Which lens would you use the most?

I'll keep it short, I shoot Sony full frame and currently have a 50mm and 85 prime. I am trying to decide between the following three zooms due to their price points. My questions is, which one of the following three options would you (or do you) use the most?

I find myself shooting sport climbing more than bouldering, however still shoot bouldering and lifestyle often.

Sony G 24-105 F4

Sony 16-35mm F4

Tamron 28-75 F2.8

Cheers!

First off, rad photos.  Second Either the 24-105 or 16-35 not the 28-75.  I would say probably for your style the 24-105 just for the more range and you seem to shoot a little tighter, not less than 24. 

The 24-105mm will be the most versatile overall. As a reference I have shot a 35-70mm for many years and now use a 24-90mm.

It always eventually comes down to speed, so out of the three?  Tamron 28-75 F2.8

 

Nice shots!  I really like my 24-70 2.8 on my Canon full-frame, and it's by far my most used lens.  I do a lot of skiing and occasional climbing photos.  Once in a while, I do wish for a bit more reach (and you'll probably want something like a 70-200 eventually), but more often I find the 2.8 to be important and useful.  It gets me faster, more-responsive autofocus all the time, but especially in low-light.  If you'll ever shoot at dawn or dusk, or at shadier crags, the faster lens will trump a bit of additional reach every time.  Plus, if your shot is tack-sharp, you can crop a bit with minimal loss, whereas if you got the exact framing you wanted, but did not get critical focus, you can't fix that in post.  So that's my personal preference, but I should state that I have longer lenses as well as a 17-40, and I still sometimes wonder if I would like a 24-105 if I had it, which I don't.  One thing to look at is try going through some of your recent shots and find some "near-misses."  Do you see common issues in your shots that didn't quite work?  What limitations are you noticing with your current gear?  If you're planning to shoot from a rope a lot for sport climbing shots, you'll really appreciate any of those zooms compared to committing to a single focal length or trying to swap lenses in the air.  

John Badila wrote: Nice shots!  I really like my 24-70 2.8 on my Canon full-frame, and it's by far my most used lens.  I do a lot of skiing and occasional climbing photos.  Once in a while, I do wish for a bit more reach (and you'll probably want something like a 70-200 eventually), but more often I find the 2.8 to be important and useful.  It gets me faster, more-responsive autofocus all the time, but especially in low-light.  If you'll ever shoot at dawn or dusk, or at shadier crags, the faster lens will trump a bit of additional reach every time.  Plus, if your shot is tack-sharp, you can crop a bit with minimal loss, whereas if you got the exact framing you wanted, but did not get critical focus, you can't fix that in post.  So that's my personal preference, but I should state that I have longer lenses as well as a 17-40, and I still sometimes wonder if I would like a 24-105 if I had it, which I don't.  One thing to look at is try going through some of your recent shots and find some "near-misses."  Do you see common issues in your shots that didn't quite work?  What limitations are you noticing with your current gear?  If you're planning to shoot from a rope a lot for sport climbing shots, you'll really appreciate any of those zooms compared to committing to a single focal length or trying to swap lenses in the air.  

Well the, obvious, issue for me is only having focal lengths of 50mm and 85mm so I would like to add a high quality zoom (within my price range). While I can make up for not having a wider angle focal length I definitely would like the option in the future, hence why I have not added the 70-200 to my list...yet

Things I like about each of the three listed:
Sony 24-105 F4: Crisp through the mid-range and gives an extra reach while still retaining wide angle
Tamron 28-75 f2.8: More opportunities for bokeh and DOF shots
Sony 16-35 F4: Wide angle for tight shots up close and bouldering in a small size

I didn't mention that, but bokeh/DOF control is another point in favor of getting a faster lens:  for your lifestyle shots, and sometimes climbing having a 2.8 that's a good "short portrait" lens will give you some nice possibilities that you can't match with a slower lens.  But you may get some of that with your existing primes, too:  how fast are your 50 and 85 (sorry, just not familiar with the Sony stuff)?  

Apparently this is the best selling Sony lens right now. Probably why it’s one of the few not on sale presently. I have the 16-35 and it’s an awesome lens but I’m looking at the 24-105 for better range. 

Chris treggE wrote: https://petapixel.com/2017/12/22/review-sony-gets-right-fe-24-105mm-f-4-g-lens/

Apparently this is the best selling Sony lens right now. Probably why it’s one of the few not on sale presently. I have the 16-35 and it’s an awesome lens but I’m looking at the 24-105 for better range. 

I have rented both and the 24-105 is just as amazing as the 16-35 (a bit sharper across the board IMO)

My dream zoom set up would be 16-35 and 24-105. Perfect set up for high quality climbing shots. 

John Badila wrote: I didn't mention that, but bokeh/DOF control is another point in favor of getting a faster lens:  for your lifestyle shots, and sometimes climbing having a 2.8 that's a good "short portrait" lens will give you some nice possibilities that you can't match with a slower lens.  But you may get some of that with your existing primes, too:  how fast are your 50 and 85 (sorry, just not familiar with the Sony stuff)?  

I agree, however I think I achieve enough bokeh with the 24-105 by increasing the focal length

Both primes are 1.8

24-105 f/4 hands down. Own this lense with the A7 III. Most versatile and paired with that body works really well in not ideal lighting despite being f/4. 

I would go with the Tamron just for the wider aperture. I photograph a lot of bouldering and most of the time Im using 2.0-3.6. With 4.0 i find that i have to bump down the shutter speed a bit and can make for some blurry feet on some pictures, or I have to boost the iso which I pretty much always hate doing. Normally I would say 28 wouldnt be wide enough for a bouldering photography lens but your shots seemed framed pretty tight to the climber so youd probably be okay, especially for sport climbing photos

I've owned the Sony 24-70 and the 16-35 and for climbing definitely preferred the 24-70 focal length. The extra reach of the 105 would be great, and I think it would probably stay glued to the body for climbing. Though 2.8 would be nice, I don't know much about the Tamron.

I use an A7III with a 16-35, 70-300, and a new 24 1.4. Shots wider than 24mm are definitely something I do often, and I love wide environmental portraits, but going that wide takes effort to avoid unacceptable distortion with climbing photos. I'm turned off by photos of climbers with weirdly long arms toward the corners of the frame

For my bouldering pics, I definitely appreciate a faster lens under the dark canopy of North Carolina

t.farrell wrote: Another thing to consider is what you’ll do in the future. If you plan on getting a 70-X00 at some point, a 24-105 might be kind of a waste.

Why not rent them for a weekend then decide?

 My vote would be to stay with the primes. Otherwise, the 24-104

I've considered this and done it in the past, however, in the end I would rather own a lens and sell it later than rent. The way glass prices are I feel like the cost difference between renting would be minimal.

Amateur photographer here (studied it in undergrad and do it as a hobby, some professional work). I've been doing climbing photography this season at the New (my home craig). Developing my online portfolio for anyone interested.

I recently upgraded to a Canon 17-40 f/4 on a 60D. I shoot a lot of wide angle shots and its been great. I do a fair amount of rope access photography (shooting friends on sport while hanging from an adjacent anchor). I love the wide angle, but some times, it would be nice to get a bit tighter.

So I'd recommend the 24-105 if you're on a full frame. With modern ISO being so high and so clear, I wouldn't fret over a single stop of aperture, especially if you have prime lenses for low light.

t.farrell wrote:

I meant rent it for a weekend to see which one you like the best before investing in a lens. Try before you buy? 

Gotcha, I have rented the 24-105 before but did not use it for climbing.

I do only bouldering and my 10-20 on my APSC sony never leaves the camera.

s.price wrote: My Tamron 28 - 75 is pretty much glued in place. Would love to check out the 24-105 though. My style is very similar to yours and it has served me well.

Do you ever find yourself wanting 24mm instead of 28?

I strongly recommend the 16-35 f/4.
Going wider than 24 allows for lots of unique shots. Your primes are almost certainly much high quality and faster than any mid range zoom. Fast lenses are useful at mid and longer focal lengths, but I stop down when shooting wide, so max aperture is irrelevant unless shooting at night. 16-35, 50, and 85 is a killer setup.

The other option to consider is adding the 10-18mm (about $400 cheaper than the 16-35) for my "backup" APS-C to cover the wider end of the spectrum.