Jump to content

Recommended Posts

For under 300 USD, this lens is amazing. I get about equal or better IQ than the 450 dollar e-mount kit lens and 2 additional stops of light at the long end (about 1 and 2/3 at the wide end). It's a screw drive a-mount, which I have an LA-EA4 adapter for in the mail tomorrow. It's currently MF only on an LA-EA3 on my a7ii, much much lighter and way sharper than my Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 (which I paid 500 for), and I'm just hoping the AF is going to be good enough to take it to a wedding I have on Saturday.

 

If anyone is interested, I can post some comparison pics. It would also be a good opportunity to test out a new softbox (80cm x 80cm square gridded).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Many 28-70 were great. Also 28-105. It seems

as if the push to get 24 on the wide end was a

fall from grace for midrange zooms. You got 5

extra mm on the long end, where it's harmless.  

With such a lens, using the SLT AF adapter, I

strongly recommend using the AF Microadjust

feature. It's usually worth it !  

  

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& 

 

  

I have a Tokina ATX 28-70/2.8, reputed to be

the least desirable of old fast midranges. If my

lens is [pun alert!] the bottom of the barrel, the

better ones must all be quite terrific. FWIW my

"least desirable" member of the tribe happens

to also be the smallest .... I find that desirable.  

  

I posted about it, with pix, earlier in this forum: 

 

http://www.sonyalphaforum.com/topic/4500-28-7028-tokina-atx-a-mount-on-a7-mkii/

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here are the tests between the kit, Sigma, and Tamron that I have. It's pretty unscientific, but I think the results are fairly clear.

 

Sony FE SEL2870 (kit lens) @ 70mm f/5.6

 

7sjsFkV.jpg

 

Sony 100% crop

 

SeOrUis.jpg

 

Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 EX DG HSM @ 70mm f/5.6

 

LkPZb76.jpg

 

Sigma 100% crop

 

h7SLJPc.jpg4

 

Tamron AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di LD @ 75mm f/5.6

 

q2vr5WJ.jpg

 

Tamron 100% crop

 

eYbO5NB.jpg

 

 

Conclusion: Sony has the best light transmission and excellent center sharpness, but with a maximum aperture of f/5.6 at full zoom leaves it struggling to focus in lower lighting conditions. The Tamron is weaker in light transmission, but also has a tiny bit of extra zoom reach and is just as sharp as the Sony, with the addition of a maximum fixed aperture of f/2.8. The Sigma is very quiet when focusing (not loud like the Tamron), but it has the worst sharpness of all three and is the heaviest of the bunch (and most expensive).

 

Sony's kit lens is a winner in the price war, because the Tamron is a screw drive and needs an La-ea4 adapter to work (or an a mount camera). Tamron kicks butt for under 300 bucks for the lens itself and over a decade old. Sigma is... disappointing at best. It's quiet, good for video?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Just had some free time and gave the Tamron another whirl on an a7rii. Cat was almost cooperative.

 

Tamron @ 75mm f/2.8

 

aPhyPKa.jpg

 

 

100% crop

 

0dO7AnB.jpg

 

Tamron @ 75mm f/5.6

 

4sasvwN.jpg

 

100% crop

 

CL5zoF3.jpg

 

 

I adore the image quality out of this tiny little sub-300 USD lens, but I really must sell it. Anyone have a good home for this and an LA-EA4?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 years later...

Hi,

I am comparing the Tamron 28-75 F2.8 with the Sony Zeiss 24-70mm SSM lens. I have an A6000 and would buy a LA-EA5 to make this work. I know Zeiss are expensive, but ebay has some for under $400. Any thoughts on which one I should get? 

Also, with the LA-EA5, will these lenses do phase-detection AF?

 

Best,

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
On 11/17/2020 at 6:01 AM, mailash said:

Hi,

I am comparing the Tamron 28-75 F2.8 with the Sony Zeiss 24-70mm SSM lens. I have an A6000 and would buy a LA-EA5 to make this work. I know Zeiss are expensive, but ebay has some for under $400. Any thoughts on which one I should get? 

Also, with the LA-EA5, will these lenses do phase-detection AF?

 

Best,

 

 

There are 2 things that you need to take into account. According to what you say, you have an APS-C e-mount A6000 and you would want to

1- Buy a 300 USD LAEA-5 adapter

2- Buy a DSLR full frame lens of 400 USD

Well I think you make multiple mistakes here.

The first one being that the LAEA-5 won't bring you no advantage against a LAEA-3 on your A6000 body

Second would be, why would you use FF 24mm or 28mm  which would give you an equivalent of 36mm to 42mm field of view ? And moreover they are heavy DSLR FF lenses.

You would shell out loads of money that you could put in a good native e-mount lens being FF or APS-C... Just my 2 cents but seems to me to be a really bad move. And keep in mind A6000 won't take any advantage of Sony LAEA-5 adapter expecially not AFing with Minolta AF lenses.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Posts

    • I've been using this lens extensively without any sharpness issues. At long focal lengths, you'll have to factor in the need for a faster shutter speed (< 1/500-ish at 350mm) and other factors like atmospheric distortion, fog/dust haze, etc. All these factors contribute to a deterioration of image quality at longer focal lengths.
    • That's supposed to be a pretty good APS-C lens. Can you try it on a different camera just for the heck of it? Friend? Camera shop? The lens is noted for sharpness, so if you're having as much trouble as you say, you may want to look into a replacement or repair. 
    • Hi everyone, I’m reaching out to the community because I’m facing a persistent image quality issue with my Sony 70–350mm f/4.5–6.3 G OSS lens, and I’d like to know if this is normal behavior or if my copy is defective. Problem description: I’ve extensively compared the 70–350mm G OSS with my Sony 18–135mm f/3.5–5.6 OSS, using a Sony A6700, under controlled conditions: • Identical lighting and background • Same subject and position (LEGO figure, consistent framing) • Tripod or steady support • Manual focus or AF with center point • Same shutter speed (e.g., 1/200s), similar ISO (ISO 4000–6400), RAW + JPEG • OIS turned on (and also tested with OIS off) My observations: • At 135mm, the 70–350mm G OSS delivers softer, flatter images than the 18–135mm, even when stopped down. • At 350mm, the sharpness drops significantly – the center is soft, and textures (like LEGO tiles or fabric) appear blurred or smudged. • Contrast and micro-detail are noticeably inferior across all focal lengths. • The 18–135mm at 135mm (even cropped) retains better edge sharpness and detail definition. • Both JPEG and RAW files confirm the issue – this is not just JPEG processing or noise reduction. Question to the community: • Have others experienced similar softness with the 70–350mm? • Is it possible I have a decentered or optically misaligned copy? • Is there a known issue with OSS introducing softness at long focal lengths? I wanted to love this lens due to the range and portability, but currently it’s unusable for anything where image quality matters. I’m considering returning or sending it for service. Thanks in advance for any feedback or comparison results you can share.  
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...