The Tamron/Sony 28-75mm F/2.8 comparison page is done! Sony sycophants prepare yourselves to get pissed off at my results. Remember, I don’t need to please Sony, help sell their stuff, or worry about retribution, so I’m not afraid to tell you what I think. I added the Sony Carl Zeiss 24-70mm F/2.8 crops at the bottom, along with some ghosting samples. All lenses were tested at the same time, though I didn’t initially think I would have time to go through all the Carl Zeiss images, that’s why I started with the Tamron and Sony 28-75mm, and added the CZ crops at the end.
Now that I’ve put all crops side-by-side, I can see which lens is optically the best, and that lens is the Tamron 28-75mm F/2.8. This is a source of aggravation for many. People always seem to want to believe the most expensive lens is the best. The Sony CZ comes in last at the wide end, and seems to match the Tamron at the long end, although the CZ is short 5mm (only goes to 70mm). You can check out the crops and come to your own conclusions. I will say I’d still buy the CZ if I were a photojournalist or paparazzi, because of marginally quicker focusing and accuracy of the SSM, better build quality, and slightly smoother bokeh. If you’re only concerned with sharpness, save yourself over $1100 and buy the Tamron!! Too bad Sony, you lose this time!
As I stated in the last paragraph on the comparison page, I think the Tamron and Sony 28-75mm F/2.8 are optically identical, or close to it. The differences visible may be a result of quality control standards, the Sony just making the cut, and the tamron exceeding the average etc. I’ve tested several Tamron lenses so far, and I’ve been quite happy with the results, not so with Sigma, (Sony has been good). The Sony 28-75mm was very impressive at the wide end, so I doubt there is a problem with the lens. I’m not going to try and get more copies of the same lenses and do it again, the results will stand with the caveat.
I’ll have the full review of the Tamron 28-75mm F/2.8 ready by mid-January.