Investing in gear can be a mixed bag of returns, but a good all-rounder can become fundamental to the way you shoot. Is this the best all-rounder for Sony?
In early 2019 I bought the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 Di III RXD for Sony bodies on which I'm writing an article at the moment. It was much cheaper than Sony's 24-70mm and hit my personal spec markers. However, at the end of last year we saw Sigma release a new entry to their acclaimed Art series in the 24-70mm f/2.8 DG DN Art for Sony full frame as well as Leica, and it was well received. Actually, that's an understatement, it sold out everywhere almost instantly and the backlog of orders is staggering.
In this video, Chris Brockhurst goes over his reasons why he believes this 24-70mm Art is the best lens for everything. For me, the 24-70mm focal length is the range I'd probably suggest to newcomers as the best walkabout lens for full frame sensors. If it is an f/2.8 lens, you can capture everything from landscapes, to portraits, to street, through to video. It fills a lot of different photographic and videographic holes, though I'll still always opt for a prime, personally.
What do you think is the current reining champion of "Best All Round Lens?"
The Tamron 35-150mm “portrait zoom” is stupid sharp for a lens with that much range. I have mine on a Nikon D750. It does have two glaring weaknesses though. It’s slow and indecisive in challenging light or with fast moving objects. In very bright settings, the bokeh can look funny and make it appear like the entire photo is out of focus.
It appears that the best 24-70mm f2.8 is currently the Nikon 24-70mm f2.8 S, the Sigma is very good to though.
Canon 28-70/2
Great lens but not for $3k.
I really like my EF 24-70 f4. Great IS and compact size. Plus I have the Tamron 45mm for the things I can't do with the zoom.
That 45mm is a fantastic lens for whatever DSLR it lands on
All arounder for me is the 24-105 G. That extra reach is indispensable if I'm just taking one lens
Perfectly good choice if used for landscape and you always have a tripod. I think f/2.8 and 70mm is more universal in the long run.
When the question is related to this specific lens and not just any 24-70 I would say more yes than no. Technically this lens is also offered on Nikon, Canon and Sigma SA DSLR mounts. Those are $30 more at the moment on B&H and they are actually discounted from $1300.
The Tamon is a great choice but I think the newest version is much different than the older ones they have on the other mounts. Which is Canon, Nikon and Pentax. If you're only comparing Sony FE mount lenses then the Tamron is a good choice to save a little weight and money.
A side note though: Anyone who pre ordered this lens right away on Adorama in Dec also didn't pay tax here in the US. At some point after that they started charging tax for every state.
I really liked the optical quality of the Tamron 24-70mm G2, but I found the focus breathing on it to be so extreme that it was more of a 24-63mm and that's how I ended up with the Tamron 35-150mm as my walkaround lens. In reviewing the EXIF data of my shots, I found that I hardly ever used the 40-60mm focal range whenever it was available so a truncated 24-70mm wasn’t going to be a good fit.
It would be interesting to do a test with zoom lenses. Give different people different lenses and tell them to go and take a bunch of photos with no stipulations. I have a feeling most would zoom in as far as they can at any given time unless the subject was just way too close to fill the frame.
If one of those people had used primes before they may actually think about the compression they'll get at certain focal lengths. In turn they may be more mindful and move closer to a subject even though they could zoom.
My questions is, do you think you don't use that 40-60 range because you don't want to/can't get closer to your subjects or is it the compression and depth of field that's more appealing to you?
I think it's partially because I like to get closer because I have a better feeling for the scene when I'm that close. That probably explains why there was a lack of a short/middle range focal length in my photos. If I was already that close, I tended to move closer even if I had a suitable zoom that could close the distance.
If I was too far away, 40-55mm wasn't going to do enough for me so I shot right past it until I hit around 55mm. I suppose I must have been unconsciously coming to the conclusion that anything up to 55mm was a shot I could chase down before it got away. Photos started appearing again in my catalogs starting around 55mm.
A 24-70mm would have been still a little short to be ideal for me, but good enough that I could make it work. I'm glad that I didn't find any 24-70's that I really liked because I really really like my current walkaround kit of a 24-35mm Sigma and a 35-150mm Tamron. That 35-150mm didn't exist when I was weighing my decision to add a 24-70mm to my kit.
I do agree with you that if you give people zoom, there's a tendency for people to lean on it too heavily. I was guilty of this myself for a year or two. I thought my shots were looking really stale so I spent a year shooting almost exclusively with that 24-35mm.
Did you find that using primes was made you more attentive of the effects of compression on your images? Did you or do you now still shoot with zooms sometimes? Do you have a favorite walkaround lens?
I do agree that 24-70 f2.8 is the best range for walkabout lens. Not so sure about Sigma being best lens. Perhaps best deal for a money being almost as good as 24-70 GM for half a price, but I have been using 24-70 GM for 4 years now and have no intention to try Sigma or Tamron.
Regarding the self-portrait: A touch of clarity . . . and an instagram filter me thinks.
For 500 dollars the nikon 24-120 mm is a very fair choice
Yes, but with the qualification of it being available for $500 US second hand. It’s a better lens than lots of people are willing to admit. The optics aren’t fantastic, but it is an autofocus monster.
Here in Greece they do a trick .They took the lens from the kit package of d750 or d850 and they sell it for 500 euros brand new in the camera equipment shops .I did it in July.The lens it is very good and crisp at f/8 from 85-100mm.
It won’t fit on my Fuji so probably not
The best all around lens for me is currently the Nikkor Z 24-70 f4 S.
For me and maybe other photographers the 24-70 is the all around go to lens. I did a Lightroom search of what lenses I used for 2018, the 24-70 was by a landslide the big winner. That is the big takeaway, not really which brand. All modern lenses are very very good. The manufacturers make sure this FordF150/Swiss Army knife of lenses, the ubiquitous 24-70 2.8 is going to be top notch.
When you get into lens races between Tamron, Sigma, Sonikanon 24-70 f2.8s it's like comparing sports cars that have 700 horsepower, it matters little as most of us are not out at the edges of the lens/car performance but we like to think we are ;)