Photoclubalpha

Just got the Sony 28-75 SAM last week and have been using it on the A900. Pretty good... I like it. Not markedly better than my existing all-purpose lens (the Minolta 24-85 -- a truly fantastic budget zoom option, IMHO), mind you, but it is faster (especially at the long end) and is thus better able to isolate subjects from their backgrounds. This makes it more versatile and more like a prime lens in capability.

Unfortunately, it is heavier and bulkier than the 24-85, which struck me as the perfect size and weight (light and compact without being too small to hold or unbalanced with the A900). It's also heavier than Tamron's 28-75, and considerably more expensive as well. It does seem to have slightly higher build quality than the Tamron, however, and does have SAM, whereas the Tamron relies on the screw-drive AF of the camera body.

Speaking of which, i find the SAM to be good -- quieter and faster than the SAM found on the 30 macro and 50/1.8 SAM. It is fairly accurate and reliable, requiring about a -2 adjustment with the AF Micro Adjustment on my A900, meaning it backfocuses ever so slightly without adjustment.

Optically, i find it to be very similar to the Tamron (which i have for the Nikon mount). Reading some comparison testing on the internet, it seems that the Sony 28-75 is very slightly sharper at the wide end and very slightly less sharp at the long end. I haven't done any detailed testing myself, but i would say that sounds about right to me.

Overall, i'm not sure if the Sony version was worth the significant price premium over the Tamron, but one factor i considered was the slightly higher potential for sample variation and focusing problems with the Tamron version. So far, from a very limited sample size on the Internet, the Sony version seems to be quite good from a QC perspective, and comments have been almost universally positive about the accuracy and reliability of focusing.

I am sure that in the unlikely event that had i received a "bad" copy of the Tamron, i could have either exchanged it for a "good" copy or sent it in to get it fixed. I just didn't want to deal with that right now, and was willing to pay the Sony premium as a bit of insurance. In my younger days, when i had more time, i think i might have gone with the Tamron instead, as it is a better value, but such is life.

In any event, even at its inflated price, the Sony 28-75 is a very good lens, and i have no problem recommending it to anyone for use on APS-C or full-frame bodies.

Thanks for sharing the information.

I have also saw that the lens look like to be a little bit better on internet review than the old Minolta 28-75mm. If the Nex system can support SAM in the future, I will probably sell my Minolta and switch to the sony.

in 1:4 Macro, Have you found big difference in detail VS the 30mm 1.8 ? let's say at F/8.0 ?

Regards,

Frank

catalytic wrote:It's also heavier than Tamron's 28-75, and considerably more expensive as well. It does seem to have slightly higher build quality than the Tamron, however, and does have SAM, whereas the Tamron relies on the screw-drive AF of the camera body.

mmm
I think the Sony build quality is way more than "slightly higher", compared to the Tamron version of the lens.

catalytic wrote: Speaking of which, i find the SAM to be good -- quieter and faster than the SAM found on the 30 macro and 50/1.8 SAM.

It was my impression as well -but I don't expect less from a 800 US$

After a couple of weeks using the 28-75 SAM I took it back to the store (B&H) because I got a good a good plan on a Sony 24-70 f2.8, that is my main lens now. I like it, of curse, but some times I miss the 28-75 because it lighter and, at the end of the day, it makes a difference (for my arms...)

Enjoy your new lens!

pakodominguez wrote:mmm
I think the Sony build quality is way more than "slightly higher", compared to the Tamron version of the lens.

I guess i could say it's "higher" instead of "slightly higher", but i honestly don't think the two are leagues apart. I don't find the Tamron that bad in build quality, nor do i find the Sony especially good. To me, they are both consumer level lenses with consumer level build quality.

To put some context around where i am coming from, even the CZ 24-70 doesn't strike me as having truly professional build quality, IMHO, whereas the CZ 135/1.8 does. I am used to Nikon pro lenses, where you could wield the 70-200 as a weapon in a street fight, for example Another example of truly good build quality are Zeiss primes in other mounts (e.g., ZF, ZE, ZK, ZM, etc.)

catalytic wrote:To put some context around where i am coming from, even the CZ 24-70 doesn't strike me as having truly professional build quality, IMHO...

I think you can easily kill someone with the Sony 24-70 f2.8

pakodominguez wrote:I think you can easily kill someone with the Sony 24-70 f2.8

I'm sure you could... don't get me wrong: it is not a wimpy lens by any means. I am coming at this purely from a personal perspective on how i perceive build quality. Part of it is just how it feels to me -- not necessarily how the lens might hold up in the field objectively.

Perhaps it is the plastic barrel that gives me the impression that it is not as rugged as the metal barreled CZ 135/1.8, Nikon 85/1.4 and 70-200, etc... I guess i am old fashioned in that regard. But nevertheless, that's my reference point. Hopefully it sheds some light on my assessments of build quality whether one agrees with them or not...

InTheSky wrote:in 1:4 Macro, Have you found big difference in detail VS the 30mm 1.8 ? let's say at F/8.0 ?

Hi Frank, not sure which lens(es) you are referring to when you say 30mm 1.8. Do you mean the new DT 30/2.8 macro vs the Sony 28-75?

I haven't really used the Sony 28-75 up close yet, so i couldn't say right now... but i have a feeling it is a bit of an apples to oranges comparison, as the 28-75 would be used near the long end of its range to get to its max magnification of 1:4.5, which is a longer focal length than the 30/2.8. That, coupled with the reduced DoF of full-frame vs APS-C (the 30/2.8 is a DT lens) means i would have less DoF to work with using the 28-75 than the 30/2.8 at f/8.

I would probably want to use a smaller aperture (maybe f/10), and with the longer focal length, that would require a higher shutter speed to prevent camera shake (i usually hand hold at 1:4.5) and depending on the light available, a higher ISO.