Also a good choice is the Tamron 17-70 F2.8 if you are fine with APS-C. Especially for Alpha 6400 and down because it has stabilization (VC called by Tamron).
I picked up the Tamron 28-200 and it has proven to be an excellent travel lens, smaller and lighter than the Sigma 24-70 with more range and the image quality is very good. After using the Tamron for a few months I ended up selling the Sigma
Shoutout to the Sigma 18-50 f2.8 for APS-C E-mount. Small, light, affordable, good color, and a minimum focus distance so short that it can almost feel like a pseudo-macro compared to other lenses. The only thing missing is OSS. Sony's own 18-105 f4 has been great too.
I love my 20-40 f2.8 Its not the sharpest but its really compact and lightweight with very respectable image quality. When i try to go as lightweight as possible, thats my go to lens. The 20mm might not seem too different from 24mm on paper but those 4mm makes quite a difference in angle of view. On the wide end, every millimeter counts.
I gotta say the best all around cheap zoom for E mount is Tamron 28-200 and 20-70. If I use a zoom lens I always pair it with a prime. 2.8 doesn't cut it for me in pops.
What Prime lenses are you using paired with the 20-70 f4? I have an a7c and 20-70 and searching for a nice small light prime lens for just grabing the camera and going out.
@@Zet-119 I have the 35 GM, but it's a little heavy. I heard good things with the Sigma 35 and 50 F2. Alternative, you could try the Cosina Votilander lens if MF is ok.
Having both the Sigma 24-70 ART and Tamron 35-150, I can say without question the versatility of the Tamron far outweighs (as does the lens) the Sigma. I regularly use both, but the Tamron rarely leaves my A7RV body unless I absolutely need the Sigma for the wider FOV/lighter weight for gimbal work.
I got the Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 based on Jared's recommendation, and I didn't see the need or readon to spend nearly double for the Sony version. I love my Sigma and use it all the time! The only reason I'd switch to the Sony is Ive upgraded from my A7R IVa to an A1, so the fps is limited, like Jared said.
Bought the Tamron 35-150 yesterday and was so torn about what to get. Been watching hours of reviews on all of these lenses for about 3 months. Thanks for the video Jared, I think I might have to see how it goes with the size and weight of this beast. Out of these lenses I would go with the Tamron 28-70 seems like a great lens at a really nice price.
I have ever never seen Jared review a Samyang/Rokinon lenses. Yeah, they were bad several years ago, but they have gotten really good now. The image quality and autofocus is on par with Tamron and Sigma.
I agree, that's how I got my E-mount start. Samyang 45mm f/1.8, then added the 24mm f/1.8 and 85mm f/1.4. I guess this video is about zooms, but I would recommend the Samyang/Rokinon primes for anyone on a budget.
@@froknowsphoto Exactly, zooms, like Samyang AF 35-150 f/2-2.8 or Samyang AF 24-70 mm f/2.8, it would be awesome if you could check them as well. Especially since Tamron's 35-150 f/2-2.8 is around 50% more expensive than Samyang's, and it's actually the same when you compare Sigma A 24-70 f/2.8 DG DN to Samyang's 24-70 f/2.8 (at least in my country). It would be really awesome if you could test them, they seem like great options on a budget who want something good but it doesn't necessarily have to be "the best of the best, with honors, sir!".
My choice was the Tamron 28-75 f 2.8 II. I traded the version one of the lens. It’s sharp, fast focusing, and light weight. Plus, the photos are wonderful. I use it on my Sony a7iii.
if I was rocking an a7C camera I would have the 24-50 f2.8, that lens is designed as basically a 24-70 for compact cameras. otherwise I'd rock the 20-70, just too versatile. The f4 aperture isn't amazing but nowadays ISO performance is so excellent it's rarely a big issue for most situations.
I got the 24-70 Art used in 2020 after watching your (and some other’s videos) as an upgrade to the 24-105 f4 and it’s still one of my most used lenses to date (together with the 70-200GM and 35GM) for concert photography
An F4 lens works great for professional landscape photography. It is often lighter than the F2.8 and may have more zoom range. Also for landscape photography it is going to be stopped down to F8 or so anyway, so you don't really need the extra size and limitations needed for F2.8.
I love the Tamron AF 28-200mm f/2.8-5.6 Di III RXD, it‘s sharp, not too heavy and almost unbeatable for travel, only bad thing is the f/5.6 at higher zoom.
Canon already has 28-70 f2 for years and recently they launched 24-105 f2.8. What Canon needs to do is to open their mount to Sigma and Tamron. Otherwise they will completely lose their ground, already almost they did . Sony 24-70 f2 has nothing to do with that.
If you’re stepping up to midrange lenses in the Sony department, you should try the 24-105 f/4 G OSS from Sony. When I can only carry one lens for travel, that’s the one lens to rule them all. By the way f/4 is just one stop less from f/2.8, but 105mm is a long way to go from 70mm focal length, and 28mm is just not wide enough.
35-150 FTW! You can get your workout in and great shots at the same time! If Sony would come out with a 24-135 f1.8 Super G. then you could really get your workout in (probably leg day too) and great shots!
Tamron 17-28f2.8 should hav been mentioned maybe not on the list because its not big focal range but still its small,cheap,light,good quality for landscape and perfect for vlogging..
I had a Sigma 24-70 a couple of months ago, I had bought it new but it had a big problem as after 60mm the sharpness was horrible. Of course I have some other lenses from sigma without any issues but I think native Sony lenses have more consistency in production lines.
My first "big" lens purchase was a f2.8 zoom for my then A7III. I went out and rented the Sigma 24-70mm DG DN, Sigma 28-70 DG DN, Sony 24-70 GM (v1) and the Tamron 28-75mm G2. Ultimately I went with the Tamron 28-75 G2 and have not regretted it, but the Sigma 28-70mm was a close second. Personally in my opinion, the Sigma 24-70mm ART is a dinosaur of a lens in 2024. It's almost double the weight of most of it's competitors, and while it is very sharp, the Tamron was basically as sharp head to head for me. Additionally, the Sigma had some zoom creep issues when walking around with it. I would hope Sigma has a refresh in the works for this lens as it was top of it's class when it came out, but now it's really fallen behind in the market. If they could combine the 24-70mm range with the lightweight and modernized construction of the current 28-70mm, I think they'd hit a home run. The Tamron 28-75mm G2 is a market buster in that it's the strongest argument for why camera manufacturers should allow third parties to make lenses for their systems. I believe it was the top selling lens for ALL lens manufacturers recently (first and third party). There isn't a full frame lens that comes close to it in terms of performance and value for money on any other camera platform, and that inherently becomes a good selling point to invest in E-mount. Couple that with the fact that you can get a matching 70-180mm and 17-28mm that all take the same filter thread size and you have a home run of a lens kit for those that don't want to shell out first party $$$.
I don’t even own a Sony but the 24-70 from sigma is a no brainer. I honestly think most sigma glass is just as good as any other name brand company in terms of image quality. May 18-35 1.8 is AMAZING with my 90D ❤️
For APS-C (Yes, I shoot in APS-C) there is a Tamron 17-70 as a beginner, costs like $650 and it is f/2.8! Probably the lens I should have bought from the beginning, instead of a couple of prime lenses lol
yeah 2.8 xd I have a 52 and a 16 (from sigma f/1.4) but honestly for hikes it's perfect, for my astro photography I just use the 16mm but anyone doing daily street photography (specially in latinoamerica, where most likely you won't be doing street photography at night) you'll be more than covered with 2.8 (I usually shoot at f/4 with this lens). @@sbsid1994
It seems like it would, but since these are all full frame lenses, the APS-C 17-70 really doesn't. I have the Tamron & use it on my A6000. Love it. I even mount it to my A7CR for video occasionally, but it's a good replacement for any of the lenses he covers in the video for regular use on a full frame body.
Hi Jared i love and enjoy your videos thank you for all the time you spent on your videos i watch your setup for the Canon R5 video and it was very helpful but i just picked up the Sony ar7 v and watch your setup video but I seem to have problems with manual mode my photos look not sharp and look very flat no color was wondering if you had any idea what might be wrong and i also was wondering in the video the part where you said to put your name in the camera i bought the camera new but there was some one name already in the camera is that normal for a new camera?
I shoot cars and I had that 20-40mm and it was an awesome lens , but I rarely used it at 20mm so I ended up selling it. I'm now rocking a Zeiss 25mm f2 and that Tamron 35-150mm 💪🏽
I would pay the extra money for the sony G or gm lens for the lens distortion auto correction on jpg. The time you save editting is priceless. And yes its a night and day comparision of raw vs jpg with the lens auto correct.
Hi Jared, I would have also included the 24-70/4 zeiss and the 24-105/4 they are in the price range and offer both interest 24-70/4 is less expensive and is still a good use on the 42 MPix sensor (A7RIII in my case) 24-105/4 offers versatility and a better IQ than the first one they are both better than the kit lens Personnaly I choose f/4 zoom and 1.8 prime I own the 24-70/4 zeiss and made great pictures with it my last one were in studio
24-105 is the Lens !!!! Once i travelled with 3 primes - but realized the dust is the enemy of changing lenses on my Trips to asia - so i tried this lens and the IG is really good- and its much More versatile- maybe these days i would think about a combination of 24-70 f4! and Tamron 70-180, but will Not change now because the Lens fullfills my needs in 80-90 %.- the 24-70 f4 Zeiss was my second Lens in 2014 but regret it for the Price did Not Match the results
Jared, I generally like your videos, but you really missed the mark on this one. The 35-150 by samyang should be up here, it’s $1100 right now brand new. And while the auto focus isn’t quite as fast as the Tamron version, it’s still pretty damn fast and it is a better lens than the majority of options you showed unless you need that little bit of wider side. I recently picked one up used in great condition for about 750 bucks and ended up selling my 28 to 75 Tamron and 70 to 180 Tamron.
@@froknowsphoto I would highly recommend you look into it, it’s a tremendous lens for the price. It uses the older style STM motors rather than the linear ones of the Tamron, but that’s not a real issue in the vast majority of situations. I think for the savings you get, especially considering goes on sale all the time. It’s a extremely compelling option that I think most shooters who are looking at these midrange zooms should really consider since it’s roughly the same price and you really get the best of both worlds if you can deal with the weight (which I don’t think is bad at all personally)
@@froknowsphotoI have the Samyang version of the 35-150. It's nearly a clone of the Tamron. The only two slights on the Samyang that I've run into is 1) it doesn't have the USB port on the lens itself, so you need an adapter to update firmware; 2) the lens tends to creep a lot more than the Tamron when it's not physically locked at 35.
This video reminds me why i haven't bought a sony full frame camera😂 I'd like one but the glass is just a minefield. Can't find much that i can afford or want to carry around.
@@froknowsphoto love you man, but you included one f4 and the 24-105 has IS and more range so its way better for video than most of the list. also if they are doing studio / fashion wpork f4 is super fast.
2:50 Just a quick and small correction here, F4 is a stop down so it's not really "a little bit less light than F2.8" it's a factor of 2 so it's literally 2 times the amount of light.
I mean when it comes to lenses one stop is a little bit of light relatively speaking. Because as soon as you go to, let’s say an F2 lens talking about four times less light, or if you’re talking about a 1.4 prime now you’re talking about eight times less light. So one stop is a little bit less light when it comes to the relative amount of light being led in compared to other lenses. In a vacuum? Sure you can say it is not a little bit. But we are talking about photography in general, it is a little bit of light, because my 150 to 600 for instance takes in over 16x times less light then my 85 1.4. When you compare those two one stop, is it minuscule amount.
It is a bit less light. I was always hitting iso 6400+ indoors with the tamron f/2.8. And unless the background was far from the subject, there wasn't much separation. Now that I have a f/1.4 prime trio a 20-70mm makes much more sense as a travel landscape lens paired with one of the primes. Compared to the 2.8 zooms it has about the same sharpness in the wide end, it loses to the gm, but it is sharper than the gm in the telephoto end.
Hey, could someone plis help me shortly? I bought a sony standard zoom lens for my sony a7 iii full frame, my problem was that it was for dsrl cameras and i needed to crop the sensor. That gave me automatically another focal length obviously and decided to send it back. Can you please recommend me an e-mount standard zoom lens around 18 - 70 mm that doesn't crop with full frame cameras? F 2.8. Or what to read in the specifications of the lens to know it before buying it? Thanks a million
Funny how you reinterpreted the meaning of "budget". In my world budget is 200-300 $. When we talk about budget items we talk about items that are priced at the lower end of the scale. How is nearly 1k lens fitting this criteria?
Wow these are expensive for budget lenses. I’m looking for lenses for my friend getting into photography, Im a Pentax k3 iii user and budget lenses are super cheap, like double digits for a Pentax 50mm f1.8. So looking at Sony lenses, their budget stuff is 4x the price for their cheapest one. Mental…
U forgot the Samyang 24-70 better lens and faster auto focus than my art lens sigma but there's more option there u should include all for people to know.
@@froknowsphoto ur right can't argue with u can buy ur own and try it they also have the 35-150 2.8 , u will be surprised how good they arslo they have an 85 1.4 version ii , they are other options there than tamron and sigma, also now is viltrox which I can tell u I have the 16 1.8 full frame with older display 2 functions buttons d click aperture and lock and af/mf switch I filmed on an fx a whole concert superb auto focus and image quality and I did a wedding last week on the RIV with the 16 1.8 viltrox it blows the gm 14 mm 1.8 out of this world the focus and sharpness , I've been fallowing u I think from the start 8-9 years ago very begging cause I liked ur stile and humor some jokes muscle gym I'm actually the same but I found that I invested in glass alot and when I saw there are other options out there I belive I rarely Fallow now just the ur news, take in consideration other lens now like Samyang , Viltrox and I don't now if u know Lawoa put up the widest auto focus lens and their first 0 Distortion 10 mm 2.8 for e mount.
Sony FE (Full Frame) f/2.8 Tamron - 20-40 F2.8 Di III VXD Sony - FE 24-50 F2.8 G Samyang - 24-70 F2.8 AF FE Sigma - 24-70 F2.8 DG DN Art Sony - FE 24-70 F2.8 GM Sony - FE 24-70 F2.8 GM II Sigma - 28-70 F2.8 DG DN Contemporary Tamron - 28-75 F2.8 Di III RXD Tamron - 28-75 F2.8 Di III VXD G2 f/4 Tamron - 17-50 F4 Di III VXD Sony - FE 20-70 F4 G Sony Carl Zeiss - FE 24-70 F4 ZA OSS Vario-Tessar T* Sony - FE 24-105 F4 G OSS Sony - FE PZ 28-135 F4 OSS
That's not budget, that's the most expansive. For budget I would take the kit lens or 24-105, which is really cheap now or if I would really stretch it to 1000 Dollar the 35 150 Samyang or used Tamron or if you want 24 70 the original Sony GM also under 1000 Dollar now.
You can make great photos with a 500$ setup but the same picture probably would look quite a bit better with a 3000$ setup. It’s a 80/20 thing as often with high end gear, like in music aswell. And for camera lens everything between 500-1000$ is kinda budget.
@@roninthegoat2810 I totally agree, but amateur photographers that take photos for their family or their little side projects for fun don’t have $800-1200 to spill on some glass. I understand it’s better quality. I’ve seen what it can do. But I don’t need that. I need budget options. So I’ll stick with my old NEX-F3 kit lens and a couple cheap manuals. A grand is more than many people make in a week and it is, in no way, budget.
@@leefy_Treefy You can say that all you want, but $800 is as much as some people make in an entire week, and is excessive for a hobby. A professional that can write it off as a business expense is one thing, but most people are hobbyists. And, to that end, claiming an $800 lens as a budget lens is like claiming that $60 steak dinner is budget because there are meals that cost more. Or that a $120,000 sports car is budget because there are million dollar sports cars out there. It's far from low budget.
