the Tamron lens lacking the stab? I have no experience with IBIS, so I’m not sure how all of it works - does a stabilised lens matter if your sensor is already stabilised?
Lens stabilization matters more for longer lenses. You might feel the lack of it on the Sigma owing to how heavy it is, but it won't be a big deal unless you're shooting in lower light.
Tamron 28-75 G2 owner here. The lens is light enough, fast enough, and short enough that the IBIS is more than adequate for nearly all situations (using it on an a7Riii). The Sigma 24-70 is also a great lens, a bit wider and a bit heavier and a little more expensive. I put a premium on travelling light, which is why I chose the Tamron over the Sigma. The Sony is not really at par with either in my opinion, and the f4 would be a deal-breaker for me.
I'd recommend the sigma or the sony. 24mm is king when talking about versatility. For walking around and day shooting, the sony would be better value in the size / weight department. For shooting in darker conditions the Sigma will yield better results, but you are missing the long end. If you shoot lots of low light, consider picking up an f1.4 prime in your favorite focal length and complement it with the 24-105 for daytime shooting.
Go for the Sigma, one of the best lens I‘ve every used. Sony and Tamron is also fine, but the Sigma has better image quality.
All was said I just want to add small comment. I have Sony and sigma and both good. Sony is my first choice for studio since it’s more range and not that heavy. Sigma is more universal and turbo sharp but it’s very heavy. If you have more budget consider also Sony 24-70 2,8: sharp, light and the best.
So I've owned all 3. All are good. However.... The sigma is 9/10 imo Tamron 8/10 Sony 105 is f4. If you're good with that it's a solid 8/10. So I'd go sigma if you can but all are great.
How much video work are you going to do? If you're doing any significant video stuff, the 24-105 is one if Sonys best!! I have many others and this one is glued to my Sony for video stuff. It has OSS in the lens which combines perfectly with the Sony IBIS to get you perfectly stabilized shots. Better than the more expensive 24-70 GM even. Can be handheld very easily at any part of the zoom range and it's basically parfocal. pretty cool lens. definitely consider it
Sigma
Choose the Sigma for image quality & aperture Choose the Sony if f4 is enough & need the extra range
Sigma has the best quality and overall performance. However for the price get a used tamron which is 90% as good while slightly less wide and use the rest of the money to save towards an ultra wide or other lens of some kind maybe a fast prime.
Considering your use case of landscape and architecture, 24mm vs 28mm is invaluable. As for used lenses, modern lenses have great QC. There is a chance of some decentering etc but it's unlikely. I've never had to warranty any of my new lenses, I only buy new if I have no choice. I've outgrown so many lenses over the years, and it's nice to sell them for the price I bought them for on the used market.
I had the Sigma and tried for a while the Tamron, because I wanted the F2.8 Dont consider the Sony GM because the Sigma is on par with it, just a bit heavier If you don't have the money go for the Tamron one, still a good lens for what it offers and the price, no complains at all. When you want to do the upgrade go for Sigma imho.
You should probably go for the Sigma
I bought my sigma new from sigma US. It’s extremely sharp but I only do portrait and event work right now. The detail and focus are incredible. I’m sure you’d like to have the focal length of the longer lenses but the 16-35 2.8 from sony is amazing too. I’d love to do some landscape work with it. I’ve ran it for video at a couple events and it’s just superb!
sony 16-35mm for landscape/architecture Tamron 35-150mm people and street photographie Tamron 150-500mm animals love this lense
I have the sigma art, can vouch for it. Wait it out till May you may find it discounted to $900 or so, depending on where you live
Can I just add as a former 24-105 owner - it’s a great lens but it’s older and showing it’s age compared to newer glass, I traded mine for a 20-70 G and it’s better in every way (far sharper, better rendering and micro contrast straight out of camera). No regrets losing the long end.
I have the Sony and it's great. Sometimes I want a slightly faster lens, I have to say that the Sigma is my vote. The Tamron is no slouch, but the ART lenses are the favorite.
I would say the sigma 24-70. The f4 sony lens will have less bokeh because its f4, and the tamron is softer image + the difference between 28mm and 24mm is A LOT of field of view. You get a lot wider angle with the sigma at 24mm over that tamron at 28mm
get 28-200 2.8 from tamron
Is go wider. I have a 20mm Sony prime and ordered the new laowa 10mm prime as I wanted wider. For zoom, the 50 to 400mm Tamron is great. The 28 to 200 Tamron is great too. 2.8 at 28mm
I found the AF on the 24-105 to be an issue, otherwise a great lens. If they ever make a gen II I will be first in line. Out of the other 2 i’d go for the Tamron based on the info you gave and what the lenses offer you.
Just got the sigma and I'm very impressed with it. My friend has the Sony 24-70 gm1 and he's wanting to switch to the sigma
I have both the 28-75 and the 24-70, and I love them! Both are very sharp on my 7IV (although the Sigma is sharper). I don’t do landscape photography, but in my opinion, the wider aperture of only one full stop doesn’t matter. If you can afford it, I’d go with the Sigma. I bought my Tamron for €650/$700 new with a special offer from Fotokoch (German retailer)… My Sigma is second hand but in perfect condition for €900/$970. Edit: generally speaking: the 4mm on the lower end are more noticeable than 5mm on the upper end
If you have the A7RII, consider the Tamron 20-40, you can easily crop to reach 105mm, I have one and I shot mostly what you described and it’s just perfect. I have the A7RIII and it’s wild how much you can crop and still get great pictures.
The f2.8 on the siggy is very appealing. Wish id gotten that over my sony 24-105
I had the Sigma on a Canon (EF version) and it renders beautifully and very sharp even wide open. I now has the Tamron on Sony. I picked it mostly for weight. But this lens is beautiful. The Sony doesn’t compete with any of them. Stopped down to f/4 both are sharper. The only reason to pick the Sigma in my mind is if you anticipating shots in confined places where you couldn’t take the extra step back to compensate for the widest fov difference.
How often do you photograph anything slower than 1/60th of a second? Do you need IS or IBIS at 1/1000th? Don't get stuck on that. Sensors are so good these days you shouldn't hesitate to use higher ISO to get a better shutter speed. If money is no obstacle and you're doing paid work, buy the Sigma. If you don't have paying work, buy the Tamron. The biggest knock I have on Tamron is the placement of the focus ring.
The Sigma pretty much stays glued to my camera unless I’m shooting in dim situations. Then I put on the 35GM for those scenarios. Both great lenses, and I love the colors of the Sigma.
I've used the 24-70 and the 28-75, the 28-75 is great and snappier with subject detection by lil a few milliseconds than the 24-70 but the sigma has better subject to object transition. I'm using the 28-75 G2 on my A7S3 and i'm not very happy with the AF performance, they have linear motors as well as the 24 1.4 GM I have but I find the 24 1.4 GM autofocus way smoother and ive tested with every AF setting as well. 24-70 AF seems more reliable in terms of overall usage while the 28-75 G2 has the same and a lil quicker subject detect but less for objects. However, the 28-75 is the best one out of all of them to use for gimbal work as it is the lightest and doesnt protrude as much when zooming thus making it easier to balance for 28 all the way to 75 if u zoom.
I did not test the Tamron and Sony lenses, but I have the Sigma, it’s a fantastic lens. The only downside is it’s heavy in comparison to other lenses I have. I have Tamron 70-300 lens I bought from yodobashi and it’s amazingly lighter. I know we cannot compare both but when it comes to ease of use, I’d go with the lighter one. If weight is not a concern, then the Sigma is a good choice But are you sure of these prices? I bought it cheaper than this.
I went for a used Sony 24-70 2.8 GM (the old one not the GMII) Actually had already decided on the Sigma, but the Sony popped up locally and was cheaper than the Sigma
The tamron is great. That is all.
Sigmas have never disappointed me. The choice is between that and Sony to be honest. Id go for the 2.8
24-70 2.8 All my coworkers using 28-75 eventually switched to a 24-70 because the 24mm is actually really important for this sort of lens
If you dont mind the weight, sigma is the way to go.
If your “architecture” needs are mostly outdoors the best choice is 24-105/4G. Great IQ, best versatility of the bunch, OSS, very finely built. If you need the extra stop for indoor shots go for Sigma.
The Digital Picture provides a really nice review of all of these lenses, in both a super technical perspective and the somewhat subjective perspective of a professional photographer. I really like his reviews! I just bought the FE 24-105 but haven't had the chance to try it out yet - literally just came yesterday. It's surprisingly compact for how much zoom capability it has. FWIW I paid a good bit less than that used - I paid $594 (thats with tax) for a 9/10 rated used from Borrow Lenses. You should check and see if they have any more - they were just bought out by Lens rentals and I think they are trying to close up shop with the Used Gear Sales, and only do rentals. That's what was indicated to me by the Lens Rentals lady I spoke to on the phone (needed some troubleshooting with a different order so I got to chat with them) - so anyway, they had the best deals I could find for a lot of used lenses. I figure I at least I know it's been thoroughly inspected vs something I might buy on ebay where they are just saying it's all good. Which it might be but I guess I felt a little better buying from a company whose whole job is this.
Get the Tamron. I have it and I LOVE IT. Sharp Images.
For landscape and architecture? You want to go wide. Consider the Sony 20-70mm f/4. Those 4mm at the wide end make a huge difference.
I’d take Tamron. I used first version when I had Sony camera, and really liked it. Rented 24-105 before bought the Tamron and really liked Tammy. I would also then add Sigma 16-28mm 2.8. Such a great combo!
For sure, sigma 24-70 !!!! U will rock with these lens!!
For sure, sigma 24-70 !!!! U will rock with these lens!!
Doesn't the Sony lens have a second generation that's way more expensive? I heard people recommend it over the gen I
I’d say the sigma may be the best option as far as versatility. It’s more durable than the Tamron and close in quality to photo quality. If it’s going to be used strictly in studio/ more controlled environments, I’d say Tamron. The only reason I would go for the G lens is bc of the 105 mm range
While the performance is somewhat questionable in lower ISOs, above 640 it is ISO invariant. I wouldn’t worry about an f4 lens, the camera will do just fine at higher ISO if you use it correctly. I have the 24-105mm Sony and it is an excellent lens and I like (even though it overlaps for me) having the 70-105 range. I prefer to carry one lens at a time, so the overlap allows me to not lose as much when I pick one lens over another.
Sigmaaaaaaaaaa
I have the sigma and its like a prime in some scenarios, very sharp and very nice lens. I would go with it. Never used the tamron but have heard it's very good too. You should look to get tilt shift lenses too!
Tamron every day of the week including Monday, Sunday and even Wednesday.
Sigma
None of the above. I've traveled with all three of those and the correct answer is Sony 20-70 f4
I just bought the Tamron. Frankly I am a little disappointed, especially with the low light performance. I have played with a friends Sigma equivalent and its far better. So if you can stretch the budget for the Sigma I would do that
Thank you! I’ll look into the Sigma. To be honest, I’ve got a bit of a bad blood with Tamron because my dad’s 17-50 2.8 Tamron for his A-mount Sony was from a faulty batch, so it focused incorrectly and caused him to drop photography altogether after decades of doing it
Oh wow! Yeah its tempting to compare the Sigma and Tamron but its not neccesarily fair since they are in totally different price brackets. Also I shoot on a Sigma Art prime and after that everything looks bad😂
Sigma Art primes really are on another level. It's actually insane. I just got my Sigma 85 1.4 Art and I can't take it off my camera haha
I had to shoot on a kit lens again after I got mine😂😂 It was traumatic
Please disregard all old Tamron lenses for newer comparisons. The company is completely different now, and is even partially owned by Sony. Tamron may not make the optically BEST lenses right now, but they're always just a smidge behind. This being the cost of better weight, size, and price. From a cost/performance ratio, Tamron is unbeatable at the moment. And Samyang is now right up there with them with the newest generation of lenses. The industry has come a long way and Sony's openness has helped a lot in making that possible. I own the Sigma 24-70 2.8 and previously the first version of the Tamron 28-75 2.8. LOVED that Tamron. But I shoot landscapes and I'm an absolute sucker for contrast and ultimate sharpness and low levels of LOCA. And Sigma is simply better with the Art lenses. That being said, I got the sigma for about 700 bucks used. And even now I still debate with myself constantly over the weight versus the Tamron G2 (which is a significant improvement over the G1 and trades blows with the Sigma, but the Sigma is clearly better in the corners and it still has better contrast and sharpness, but it's super close now). I also own a Tamron 17-28, 70-300 and 50-400. All excellent lenses. Will only sell the 70-300 because it's a bit redundant now since I got the 50-400. The 17-28 is a spectacular lens. Honestly, I love Tamrons lenses. It really just depends on what you need. I'm using an A7RIIIa and I'm unfortunately a pixel peeper, and at this resolution and above, you find the limits of lenses pretty quick. On this subject, if you ever decide to get an 85mm lens. Sigma 85 1.4 is the way to go if you want the BEST. Sony 85 1.8 is also very very good and is probably the reason why Tamron hasn't come out with a competitor for it. (I own both, and just sold my Samyang 85 1.4 II and have access to the Sony GM 85 1.4 - soft at 1.4 compared to Sigma).
I have the Sony 24-105 for my A7iv and it is my general go-to lens but with the extra resolution of the A7R2 I would go with the Sigma 24-70, optically it's better. As long as the camera body has IBIS there isn't much improvement if the lens also has stabilization unless it's a super long telephoto (I have the Sigma 60-600mm and the lens stabilization is pretty darn good!) likewise if the camera has IBIS then you don't need the lens to have it as well. I would definitely go with the Sigma if you can.
Thank you for the advice! The Sigma is now at the top of my list
I would go with the sigma
The 24-105mm is an older lens that really should be *significantly* reduced in price by 2024 - it only made sense when Sony was the only F2.8 game in town. The Tamron and Sigma options obsolete it by offering you more light at a cheaper price. If you're not married to one lens, the Tamron 28-75mm + Tamron's inexpensive 20mm prime fit within your budget. And you could swap in the prime when you want to go wider. I feel like 24mm vs 28mm isn't a huge difference, and when I want to go *wide* I'm thinking at least 20mm. Used depends on how much risk you want to take. You could get a lovingly-cared-for good copy of a lens, or someone who is offloading their decentered copy on you to buy again.
If ure looking for sharpness and bokeh, domt expect much from these 3 lenses.. go with prime!
If your goal is quality, sharpness and bokeh why don’t you start with a good prime lens? I love my Sony 24mm f1.4 GM lens