linda lagace

This may seem a no brainer because the cost of one is double the cost of the other and finances are a consideration ..........BUT
For anyone who has both lenses and can tell me which one they prefer and why it would help.
I have a sony AR7 IVa which is brand new and a Sony FE 200-600 f5.6 - 6.3 G OSS which I use for birds.
I like the fact that the Tamron is f2-2.8 vs the Sony f4 and the upper range of Tamron is 150 vs the 105 for Sony.
Lighting is sometimes a problem for me and despite the claims that the new technology shows very little noise at high iso's I still don't like the noise I see.
I like the lower 24 value for Sony vs the Tamron 35.
The Sony lens is of course native but the claim is that the Tamron is almost like a native lens.
The Sony has OSS and my understanding is that the Tamron lens does not.
Although the camera itself has internal stabilization, I do everything hand held and my guess ??? is that a double stabilization in the lens and the camera can't hurt.
My hopes are to do flowers and landscapes mostly but if I see a bird I am going to shoot whether it is moving or not. I was able to get pretty good small wildflowers and bugs with my prior Nikon 28-300 at the 28 end and I am hoping for good results with 24 of the Sony. In addition the 24 on the Sony is close to wide angle and that is intriguing. I don't mind being corrected for some of my possible missperceptions or assumptions. I have always found prior comments very useful and even though they often differ widely it gives me something to ponder while I read more before I make a final decision on which to buy. The cost of the Sony does give me some additional time to think while I figure out how to gather the dollars together. Thanks for your comments

linda lagace

Now that I think of it I may be misremembering what end of the lens range I used to get close to the flowers.

gwilliams6

The Sony 24-105mm f4 G OSS lens is the #1 selling Sony lens in the world, and for good reasons . I have owned Sony A6500, A7RII, A7RIII, A7III, A9 and currently own A7RIV, A1, A7SIII. I currently have 13 native E-mount lenses covering 10mm to 600mm from Sony, Sigma and Tamron. That includes fast primes like my Sony 24mm f1.4 GM, and my Sony 135mm f1.8 GM, along with several f 2.8 zooms and a f2.8 macro lens.

I shoot all subjects worldwide as a longtime pro, and my Sony 24-105mm f4 G OSS is my most widely used lens of them all. It is super versatile, sharp, fast and quiet focus, and yes that lens' OSS coupled with the cameras' IBIS does allow me to handhold that lens at insanely slow shutter speeds.

That being said, many who have that Tamron 35-150mm f2-2.8 love it for events , wedding coverage and more. As a pro photojournalist for the past 48 + years, I would have loved to have such a lens back in the day.

You will have to live with the size and weight of the Tamron, but if you have the Sony 200-600mm like I do, you are used to heavier lenses.

For me, not having any lens wider than 35mm would give me pause. If you do choose to get the Tamron 35-105mm f2-2.8, I suggest you add the Tamron 17-28mm f2.8 in native E-mount.

Since I have the Tamron 17-28mm f2.8; Sigma Art 24-70mm f2.8 DG DN; Sony 24-105mm f4 G OSS; Sigma Art 85mm f1.4 DG DN and Sony 135mm f1.8 GM among the lenses in my kit, I dont really have the need for the Tamron 35-150mm lens. For you that lens might be an excellent choice.

Here just a few shots i have made with my Sony 24-105mm f4 G OSS lens;

1) This award winning shot was made with my A9 and the Sony 24-105mm lens. A local swimmer dives off a pier into the Caribbean Sea on the Island of Sint Maarten/St. Martin. 24mm, ISO 400, f5.6, 1/2000 sec.

2) This shot was named a Worldwide Photo of the Week by Sony Alpha Photographers in 2020. Environmental Scientist Brook H. in a slot canyon near Upper Antelope Canyon, Navajo Lands, Page, Arizona, USA. Sony A9, Sony 24-105mm lens, 24mm, ISO 400, f4, 1/15 sec handheld, all natural sunlight in the canyon.

3) A Parrot in flight on the Caribbean island of Sint Maarten/St. Martin. Sony A1, Sony 24-105mm lens. 105mm, ISO 1600, f4, 1/2000 sec, all natural light

4-5) Two shots of my nephew and his family for their Xmas card, shot In Flower Mound, Texas a couple of weeks ago. Sony A1, Sony 24-105mm f4 G OSS lens. Shot at various focal lengths, f5.6, 1/250 second, handheld .Three Godox AD200Pro strobes with reflectors and diffusers used to light it all, mixed with the ambient light.

(Download)


(Download)


(Download)


(Download)


(Download)

linda lagace

Thank you so much for this very informative and helpful reply.
Since the Sony is now on sale and less than half the price of the Tamron, it might make sense to buy it and then see if a 135mm or 150mm is needed later on.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

I do not own either lens.
As to focal length, the difference between 105 and 150 is not much as far as difference.
But the difference between 24 and 35 is huge and extremely noticeable.
I would, if budget allowed go the 24-105mm. I have a 24-105mm lens and it is a real workhorse and the 24mm is valuable.

gwilliams6

You are welcome, sounds like a good plan.

Cheers and best to you

linda lagace

thanks you for the suggestion I am leaning in that direction

kymarto Loc: Portland OR and Milan Italy

I absolutely agree about not having a lens wider than 35mm. For me the extra stop or two would be nice, as would having extra reach, but for my photography 35mm is a deal breaker, as I often find myself shooting at 24mm. The Sony lens also has the advantage of ILIS, which combined with the IBIS gives better stability, especially at the long end. The real question for you is if you can live without the wide end. But if you shoot a lot of portraits or need the longer reach of the Tamron, plus better subject background separation, then the Tamron is the way to go

ClarkJohnson Loc: Fort Myers, FL and Cohasset, MA

I have the Nikon version of the Tamron, which I really want to love for the reasons you mention (aperture and broad focal range). But when grabbing a lens to go out, I always choose one that can go wider than 35mm « just jn case. » i would not recommend the Tamron for everyday use.

zug55 Loc: Naivasha, Kenya, and Austin, Texas

Gerald's assessment is spot-on.

I have used the Sony 24-105mm for almost five years. This is a superb and very versatile lens--it still is the best all-purpose zoom for Sony FE. It also is the best travel lens. I shoot with Sony A7III and A7RIII bodies. I own many great primes, yet the Sony 24-105mm invariably makes it into my photo bag.

The Tamron 35-150mm has an odd focal range--it is most useful for event photographers.

I do mostly travel photography, and the Sony 24-105mm is always in my travel bag. There are three reasons why I prefer the Sony 24-105mm.
1) The Tamron 35-150mm is very large and heavy--it weighs 1,165g as opposed to the the 663g of the Sony. The difference is 500g or a little over a pound in the imperial system. Carry that all day long! For that reason alone, I would never use the Tamron as a travel lens.
2) The Sony is image-stabilized, the Tamron is not. This gives you more options in poor light.
3) The focal range: 35mm is not wide enough to make the Tamron a useful general-purpose lens. You need to take a second lens to cover the wider end. 24mm at the wide end works for me. For this reason, the Sony is a useful, even great landscape lens, while the Tamron is not.

Yes, the Sony 24-105mm is an f/4 lens. However, it is very sharp right at f/4, so the entire range is useful. I have taken many shots at night or in dark churches and always came away with great shots. I shoot at ISO 6400 with my A7III without thinking twice about noise, and because of the combined camera and lens image stabilization I can shoot to about 1/15th of a second hand-held, as long there is no motion in the image.

At the long end, the difference between 105mm and 150mm is not nearly as significant as the difference between 24mm and 35mm. I also use Clear Image Zoom to extend the reach of the Sony. This gives you up to 2x magnification if you need it. (Focusing is limited to zone, and you only can shoot JPEGs.)

Flower shots: try shooting flowers at the long end at 105mm. The Sony has a respectable minimum focus distance of 38cm, which gives you great detail at 105mm. (The Tamron is a tad better at 33cm.) In fact, I often use my Sony 100-400mm lens for flowers, often at 400mm, with great results.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

wireloose

I own both, the 35-150 only for a few weeks now. It’s heavy but a great people lens, the f2.8 or better is helpful for light and shallower dof, reach is nice. Perfect Grandpa lens. I used to carry the 24-105 and 70-180; the 105 as a walkabout lens, switching to the longer zoom as needed. Now I am pairing the 17-28 with the 35-150. Basically I find if I want a longer lens I want it right away- grandchildren, faces. If I need a wider angle I have time, the subject isn’t moving. If I Am carrying two bodies the 35-150 is on the A1, the 17-28 or a wide prime on the A7r3. I loved the 24-105 but it’s been on the shelf since I got the Tamron.

starlifter Loc: Towson, MD

I like the wider focal length of the Sony but then the Tamron has a longer reach. I would go with the Tamron and get a wide angle for the shorter focal length. I have 4 Tamrons and the IQ is outstading. They all have IS and 3 are 2.8 They are warranted for 6 years and so far so good.

bkwaters

I like the Tamron 28-200 much more than my since sold Sony 24-105. But while it’s in someways silly, the Tamron 18-300 rarely leaves the A7R4 even though it’s APS-C.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

It appears you have already made up your mind because of your quote, "finances are a consideration". So I feel you have already made up your mind to get the Tamron.
When I shot Nikon I had a Nikon 24-120 which served me well as a sort of carry "one lens on vacation" mantra.
So when I got my Sony a9 I got the Sony 24-105 on sale from B&H for around $1100. I took it with me on travels to the Panama Canal and to the National Parks in Utah this year. I always use a polarizer for most of my shots.
The f4 was not a problem with todays high iso shooting capabilities. I also have always liked what 24mm does in landscapes.
I have never used the Tamron and cannot comment on it.
However, on B&H 82% of users of the Sony give it a 5, 69% of the users of the Tamron give it a 5.
Of course users ratings should NOT be taken into consideration because what do these people really know about photography, it is just their opinion.
The Sony weights in at 1.46 lbs. the Tamron 1.74 lbs. Again, what does the weight have to do with anything.
Bottom line, the Sony when on sale costs about $1100 compared to the very low price of the Tamron of $639.00. A difference of almost $460.00, and $660.00 when the Sony is not on sale. 50% savings for the Tamron.
So, for me, I would buy the Sony cause it was developed and made specifically for my Sony.
The Tamron company makes their glass to operate on many different camera's.
And yes, the IBIS on the Sony camera's works well with the image stabilization on the lens.
But, because the Tamron is cheaper, I would just like to say, enjoy your new Tamron lens.
Below are some grab shots I took with my Sony, not that it means anything.