I recently replaced my Sony Fe 24-105 F/4 with the Sony Fe 20-70 F/4, and have found the results more than satisfactory however I now realise that a lighter/smaller walkabout lens would suit me better, but 20mm & 35mm F/1.8 primes would be less convenient & more expensive, than one of the Tamron alternatives in your excellent video. Until recently I would not have considered a Tamron lens but having tested and then purchased a Tamron 50-400mm, to replace a Sony 70-200mm with converters for my main interest of photographing sheep dog & gun dog trials (out of doors), I'm a convert! I don't need to shoot at more than 15fps and for "day out" photography 50mm or 40mm, is more than adequate, and even F/4 would be enough, although the idea of a small compact F/2.8 zoom, probably means I'll land up with the Tamron 20-40mm F/2.8 lens. Thanks again for an excellent video. but got tired of swapping Sony 70-200mm + Converters (often in wet conditions) and found that 100mm on the 100-400mm Sony lens, not a short enough focal length. So recently I purchased my first Tamron 50-400mm lens. Yes, it's slower, both maximum aperture, & @ max 15fps than using Sony equivalents (if they existed).
I have the 17-50mm since day one and I knew that I will love it. You can argue that it’s not tack sharp in the corners, but I like my pictures from it and most of the time, I use it at f7.1 in good light. It has all the features that this lens needed, like fast AF (VXD, I guess it’s overkill most of the time, Button, weather sealing). Before that, I wanted to have to 20-70, but the price was to high for that, even if I like the G featureset. The 28-60 is still a great lens and I dont mind using a variable aperture lens. Also very nice is the 24/40/50g series which are really tiny.
My "Do It All" lens is the SONY f4/24-105mm G, which I take with me only when I get paid, and need to hoover everything that happens quickly. From my own subjects I always use primes, mostly f1,8 for their sweet spot in abilities, compactness and lightweight, compared to f1,4 / f1,2 lenses. If I go out with just one of them it's my Sony f1,8/35mm mostly. When I take two either my Canon TS-E 17mm comes along, or the Sony f1,8/85mm. But there's also days I take the Canon TS-E f3,5/24mm out, accompanied by the Zeiss f1,8/55mm.
My pick is Sony's 20-70mm. My do-it-all lens for any situation without even the need to change any lenses. Good for travel, journals and all day walk lens, as it is light. Thank you for your thoughts and comparison. I am happy to own this lens.
Tamron 20-40 was my choice, and I’m happy with it so far. I’m mostly shooting landscape and doing a lot of hiking so the smaller/lighter is important to me (and the fact that it was significantly cheaper than the Sonys helped too). My second choice may have been the Sony 20-70, but if I had that I’d probably still want something smaller and lighter for hiking. I was somewhat tempted by the Sony 16-35 pz f4, but it’s expensive and I like the 20-40 range better anyway.
I have shot with the 20-40 and the 17-50 for a few days and love both of them. I own the 17-28 and wanted to change to one of the three you featured in this video. I had a brief chance to compare my 17-28 against the Sony 20-70. Wide open, the Sony was significantly sharper in the corners than my 17-28 both set at 20mm. Sony was sharper wide open, even when you stopped the Tamron 17-28 down to f4 and f5.6. I do landscapes and corner to corner sharpness is important when you print big prints. The flaws of the lens become magnified in large prints.
Very informative. I have the 20-40, love its small size and weight like a prime lens and its f/2.8. I have the 28-75, mainly using its long end with 2.8 for blurry background while it is not very heavy and still able to zoom back to 28mm. 17-50 seems like a welcoming addition to my collection, replacing my 17-28 which have a very limited range. It will be interesting to see which lens i will take out when I have both 17-50, 20-40 and 28-75. Thanks for the review comparing 20-40 to the 17-50.
All 3 sound like solid choices. If I was recommending a first lens / kit lens, the Tamron 28-200 is an incredibly versatile option, though it doesn’t do wide angles. Pairing it with a Tamron 17-28 2.8 or Sony 16-25 2.8 would cover most situations.
I'm a big fan of 3rd party lenses, but Sony bodies simply work better in all respects with native Sony lenses. The biggest difference (and something you can see in your example) is the stabilization when shooting video. I have tons of lenses as well, but am slowly but surely figuring out which ones are keepers and for me, it's the 20-70 G. That lens paired with a few fast primes and the new 70-200 G Macro lens is all I'll ever really need. With AI available to de-noise and create some additional blur, F4 is more than fast enough and the zoom lenses are just soooo much smaller, lighter, and travel friendly.
For a two-lens combo, I'd pick the 17-50 and 50-400 for travel. 16-35 and 35-150 for events. Personally I don't like 72mm filter thread, nor the external zoom on 70-200. 20-70 is very close to the perfect one lens but wish it was 20-100 f/2.8-4.
Yes the more lens I used, the more I wanted to invest in Sony native lens. I have prrtty much switched from Tamron/sigma to Sony. Except the Tamron 35-150, there is no alternative in Sony world. Sony please make one at similar range with f2.8. I will buy it immdiately
that would be amazing, but might be one of these things that you never meet your heroes like the canon 24-105 f2.8 because it might be a freight train 😂
are there any rumors from tamron of releasing that 20-60mm f2.8 soon? hopefully they will as that would really becomes the official all around lens. haha
These three lenses are so hard to choose. I have the 20-40 before the 17-50 was released. Love the size of the 20-70 but that price is tough. Wish the 17-50 was a little shorter. Will probably buy the 17-50 on the used market one day Or if an 18-45mm 2.8 is made
Hi, i'm really interested in a low light comparison between the F4 and F2.8 lenses. The F4 are sharp but how well do they perform against the F2.8 at low light and bokeh? I can't decide between the Sony F4 20-70G or Sony F4 16-35G vs the Sigma F2.8 28-70 or Tamron F2.8 20-40
it’s one stop + entire range. you’ll need to do some self reflection. i have a”what’s in my camera bag “ type of video on my channel, where i went to another country with limitations, and found that f4 was fine. that said, i do enjoy f2.8 a lot and the 20-40 is a highly used lens of mine, a bit more that the 20-70, simply because of the size. the 20-70 does everything better except low light. 70@f4 is better than 40@f2.8 due to perspective, on top of that, the close focus @70 is something special. those two are my stand out lenses, the 16-35 and 28-70 are my backup lenses or lenses i made use for a second angle. I’ve gotten rid of a dozen lenses this year but oddly kept the 20-70 +20-40 because both are so enjoyable, so i decided to keep both until i get into a habit of using one over the other. the 20-40 is so small and friendly, the 20-70 is the complete package
I can see the sony lens perform best with active ibis. it is subtle but it is there. No wonder people say you need sony lens to have the best ibis performance.
Great video. Thank you very much! I do a video work only, and already have the 20-40 that is great for low light. But, I feel I'm gonna need 17-50....🙈
I love the size of the 35mm f2.8 samyang and the size/bokeh relationship of the samyang 45f1.8. The 28-60 kit lens is also a lot in my A7C as well as the samyang 18 2.8. I have the Tamron 28-200 but I rarely use it. Because of that, I discarded the 24-105
Very informative, I am switching to Sony this month, I mainly do travel and landscape. Lightweight and budget is more important than performance. My plan is Tamron 20-40, Samyang 50 1.4, and Tamron 70-300. I think this set is light weight and covers almost everything. If I really need to go super wide or astrophotography, I can add viltrox 16mm 1.8 later. What do you think?
depends on how much experience you have with astro, I like 24 f1.4 for astro, my other lens is the 14 f2.8, which can be too wide for landscape orientation astro, but can look great for portrait orientation. I would try to see if you like, just keep in mind that at 20mm, you'll need a good amount higher iso and you don't have a whole lot of luxury with exposure time before streaking.
thanks for the suggestion, I think 20-28 is very useful for travel, but 28-200 is super popular. I might get 28-200 mark ii if it comes out.@@Crisp_images831
@@sonacphotos that’s true it’s not very wide. But, there are ways around this. With the A7CII my first requirement is size and weight. For me it was between the Sony and Sigma. The sigma won on size and weight and cost.
I plan to get A7RV with Tamron 50-400mm F4.5-6.3 (crop 2X to 800mm) and pair a 14mm F1.8 as ultrawide and everyday lens which can crop to 28mm F1.8 low light F3.6 DOF for that, is it good choice? Or better go with Loawa 10-18 manual, 12-24 F4, 16-35 F4 PZ or 17-50? Is the Power Zoom essential or any of these even the fix lens can do dolly zoom just fine? And can I set profile for each lens so golden look Tamron and cooler look Sony will look consistent?
I own a 24-105mm / 70-180mm / 35mm f1.4 and 85mm f1.8 / Would you rather get the 17-50mm f4 or 20-40mm f2.8? I want this lens to be my b cam on a7siii to my a cam 24-105mm f4? Wedding filmmaker
I recently replaced my Sony Fe 24-105 F/4 with the Sony Fe 20-70 F/4, and have found the results more than satisfactory however I now realise that a lighter/smaller walkabout lens would suit me better, but 20mm & 35mm F/1.8 primes would be less convenient & more expensive, than one of the Tamron alternatives in your excellent video.
Until recently I would not have considered a Tamron lens but having tested and then purchased a Tamron 50-400mm, to replace a Sony 70-200mm with converters for my main interest of photographing sheep dog & gun dog trials (out of doors), I'm a convert!
I don't need to shoot at more than 15fps and for "day out" photography 50mm or 40mm, is more than adequate, and even F/4 would be enough, although the idea of a small compact F/2.8 zoom, probably means I'll land up with the Tamron 20-40mm F/2.8 lens.
Thanks again for an excellent video.
but got tired of swapping Sony 70-200mm + Converters (often in wet conditions) and found that 100mm on the 100-400mm Sony lens, not a short enough focal length.
So recently I purchased my first Tamron 50-400mm lens. Yes, it's slower, both maximum aperture, & @ max 15fps than using Sony equivalents (if they existed).
I have the 17-50mm since day one and I knew that I will love it. You can argue that it’s not tack sharp in the corners, but I like my pictures from it and most of the time, I use it at f7.1 in good light. It has all the features that this lens needed, like fast AF (VXD, I guess it’s overkill most of the time, Button, weather sealing).
Before that, I wanted to have to 20-70, but the price was to high for that, even if I like the G featureset.
The 28-60 is still a great lens and I dont mind using a variable aperture lens.
Also very nice is the 24/40/50g series which are really tiny.
My "Do It All" lens is the SONY f4/24-105mm G, which I take with me only when I get paid, and need to hoover everything that happens quickly. From my own subjects I always use primes, mostly f1,8 for their sweet spot in abilities, compactness and lightweight, compared to f1,4 / f1,2 lenses. If I go out with just one of them it's my Sony f1,8/35mm mostly. When I take two either my Canon TS-E 17mm comes along, or the Sony f1,8/85mm. But there's also days I take the Canon TS-E f3,5/24mm out, accompanied by the Zeiss f1,8/55mm.
My pick is Sony's 20-70mm. My do-it-all lens for any situation without even the need to change any lenses. Good for travel, journals and all day walk lens, as it is light. Thank you for your thoughts and comparison. I am happy to own this lens.
Tamron 20-40 was my choice, and I’m happy with it so far. I’m mostly shooting landscape and doing a lot of hiking so the smaller/lighter is important to me (and the fact that it was significantly cheaper than the Sonys helped too). My second choice may have been the Sony 20-70, but if I had that I’d probably still want something smaller and lighter for hiking. I was somewhat tempted by the Sony 16-35 pz f4, but it’s expensive and I like the 20-40 range better anyway.
I have shot with the 20-40 and the 17-50 for a few days and love both of them. I own the 17-28 and wanted to change to one of the three you featured in this video. I had a brief chance to compare my 17-28 against the Sony 20-70. Wide open, the Sony was significantly sharper in the corners than my 17-28 both set at 20mm. Sony was sharper wide open, even when you stopped the Tamron 17-28 down to f4 and f5.6. I do landscapes and corner to corner sharpness is important when you print big prints. The flaws of the lens become magnified in large prints.
Very informative. I have the 20-40, love its small size and weight like a prime lens and its f/2.8. I have the 28-75, mainly using its long end with 2.8 for blurry background while it is not very heavy and still able to zoom back to 28mm. 17-50 seems like a welcoming addition to my collection, replacing my 17-28 which have a very limited range. It will be interesting to see which lens i will take out when I have both 17-50, 20-40 and 28-75. Thanks for the review comparing 20-40 to the 17-50.
All 3 sound like solid choices. If I was recommending a first lens / kit lens, the Tamron 28-200 is an incredibly versatile option, though it doesn’t do wide angles. Pairing it with a Tamron 17-28 2.8 or Sony 16-25 2.8 would cover most situations.
I'm a big fan of 3rd party lenses, but Sony bodies simply work better in all respects with native Sony lenses. The biggest difference (and something you can see in your example) is the stabilization when shooting video. I have tons of lenses as well, but am slowly but surely figuring out which ones are keepers and for me, it's the 20-70 G. That lens paired with a few fast primes and the new 70-200 G Macro lens is all I'll ever really need. With AI available to de-noise and create some additional blur, F4 is more than fast enough and the zoom lenses are just soooo much smaller, lighter, and travel friendly.
For a two-lens combo, I'd pick the 17-50 and 50-400 for travel. 16-35 and 35-150 for events. Personally I don't like 72mm filter thread, nor the external zoom on 70-200. 20-70 is very close to the perfect one lens but wish it was 20-100 f/2.8-4.
Yes the more lens I used, the more I wanted to invest in Sony native lens. I have prrtty much switched from Tamron/sigma to Sony. Except the Tamron 35-150, there is no alternative in Sony world. Sony please make one at similar range with f2.8. I will buy it immdiately
Still waiting for that magical 20-60 f2.8 zoom. Ill even take 20-55mm. 40mm just doesnt cut it.
that would be amazing, but might be one of these things that you never meet your heroes like the canon 24-105 f2.8 because it might be a freight train 😂
are there any rumors from tamron of releasing that 20-60mm f2.8 soon? hopefully they will as that would really becomes the official all around lens. haha
i got rid of my sigma 24-70mm f2.8 for the sony 20-70mm f4 and love it. Paired with my A7siii, it covers every shot I need for every occasion.
definitely an amazing lens with all of the sony perks
These three lenses are so hard to choose. I have the 20-40 before the 17-50 was released. Love the size of the 20-70 but that price is tough. Wish the 17-50 was a little shorter. Will probably buy the 17-50 on the used market one day
Or if an 18-45mm 2.8 is made
Cant really make a bad choice here, three different variations of great lenses. I use the 20-40 often, it's old yet trusty.
Hi, i'm really interested in a low light comparison between the F4 and F2.8 lenses. The F4 are sharp but how well do they perform against the F2.8 at low light and bokeh? I can't decide between the Sony F4 20-70G or Sony F4 16-35G vs the Sigma F2.8 28-70 or Tamron F2.8 20-40
it’s one stop + entire range. you’ll need to do some self reflection. i have a”what’s in my camera bag “ type of video on my channel, where i went to another country with limitations, and found that f4 was fine. that said, i do enjoy f2.8 a lot and the 20-40 is a highly used lens of mine, a bit more that the 20-70, simply because of the size. the 20-70 does everything better except low light. 70@f4 is better than 40@f2.8 due to perspective, on top of that, the close focus @70 is something special. those two are my stand out lenses, the 16-35 and 28-70 are my backup lenses or lenses i made use for a second angle.
I’ve gotten rid of a dozen lenses this year but oddly kept the 20-70 +20-40 because both are so enjoyable, so i decided to keep both until i get into a habit of using one over the other. the 20-40 is so small and friendly, the 20-70 is the complete package
I can see the sony lens perform best with active ibis. it is subtle but it is there. No wonder people say you need sony lens to have the best ibis performance.
Great video. Thank you very much! I do a video work only, and already have the 20-40 that is great for low light. But, I feel I'm gonna need 17-50....🙈
how about sigma 28-70 f2.8
I love the size of the 35mm f2.8 samyang and the size/bokeh relationship of the samyang 45f1.8. The 28-60 kit lens is also a lot in my A7C as well as the samyang 18 2.8. I have the Tamron 28-200 but I rarely use it. Because of that, I discarded the 24-105
Very informative, I am switching to Sony this month, I mainly do travel and landscape. Lightweight and budget is more important than performance. My plan is Tamron 20-40, Samyang 50 1.4, and Tamron 70-300. I think this set is light weight and covers almost everything. If I really need to go super wide or astrophotography, I can add viltrox 16mm 1.8 later. What do you think?
depends on how much experience you have with astro, I like 24 f1.4 for astro, my other lens is the 14 f2.8, which can be too wide for landscape orientation astro, but can look great for portrait orientation. I would try to see if you like, just keep in mind that at 20mm, you'll need a good amount higher iso and you don't have a whole lot of luxury with exposure time before streaking.
you should also consider the 28-200 tamron, 75 samyang 1.8., and the Viltrox 16.
thanks for the suggestion, I think 20-28 is very useful for travel, but 28-200 is super popular. I might get 28-200 mark ii if it comes out.@@Crisp_images831
My pick would be the sigma 28-70 F2.8. It’s smaller than the Sony, more reach on the long end that the Tamron. Plus it’s F2.8.
28mm isn't very wide though, personally anything which can't get as wide as at least 24mm isn't worth it.
@@sonacphotos that’s true it’s not very wide. But, there are ways around this. With the A7CII my first requirement is size and weight. For me it was between the Sony and Sigma. The sigma won on size and weight and cost.
I the sigma and it’s great but tamron makes a 28-75 f2.8 cheaper than the sigma 😅
I plan to get A7RV with Tamron 50-400mm F4.5-6.3 (crop 2X to 800mm) and pair a 14mm F1.8 as ultrawide and everyday lens which can crop to 28mm F1.8 low light F3.6 DOF for that, is it good choice? Or better go with Loawa 10-18 manual, 12-24 F4, 16-35 F4 PZ or 17-50? Is the Power Zoom essential or any of these even the fix lens can do dolly zoom just fine? And can I set profile for each lens so golden look Tamron and cooler look Sony will look consistent?
I own a 24-105mm / 70-180mm / 35mm f1.4 and 85mm f1.8 /
Would you rather get the 17-50mm f4 or 20-40mm f2.8? I want this lens to be my b cam on a7siii to my a cam 24-105mm f4?
Wedding filmmaker
17-50, that range will come in handy, 17mm can make some dramatic dress shots, and 50 more intimate.
@@CharlieVN is the size and f2.8 difference not that significant?
I'd say both. 17-50 for preps, ceremony and session. 20-40 for night and low light scenario.
No ! I never use zoom lenses, only prime Lenses !
😂