After analyzing the infinity sharpness of the candidates in Part 1 of this series, we are looking at the opposite direction of the focus ring. For a versatile do-it-all standard zoom lens, the macro capability is an important factor of the overall performance. Details in documentation-, wedding-, product-, nature- or food photography are typical applications for a standard zoom as a pseudo-macro. In photographic history, the macro feature of zoom lenses was often a shameful marketing trick without any serious usefulness. Let’s check out the performance of the of the Sony FE 2.8/24-70 GM, Tamron 2.8/28-75 Di III RXD and the Sony FE 4/24-105 G OSS.
Standard zooms are the swiss knifes for photographers who need flexibility, can’t change lenses or prefer exact framing over prime qualities.
The Sony FE standard zoom palette has grown in the past years. In the beginning, we were cought between a rock (Sony FE 3.5-5.6/28-70) and a hard place (Sony FE 4/24-70 ZA OSS). We were trying to get around this lens type as good as we could.
In 2019, three great options are available and the situation is the other way around. Not only I have a hard time to decide which of the three highly regarded lenses suits me best, so let’s find out together which lens is the best choice for whom.
This article will be split into three seperate posts due to the sheer amount of information. I will start with a sharpness shootout (infinity) between the Sony 2.8/24-70 GM, the Tamron 2.8/28-75 Di III RXD and the Sony 4/24-105 G OSS.
The Tamron 2.8/28-75 Di III RXD is the first third party E-Mount autofocus zoom lens. I am excited about this lens because it defines a milestone for the E-Mount system: until now, we only had a choice between Sony’s budget line, Samyang and the other (super-)expensive Sony/Zeiss options. The three classic third party manufacturers (Sigma, Tamron, Tokina) have been very tentative in their commitment to the E-mount system, and this lens is the first one that really changes this situation. The specs of the lens look spectacular on the paper, so let’s find out about its performance in the field.
In this review I will check the performance of my own copy that I used for several months now.