Help decide between sony FE 24-240mm and Tamron 28-300mm superzooms for A7rII

[FtYoU]

Hi everyone !

I am trying to decide what combination is best for my sony a7r2 :

• Sony 24-240mm FE f3.5-6.3 lens
• Tamron 28-300mm f3.5-6.3 lens with adapter

So I bought those two off amazon and plan to return the one I won't use. I took the Tamron sony mount with the LA-EA4 adapter from A-mount to E-mount.

I have a few questions regarding those lens.

1. Is it better to own the Tamron sony mount using the LA-e3 adapter or go for Tamron canon mount with a metabones ? I am asking that because there is a mirror in the LA-EA4 adapter that makes a lot of noise when turning the camera on and off (focus phase detection ??)
2. Is the quality of Tamron glass different for different mount ? canon vs nikon vs sony ? Because the lens have different sizes with the sony one being the smallest one.
3. Do you know any ressource that compare the sony 24-240mm vs tamron 28-300mm in terms of sharpness ?
4. The focus ring do not activate the magnification helper on the Tamron. Is it normal ?
5. Why the sony 24-240mm is significantly bigger and wider than the Tamron ?
6. Why the 300mm focal on the Tamron seems to offer the same framing as the 240mm focal on the Sony ? Shouldn't the Tamron zoom farther ??

I would like to know if there is a difference between LA-EA4 with Tamron sony A-mount and Tamron Canon mount with metabones (or viltrox) which I like because it doesn't add supplementary mirrors or glass and is less bulky.

Thank you for helping me decide which one to keep and what combo is the best.

[Karlitos]

The main difference between Tamron lenses for A-mount compared to Canikon mounts is that they are not stabilized (assuming it's the same generation). This is also a likely reason why it is smaller than the stabilized Sony lens. At that focal length, there is not a big difference if the lens has 60mm more. You could look it up on DxoMark, they are both in the same class of sharpness and not really up to a sensor of this resolution. A camera with half the price tag would have been sufficient.

[FtYoU]

Thank you for your answer. I am aware of the need of prime lenses for this camera. I am just considering a all-in-one lens for travel .

 

So If I decide to go with the Tamron lens, can I have the option of having the canon mount with a metabones or viltrox adapter instead of sony mount with LA-EA4 adapter ? I am really not confortable with the moving mirror inside of the LA-EA4 adapter, but I want to be sure at the same time that it is not a big mistake.

[LeButler]

-LA-EA4: makes Tamron more expensive, same weight & length. Focussing will be similar but not as fully featured (limited focussing area, no Eye AF etc).

-LA-EA3: is just as suitable as LA-EA4 if using an A7Rii, similar price & length, only slightly lighter.

-Metabones for Canon, untested, makes Tamron is 30% more expensive, as long, and equally heavy as the 24-240.

-A dumb adaptor for Canon (sufficient with A7Rii) will be similar length, and only 5% cheaper and lighter.

 

The 24-240 seems the better choice. Using a third-party lens and an adaptor adds two unnecessary risks and you lose a few features, in return for a very marginal gain in portability.

 

 

Q2: Probably identical quality; size varies due to different sensors' distance from rear of lens. Q4: Yes, non-native lenses don't tell the camera "he's now changing focus manually". Q5: different design, potentially better optics/quality(?) Q6: manufacturers sometimes exaggerate, and specs don't always apply. Eg "focus breathing" even on a top-of-the range Nikon 70-200 means it only gives around 150mm at certain focus distances.

[Freddy]

I never used the Tamron, but I can assure you that the Sony 24-240mm is a very good lens. Image quality is excellent in the center, a wee bit less so in the corners, but who cares? It has not less than five aspherical surfaces to reduce spherical aberration, and the result is surprisingly good taking into account that this is a 10x superzoom. Large? 13 cm long (when zoomed in to 24mm) and the largest diameter (i.e of the sun shade) is 90 mm. Zoomed out to the 240 mm position it is 19 cm long.

Also one should take into account that when using the Sony you will have AF (fast) and AE. How does the Tamrom compare?

Kind regards, Freddy.

[tinplater]

I had somewhat the same problem with my A7RII.  Wanted a general "do it all lens".  I purchased the 24-240 but was very unhappy with my copy...it was very soft woth poor contrast, particulalry at longer focal lengths (and that is why you have the lens in the first place...for its reach), the zoom was very tight, and it is large and heavy.  So I returned it and purchased the relatively cheap 28-70 FE, 55-210, to go along with the 28mm 2.0 FE, 55mm Zeiss 1.8, and 35mm Zeiss 2.8 primes I already had.  I can carry all of that stuff in a small slingshot backpack and it is all very light indeed.  I am most impressed with the 28-70 FE "kit" lens, it far out performed the big 24-240 in it's comparable focal length ranges.  The 24-240 lens was the biggest disspointment I have experience in a lifetime of purchasing scores of lenses.