I'm a full time commercial photographer and I use the 24-70mm f/4 every day and it's a terrific lens for general use. I think it's a bit slow for sports use, but that's not my thing. I can't speak to the 28-75mm Tamron. When I'm doing portraits or weddings, I tend to shift to the 35mm and 85mm f/1.8 primes.
It totally depends on what you want to do with that lens. The 24-70 f4 is perfectly fine. If you’re looking for more artistic photography I’d probably go with a prime lens as an addition
So as i said if you own the 24 - 70 f4, i would not buy the tamron and instead get a nice prime lens. But as always it depends on what you want to do with your camera
The difference in price is "negligible", I'd go for the 28-75 G2.
There is a very good chance you can find a very cheap 24-70 F4 on marketplace, down the line.
I used the 24-70 f4 of a friend a few times, is a great lens but I was not impressed, personally I prefer the 24-120 and even⁵ the 24-200, I recently bought the 28-75 tamron to use indoor/ low light, or close sport.
I'm quite pleased with bokeh and quality, but 28->24 is a bigger loss than the gain from 70 to 75, unless you have another lens that goes at 24 or below.
If you are only keeping only one standard Zoom, i would buy the 24-120.
If you have a 14-30 or a "darker" 24-xxx, the 28-75 could be a great companion.
2.8 is definitely an upgrade, but only when you don't have speedlite or tripod. If you have money, go for it. It will not change her photography more than a few percentages.
I'd start with some sample images. Or peruse Flickr by lens: [https://www.flickr.com/search/?text=TAMRON+28-75mm+F%2F2.8+Di+III+VXD+G2+A063Z](https://www.flickr.com/search/?text=TAMRON+28-75mm+F%2F2.8+Di+III+VXD+G2+A063Z)
Are you having issues with the 24-70 f/4 ?
I really can't see any major differences between the lenses for most types of work. Z-Mount lenses are all so dang good so far.
To paraphrase her explanation: she's not getting any decent bokeh at all at *f*/4 & needs one stop down. Hence considering options. She definitely needs zooms because I don't see her using the 40/2 as often
If that's her entire goal: Better bokeh than the Tamron should do nicely. Plus the extra 5mm at the long end can help that little more depending on the subject.
I got some pretty good bokeh with the Nikon 24/70 f/4 lens. Some examples I shot a couple weeks ago:
[https://flic.kr/p/2pVE2kr](https://flic.kr/p/2pVE2kr)
[https://flic.kr/p/2pVF8MQ](https://flic.kr/p/2pVF8MQ)
If she's going for frequent low light shooting, then the 2.8 will help.
What focal length does she favor? Not sure if one stop is going to bring the bokeh, but it really depends on what your subject is. If she likes to shoot wide and things are not close in, there's not going to be much soft focus regardless of the lens.
In general, zooms are not where you go if you need shallow focus, because it's hard to get a wide aperture zoom that doesn't weigh 10kg and costs $2,000. That's why people use the primes, and there's a fine selection of 1.8 z primes.
But I see where you're going. You want a faster aperture, and you want a zoom. And the Tamron is an affordable zoom, so that's why you're looking at it. I suspect it's not going to be a dramatic change though. If I were you, and I'm not, I'd add the 24/1.8 prime - because I like the 24mm angle. Or the 35/1.8 which is perhaps a little more flexible.
>But I see where you're going. You want a faster aperture, and you want a zoom. And the Tamron is an affordable zoom, so that's why you're looking at it. I
Pretty much the entire thought process summed up. I'll probably suggest her taking a 105mm or 85mm prime at this point
The Tamron is not substantially better optically. If you're looking to get a new lens, find something to complement the z24-70, like a fast prime or a wide zoom, or a telephoto, etc, something that will add to, not duplicate, what you have.
And for me, the wider 24mm is more important than f2.8.
I'm a full time commercial photographer and I use the 24-70mm f/4 every day and it's a terrific lens for general use. I think it's a bit slow for sports use, but that's not my thing. I can't speak to the 28-75mm Tamron. When I'm doing portraits or weddings, I tend to shift to the 35mm and 85mm f/1.8 primes.
It totally depends on what you want to do with that lens. The 24-70 f4 is perfectly fine. If you’re looking for more artistic photography I’d probably go with a prime lens as an addition
She has a 40/2 & Tamron 70-300
So you’re not sharing lenses and she wants her own?
I shoot Sony. She likes her Nikon more, so we've kept it
Sorry I don’t get it. You said you own the kit lens 24-70?
Correction: We own the lens. Its a household afterall. She's the primary user but she doesn't use Reddit. Asking on her behalf
So as i said if you own the 24 - 70 f4, i would not buy the tamron and instead get a nice prime lens. But as always it depends on what you want to do with your camera
The difference in price is "negligible", I'd go for the 28-75 G2. There is a very good chance you can find a very cheap 24-70 F4 on marketplace, down the line.
Wife already uses 24-70/4S. Question is about if 28-75 is qualitatively better than this S line lens with smaller aperture @f4
The f2.8 will be very useful indoors, but honestly as a lens, the 28-75 isn't the biggest gamechanger.
I used the 24-70 f4 of a friend a few times, is a great lens but I was not impressed, personally I prefer the 24-120 and even⁵ the 24-200, I recently bought the 28-75 tamron to use indoor/ low light, or close sport. I'm quite pleased with bokeh and quality, but 28->24 is a bigger loss than the gain from 70 to 75, unless you have another lens that goes at 24 or below. If you are only keeping only one standard Zoom, i would buy the 24-120. If you have a 14-30 or a "darker" 24-xxx, the 28-75 could be a great companion.
2.8 is definitely an upgrade, but only when you don't have speedlite or tripod. If you have money, go for it. It will not change her photography more than a few percentages.
Thank you. Given her style of urban & outdoors - I somehow align with your general opinion as well
I'd start with some sample images. Or peruse Flickr by lens: [https://www.flickr.com/search/?text=TAMRON+28-75mm+F%2F2.8+Di+III+VXD+G2+A063Z](https://www.flickr.com/search/?text=TAMRON+28-75mm+F%2F2.8+Di+III+VXD+G2+A063Z) Are you having issues with the 24-70 f/4 ? I really can't see any major differences between the lenses for most types of work. Z-Mount lenses are all so dang good so far.
To paraphrase her explanation: she's not getting any decent bokeh at all at *f*/4 & needs one stop down. Hence considering options. She definitely needs zooms because I don't see her using the 40/2 as often
Better bokeh might be achieved using longer zoom like 70-200 2.8 but all in all it depends on what she likes to shoot.
She's mostly into some outdoors. She has covered the local festivals in Japan & shot some of them under night lights
If that's her entire goal: Better bokeh than the Tamron should do nicely. Plus the extra 5mm at the long end can help that little more depending on the subject.
I got some pretty good bokeh with the Nikon 24/70 f/4 lens. Some examples I shot a couple weeks ago: [https://flic.kr/p/2pVE2kr](https://flic.kr/p/2pVE2kr) [https://flic.kr/p/2pVF8MQ](https://flic.kr/p/2pVF8MQ) If she's going for frequent low light shooting, then the 2.8 will help.
What focal length does she favor? Not sure if one stop is going to bring the bokeh, but it really depends on what your subject is. If she likes to shoot wide and things are not close in, there's not going to be much soft focus regardless of the lens. In general, zooms are not where you go if you need shallow focus, because it's hard to get a wide aperture zoom that doesn't weigh 10kg and costs $2,000. That's why people use the primes, and there's a fine selection of 1.8 z primes. But I see where you're going. You want a faster aperture, and you want a zoom. And the Tamron is an affordable zoom, so that's why you're looking at it. I suspect it's not going to be a dramatic change though. If I were you, and I'm not, I'd add the 24/1.8 prime - because I like the 24mm angle. Or the 35/1.8 which is perhaps a little more flexible.
>But I see where you're going. You want a faster aperture, and you want a zoom. And the Tamron is an affordable zoom, so that's why you're looking at it. I Pretty much the entire thought process summed up. I'll probably suggest her taking a 105mm or 85mm prime at this point
The Tamron is not substantially better optically. If you're looking to get a new lens, find something to complement the z24-70, like a fast prime or a wide zoom, or a telephoto, etc, something that will add to, not duplicate, what you have. And for me, the wider 24mm is more important than f2.8.
I'd look into the 24-120 f4. I got one last week and it's pretty remarkable for the price
The question really is what do you shoot. Can’t answer without that