Sony AF 28-75mm F2.8 SAM A-mount lens reviews

reviews found: 20   
reviewer#11714 date: Mar-6-2014
sharpness: 4.5
color: 5
build: 4
distortion: 5
flare control: 5
overall: 4.7
tested on:
  • film camera:Film camera
  • APS-C: 6MP6 MP; 10MP10 MP; 12MP12 MP; 14MP14 MP; 16MP16 MP; 20MP20 MP; 24MP24 MP
  • full frame: 24MP24 MP36MP36 MP12MP12 MP
ownership:I own this lens
compared to:Minolta AF 28-70mm f2.8 G
Sony 24-105mm f3.5-4.5
price paid:450 EUR mint
positive:sharp
small and light
zoom lock
nice bokeh
negative:no dmf
af/mf switch on lens
comment:I got this lens very cheap in mint condition. It is much lighter and optically superior to my copy of the Minolta G. The lens is very usable wide open and tack sharp stopped down to f3.5. I sold the G and kept this lens.
reviewer#11589 date: Jan-6-2014
sharpness: 5
color: 5
build: 5
distortion: 5
flare control: 5
overall: 5
tested on:
  • film camera:Film camera
  • APS-C: 6MP6 MP; 10MP10 MP; 12MP12 MP; 14MP14 MP; 16MP16 MP; 20MP20 MP; 24MP24 MP
  • full frame: 24MP24 MP36MP36 MP12MP12 MP
ownership:I own this lens
compared to:Sony 16 -50
Zeis 16-80
Minolta 35-105
price paid:700 CAD
positive:Sharp
Constant f2.8
weight
price
negative:Sam Not SSM
comment:I purchased this lens when I bought My A99. I choose it over other variations for the fact that it worked with Focus D on the A99. This lens does not disappoint. It is very comparable to the 16-50 in terms of sharpness range, weight, flare control etc. The only thing that is a slight annoyance to me is the Sam Motor. If this lens were SSM it would perfect to fill your Full Frame walk around needs. That being said the Sam motor in this lens does seem to focus more quietly in Movie mode than my Sony 35 or Sony 85 with the SAM Motors. You can still here it thus my wish for SSM. I have never used the Zeis 24-70 but for the life of me cannot see how it could be worth 3 times the price. This lens is that good. I have not used my 16-50 since I purchased this lens because I put my 28-75 on my A99 and my 70-400 on my A77 and I go shoot. I hardly switch lenses at all anymore.
reviewer#11482 date: Nov-15-2013
sharpness: 4
color: 5
build: 4
distortion: 4
flare control: 4
overall: 4.2
tested on:
  • film camera:Film camera
  • APS-C: 6MP6 MP; 10MP10 MP; 12MP12 MP; 14MP14 MP; 16MP16 MP; 20MP20 MP; 24MP24 MP
  • full frame: 24MP24 MP36MP36 MP12MP12 MP
ownership:I own this lens
compared to:
missing
price paid:£250 used
positive:Great weight very sharp with micro adjust on a99.
negative:Manual mode due to built in af motor..( not a major problem) but requires two switches in body and lens barrel to switch fully otherwise your fighting the built in motor..as i say not a real problem.
comment:I have used this lens for about a month on my a99. I really begrudged paying £1400 on the cz24-70 2.8 so began to explore viable alternatives that require minimal adjustment in Lightroom. This was recommended to me and to be honest I couldn't be happier. A few years ago this was packaged with Sonys flag ship cameras a900 a850s and the quality of the optics does not disappoint. Its fast at 2.8 with a very good range. 28mm at wide is decent for most users whilst 75 at zoom gives enough to use as a walk around lens. bottom line would recommend it and can be purchase quite to cheap second hand.
reviewer#11361 date: Oct-1-2013
sharpness: 4.5
color: 5
build: 4
distortion: 4
flare control: 4
overall: 4.3
tested on:
  • film camera:Film camera
  • APS-C: 6MP6 MP; 10MP10 MP; 12MP12 MP; 14MP14 MP; 16MP16 MP; 20MP20 MP; 24MP24 MP
  • full frame: 24MP24 MP36MP36 MP12MP12 MP
ownership:I own this lens
compared to:Minolta 28/2.8
Minolta 35-70/4 Macro
Minolta 50/1.7
Sony 50/2.8 Macro (SAL50M28)
SAM-wise: SAL30M28 and SAL85F28
price paid:800 USD new
positive:Very sharp center, excellent color rendition, distortion quite acceptable even quite good, flare control is normal and higher than average for a zoom.
negative:Quite soft at the edges, price a bit high
comment:If you need to take just one lens for a trip/travel, then this lens might be a proper choice for FF cameras (definitely not for APS-C). Color rendition is superb.
Quite a good lens for everyday general use, such as street photography, candids etc.
The wide aperture helps a lot in dim conditions.
The SAM is not so noisy so would not interfere while video shooting (except in quiet environments).
reviewer#10987 date: Mar-19-2013
sharpness: 5
color: 5
build: 4
distortion: 5
flare control: 5
overall: 4.8
tested on:
  • film camera:Film camera
  • APS-C: 6MP6 MP; 10MP10 MP; 12MP12 MP; 14MP14 MP; 16MP16 MP; 20MP20 MP; 24MP24 MP
  • full frame: 24MP24 MP36MP36 MP12MP12 MP
ownership:I own this lens
compared to:- Sony DT 16-50mm f2.8 SSM
- Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* 24-70mm f2.8 ZA SSM
- Canon EF 24-70mm f2.8 L USM
- AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f2.8 G ED
- Sony 35mm f1.8 SAM
- Sony 50mm f1.8 SAM
price paid:
missing
positive:- Sharp
- Nice colour rendition
- Relatively fast focus speed and good accuracy
- Light
- Zoom lock
- AF-D on A99
negative:- No DMF
- Overpriced brand new
- AF can hunt in some low light situations
comment:Build, pricing and general thoughts:

This lens is an easily overlooked lens, partly because of the existence of CZ 24-70 in the A-mount and cheaper alternatives from Tamron and Minolta for full frame users and offers a relatively strange focal length for APSC users. For a new copy, IMHO this lens is a little overpriced, however, I found many 2nd hand mint copies offers excellent value, and this is especially true consider how excellent this is lens is optically even comparing to the best lenses of similar focal length from Sony and other manufactures.

I find the build of this lens reasonably good, even though it can't compare to the tank like build quality of the CZ 24-70, but it is much lighter. The zoom lock is also very useful to stop the lens from zoom creep. However, this lens does not offer DMF because of the SAM motors, though this does not affect me, but some may find this annoying. One thing to take note is the focus ring of this lens even in AF mode can be forced to move quiet easily (which may not be good for the motor while the lens is focusing and if you force it to move) so need to careful when placing your on the focus ring and not to move the ring when using AF, and I recommend switch the lens to MF when storing this lens in the camera bag too.

Sharpness (centre):

I did some test mounting this lens on A99, comparing this lens to and my 16-50 on A57 combo IMHO, this lens with A99 combo produces similar sharpness with the 16-50 on A57 combo (comparing both lens mounted on A99 may be difficult due to A99 using different MP when mounting an APSC and Full frame lens, so this comparison is not valid). I also compared this lens on the A57 with 16-50 on similar focal length and again IMHO it shows similar sharpness. However, it seems that the 16-50 produces pictures with little better contrast than the 28-75 wide open at similar focal length, but this lens seem to produce slightly better colours.

I had a chance to compare this lens on the A99 against a friend's Nikon 24-70 on his D700 directly and I compared the A99+ 28-75 photos taken by another friend's Canon 24-70 ( MK 1 ) with his 5D MK II; I noticed this: IMHO despite the MP difference, the Sony combo seem to produce similar as the Nikon combo in turn of sharpness. And comparing to the pictures take by Canon combo at similar focal length, the Sony combo seems to be a little bit sharper.

Comparing to my CZ 24-70 mounted on A99, it is very hard to tell which one is sharper at 100% crop at the similar focal length, however, if I perfectly honest and look long and careful enough, the CZ does produce more fine details and seem to offer an edge in turns of sharpness, this is the most obvious when both lens is at 35mm f2.8.

Corner sharpness for this lens is not tested against the other lenses, and not examined at large apertures, at smaller apertures say f8 it is good already( as most lens it should).

In general, this is a very sharp lens at any focal length( maybe a little softer at wide end) even wide open and pin sharp from f4 onwards to f8.

Colours, contrast and bokeh:

In general the colour rendition produced form this lens is excellent (though not as good as the CZ 24-70) and very neutral (especially on A99) but the same time slightly on the warm side. It seem to me that that when you compare to 16-50 and CZ 24-70 at wide open this lens is less contrasty, however, I don't find this is an issue when shooting in the field with this lens wide open on both my A57 and A99.

Bokeh from this lens is generally good. The bokeh rings produced from this lens is not too busy (seems better than CZ 24-70) and blurs the background relatively creamy smoothly, however, I wont say the bokeh from this lens is stunning.

AF:

I find the SAM motors are usually loud and not necessarily that fast(on my 35 and 50 SAM lens), but accurate. On this lens, the SAM motor is accurate but seems to be faster and slightly quieter than the one on my 35 and 50 lens, and this is even more obvious when shooting pictures indoor. However, don't expect this lens to match the speed and quietness of the SSM motor from CZ 24-70 and 16-50, and especially in low light where the SSM almost doesn't hunt while this lens can sometimes hunts a bit.

This lens is also AF-D compatible and works on the A99, a very convenient feature to have.

Distortion, CA, vignetting and flare:

On an APSC camera like the A57, there is almost no distortion and vignetting at both wide and the tele end, and CA is very mild and can be fixed in post processing easily. On full frame camera like the A99, vignetting is much more obvious when shooting at f2.8 and much improved at f4. Distortion is much stronger on A99 than on A57 at both the wide and tele end, but overall it is moderate. CA on A99 is similar to that of A57, again, mild and easily fixed.

I find this lens is actually good against flare even without the hood, and it seem to produce very interesting flare when used without hood when the sun is directly above the lens ( not in the frame) so this can be used as cool artistic effects.

Conclusion:

Overall, I'm very impressed with this lens and strongly recommend it! It doesn't have any serious flaws and the optics are excellent; 2nd hand copies are well worth a look and much better value than the CZ 24-70 for what you pay for.
reviewer#10744 date: Dec-1-2012
sharpness: 5
color: 5
build: 4
distortion: 5
flare control: 5
overall: 4.8
tested on:
  • film camera:Film camera
  • APS-C: 6MP6 MP; 10MP10 MP; 12MP12 MP; 14MP14 MP; 16MP16 MP; 20MP20 MP; 24MP24 MP
  • full frame: 24MP24 MP36MP36 MP12MP12 MP
ownership:I own this lens
compared to:Tamron SP AF 28-75 F2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical IF A09
price paid:560 (2nd hand, mint)
positive:- Focusing accuracy is highly reliable.
- Beautiful color rendition.
- usable f2.8
- a tad better built and slightly heavier than the Tamron however much lighter than CZ 24-70 f2.8
negative:- quite overpriced for a brand new, 2nd hand price is more reasonable and good deal.
- Not really a negative but wishing Sony could improve by replacing SAM with SSM and make a weather-seal version like the Sony 16-50 f2.8
comment:Sony 28-75 f2.8 SAL2875 SAM lens

Positive:
- Focusing accuracy is highly reliable.
- Beautiful color rendition.
- usable f2.8
- a tad better built and

Negative:
- quite overpriced for a brand new, 2nd hand price is more reasonable and good deal.
- Not really a negative but wishing Sony could improve by replacing SAM with SSM and make a weather-seal version like the Sony 16-50 f2.8

Compared to:
Tamron SP AF 28-75 F2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical IF A09

I used to own the latest version Tamron 28-75 f2.8 before I replaced with the Sony version in anticipation of the A99. I must say from the first impression that the lens feels more solid and weighs a bit heavier than the Tamron. SAM motor has been criticized for being slow, however this makes up for its accuracy. When pairing with the new AF-D in A99, I'm totally blown away by its accuracy. The SAM is fast enough for most situations including street shots. When I see interesting subjects, moving or still, I feel confident quickly raising the camera to eye-level, half press to focus and snap the shot in a matter of 1-2 seconds, I find that I rarely lose any shot. Not only AF-D, but there is also virtually no difference in focusing accuracy using AF-S mode. I tried both center and peripheral focus points and they all work reliably. Big improvements and a totally elevating experience compared to when I used A77 and A850.

The focusing accuracy is a bit better than the Tamron, in addition, my past Tamron requires as much as -15 focus adjustment while the Sony doesn't.

Regarding other aspects of the lens, I find it handles flare well, the sharpness is great from f2.8. Chromatic aberration is minimal and on par with other modern Sony lens and can be easily removed in PP. Distortion at 28mm is minimal and easily corrected. The colors it produces are superb and I like it more than the Tamron. If my memory serves correctly, I feel that, to me, the Sony renders the colors a bit more naturally, neutrally and the tones are more pleasing to the eyes than the images from the Tamron. However the difference is actually marginal.

Is it worth paying twice the price for the brand new copy compared to Tamron 28-75 f2.8? There are things to consider. First I think the price of a brand new copy is quite higher than the Tamron, too much to pay for not many benefits you get back unless you buy it for A99. So I recommend looking for a mint 2nd hand copy instead like I did.

Second thing to consider, if you plan to buy or own A99. The AF-D benefit alone is worth paying more for the Sony than Tamron. It's that good!

Third. The Tamron is known for QC variation. My copy of Tamron was very sharp in the center at f2.8 after micro focus tuning. My friend's copy of the Tamron never gets sharp at f2.8 no matter how much he tried to tune. The difference between our 2 copies is so obvious I must forewarn to check the Tamron carefully before you buy.

In conclusion, no lens is perfect. After collecting and trying so many lens. I know that many lens have some flaws and limitations and I rarely use them unless for the shooting conditions that I believe will not reveal the lens' flaws. However I can confidently say that this Sony 28-75mm f2.8 SAM is one of the lens I feel very confident to use in every situation, knowing that I can expect great results and will not bottleneck the A99 capabilities. There is no serious flaw with this lens that will limit your creativity. If you own A99 or plan to have one and you're not ready to invest in Zeiss 24-70 or want to carry a lighter weight, Sony 28-75 SAM gets my total recommendation period!


See my photos with Sony AF 28-75 F2.8 SAM and Tamron 28-75 f2.8 on my Flickr collection at: http://www.flickr.com/photos/lifeispixels/collections/72157628204412995/
reviewer#8993 date: May-6-2011
sharpness: 5
color: 5
build: 5
distortion: 5
flare control: 5
overall: 5
tested on:
  • film camera:Film camera
  • APS-C: 6MP6 MP; 10MP10 MP; 12MP12 MP; 14MP14 MP; 16MP16 MP; 20MP20 MP; 24MP24 MP
  • full frame: 24MP24 MP36MP36 MP12MP12 MP
ownership:I own this lens
compared to:Tamron 28 75
price paid:600 (New)
positive:
missing
negative:
missing
comment:
missing
reviewer#8672 date: Feb-19-2011
sharpness: 4.5
color: 4
build: 4
distortion: 4
flare control: 5
overall: 4.3
tested on:
  • film camera:Film camera
  • APS-C: 6MP6 MP; 10MP10 MP; 12MP12 MP; 14MP14 MP; 16MP16 MP; 20MP20 MP; 24MP24 MP
  • full frame: 24MP24 MP36MP36 MP12MP12 MP
ownership:I own this lens
compared to:Minolta - AF 28-80 xi F4-5.6

Sigma - 28-70 F2.8 EX Aspherical DF
price paid:499 € (new)
positive:- Price
- Quite sharp even at f/2.8 in the tele end
- Very good flower hood,
- Buildquality is ok
negative:SAM is slow (but accurate)
comment:I bought this lens today from a local store in Frankfurt. They had the Tamron SP AF 28-75 F2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical IF for about 400 € and the Sony for 499 €. So I decided to go with the Sony.
It is sharp and I like the color-rendering.
Focussing/SAM is quite slow, so I might go with the Sigma 24-70mm F2.8 IF EX DG HSM or Sony CZ in future, but those are in a different price class.
I'm not sure if the Sony AF 28-75 F2.8 SAM is usefull for snapshot-situations.
If you can get this Sony SAM very cheap and could live with the slow SAM-drive, this lens is ok. In my case other local stores sell this lens for 799,00 €, so it was a great deal. Time will tell if I keep this lens.
I will update this review after some more testing!
reviewer#8545 date: Jan-19-2011
sharpness: 4
color: 4
build: 4
distortion: 4
flare control: 5
overall: 4.2
tested on:
  • film camera:Film camera
  • APS-C: 6MP6 MP; 10MP10 MP; 12MP12 MP; 14MP14 MP; 16MP16 MP; 20MP20 MP; 24MP24 MP
  • full frame: 24MP24 MP36MP36 MP12MP12 MP
ownership:I own this lens
compared to:- Carl Zeiss 16-80 f/3.5-4.5
- Carl Zeiss 24-70 f/2.8
- Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 EX HSM
- Minolta 24-105 f/3.5-4.5
price paid:640
positive:- Extremely cheap price (because I was lucky)
- Quite sharp even at f/2.8 in the tele end
- Very good flower hood, shields from most flare situations.
- Nice with a zoom creep stopper.
- Better build than I expected.
negative:- Slow focusing (compared to Zeiss 16-80 f/3.5-4.5 and Zeiss 24-70 f/2.8)
- Contrasts are less punchy and vivid compared to Zeiss lenses
- Starts at 28mm and not at 24mm like others
comment:A local store sold this lens to me at this extremely cheap price, for which it of course was a bargain.

I've had the Zeiss 24-70 f/2.8 and the Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 EX for testing, and I own the Zeiss 16-80 for my trusty old Alpha A700.

Needing a fullframe multi-purpose lens for my A900, I had decided for the Sigma, which performs very close to the Zeiss 24-70, but at a far lesser price. The Zeiss 24-70 is of course, a clear winner - no doubt! But the price tag is too steep for me.

I have owned this Sony 28-75 for over half a year, and it really surprised me with it's sharpness. I'd expected less prominant sharpness all over the ranges, but no matter the focal length and aperture, the sharpness is always good. Sometimes even great.

When it comes to focusing, it's a little faster than my old Minolta 24-105, and says a lot less when focusing. Not SSM-like, but definitely better than old-school. Image quality is overall sharper than the Minolta, especially in the wide and tele and especially even more when using large apertures. This is primarily the reason why I haven't sold this Sony to just use the old Minolta 24-105.

It comes close to the more expensive Sigma in image quality, although I would like to stress, that Sigma beats this lens in every respect - if only by a hairpin in some cases. The Sigma produces better low-contrast details and colors are more close the zeiss 24-70 in terms of rendition.

Buying this lens at it's more usual 1000 USD price tag, in fact makes this lens very unattractive in my opinion.

Putting it on my A700 warrants for stupidity. The Zeiss 16-80 is a FAR better match for the A700 than the 28-75 odd lens; the Zeiss is also lighter, smaller, faster, sharper... just better in all respects. Except that it doesn't match fullframe.

I'm pretty convinced that at some point, I might be inclined to change this lens for a Sigma (or a Zeiss if I get a very good offer), but for now, it handles my every-day purpose (and even my professional grade model shoots) very fine.

When I need more sharpness and better contrasts (which I, at least consciously, never do) I put on my Minolta 50mm f/1.4. And that's propably the thing about the Zeiss 24-70; it's as sharp as the Minolta 50mm, even though it's a zoom lens! In ALL it's ranges! Actually often it seems to be SHARPER than the Minolta 50mm f/1.4. But this review isn't about the Zeiss.

Well, I like this Sony lens - I really do - even though some readers may see this review as being a bit on the negative sie. I merely want to be honest, so that noone gets disappointed by things I didn't mention here. But look at the grades I'm giving the lens. I don't handle out 4's to all lenses.

This is a good lens for those who finds the old cheap Minolta 24-105 and the like, a little too soupy - and the Sigma and Zeiss a little too pricey. It only gets better if you can get a discount like the one I got.
reviewer#8414 date: Dec-17-2010
sharpness: 5
color: 5
build: 4
distortion: 4
flare control: 4
overall: 4.4
tested on:
  • film camera:Film camera
  • APS-C: 6MP6 MP; 10MP10 MP; 12MP12 MP; 14MP14 MP; 16MP16 MP; 20MP20 MP; 24MP24 MP
  • full frame: 24MP24 MP36MP36 MP12MP12 MP
ownership:I own this lens
compared to:70-400
100MM Macro 2.8
40mm 1.4
price paid:Lens + A850
positive:Light
Quick focus
negative:Focus noise
comment:Had this lens for 6 months now, I had to calibrate it, after which I found the sharpness spot on!
If I only had two lenses would be this plus 70-400
reviewer#8269 date: Nov-19-2010
sharpness: 5
color: 5
build: 5
distortion: 4
flare control: 5
overall: 4.8
tested on:
  • film camera:Film camera
  • APS-C: 6MP6 MP; 10MP10 MP; 12MP12 MP; 14MP14 MP; 16MP16 MP; 20MP20 MP; 24MP24 MP
  • full frame: 24MP24 MP36MP36 MP12MP12 MP
ownership:I own this lens
compared to:Tamron 28-70 2.6-2.8
Minolta 28-135 4 – 4.5
Minolta 24-85 3.5 – 4.5
Tamron 24 – 135 3.5 – 4.5
Minolta 50 1.7
Minolta 50 2.8 macro
price paid:650 (new)
positive:Top-flight IQ for a zoom
Well-built
Fast focusing
Reasonably quiet
negative:Can’t use MF/AF button on camera
MF ring works opposite to other Minolta/Sony lenses
comment:After becoming concerned at the amount of edge softness wide-open evident on my “standard” Tokina 28-70 2.6-2.8 zoom when used on a full-frame digital (A 850)—something I hadn’t noticed nearly to the same degree on my first digital (KM 7D) or earlier film cameras (7, 9, 600, 7000, 9000)—I compared it on the 850 to several other lenses, which all performed better than the Tokina, including (most particularly) the “secret handshake” Minolta 28-135. Wanting a constant 2.8 lens, I decided to try the Sony 28-75 2.8 SAM. Image quality (full frame) is solid—some corner softness wide open (much better than on the Tokina 28-70 2.6-2.8, and equal to, or better than, the Minolta 28-135 at comparable “wide open” apertures) and excellent stopped down and in the center. Distortion is typical—visible at 28 mm, but of a type that can be corrected after-the-fact; ditto with vignetting wide-open. The lens is solidly built; better than I was expecting, given some of the other reviews. It has two annoying manual focus quirks (that obviously won’t matter unless you use manual focus). First, because of the SAM motor, the MF/AF button on the 850 doesn’t work. One must, instead, use the (much less convenient) switch on the lens itself. Second, the focus “ring” turns opposite to all the other Minolta/Sony lenses (something noted in the instructions). I suppose this is because Tamron, which almost certainly produces the lens, had a design that Sony bought into, rather than attempting to change. But this kind of inconsistency with other “brand” lenses for the Alpha series just doesn’t inspire total confidence in Sony’s input into lenses for the full-frame Alpha, especially those (such as the 28-75 2.8 SAM, while not priced like the CZ lenses, aren’t exactly “budget” lenses). That gripe aside, this is a very solid lens, which I am very happy to use as my “standard” lens on the 850.
reviewer#8151 date: Oct-28-2010
sharpness: 4.5
color: 4
build: 4
distortion: 5
flare control: 5
overall: 4.5
tested on:
  • film camera:Film camera
  • APS-C: 6MP6 MP; 10MP10 MP; 12MP12 MP; 14MP14 MP; 16MP16 MP; 20MP20 MP; 24MP24 MP
  • full frame: 24MP24 MP36MP36 MP12MP12 MP
ownership:I own this lens
compared to:Sony SAL 16-105
price paid:1.2K SGD ( NEW )
positive:Sharp enough at f2.8
AF is very fast
Nice Bokeh
Zoom ring feels solid
negative:Sony bad rubber zoom ring collect dust !
Start with 28mm instead of 24mm
comment:I bought my alpha with SAL 16-105 after reading all the goodness of the lens. However, I took plenty of indoor shots and this is where the 16-105 struggles even with A550 ISO ability. Sold it off to make way for a faster lens

Wife bought me this and it really perform well be it indoor and outdoor. With ISO1600 indoor, I managed to take decent pictures even without flash gun. Color wise could be better but can always PP to enhance the saturation.

reviewer#7933 date: Sep-3-2010
sharpness: 4.5
color: 4
build: 3
distortion: 3
flare control: 4
overall: 3.7
tested on:
  • film camera:Film camera
  • APS-C: 6MP6 MP; 10MP10 MP; 12MP12 MP; 14MP14 MP; 16MP16 MP; 20MP20 MP; 24MP24 MP
  • full frame: 24MP24 MP36MP36 MP12MP12 MP
ownership:I have experience with this lens
compared to:
missing
price paid:800 usd
positive:AF very fast,sharp, nice color, Good bokeh, Aperture 2.8
negative:AF motor not SSM
comment:very nice lens. Recommended
reviewer#7692 date: Jul-15-2010
sharpness: 4.5
color: 5
build: 4
distortion: 5
flare control: 5
overall: 4.7
tested on:
  • film camera:Film camera
  • APS-C: 6MP6 MP; 10MP10 MP; 12MP12 MP; 14MP14 MP; 16MP16 MP; 20MP20 MP; 24MP24 MP
  • full frame: 24MP24 MP36MP36 MP12MP12 MP
ownership:I own this lens
compared to:
missing
price paid:5800 NOK (890USD)
positive:-Good build quality, but could be better considering the price
-38cm min. focus distance
-Sharp
-Nice colors
negative:-Price
-SAM and not SSM
-AF/MF switch on lens
comment:Bought this lens in a kit-package with Sony A850 when it was on sale in Norway. The A850 was priced as low as 9999NOK(1539USD) and I got the lens for 5800NOK(890USD).
I considered Tamron 28-75/2,8 since the price was 2000NOK(308USD) cheaper than Sony's version, but I'm very happy with the choice I made. I feel no need to upgrade to CZ24-70/2,8

If the lens had a slightly better build quality and SSM instead of SAM, it would be a bargain.
reviewer#7511 date: May-30-2010
sharpness: 5
color: 5
build: 5
distortion: 5
flare control: 5
overall: 5
tested on:
  • film camera:Film camera
  • APS-C: 6MP6 MP; 10MP10 MP; 12MP12 MP; 14MP14 MP; 16MP16 MP; 20MP20 MP; 24MP24 MP
  • full frame: 24MP24 MP36MP36 MP12MP12 MP
ownership:I own this lens
compared to:
missing
price paid:
missing
positive:Sharp wide open
Quite nicely built
Good bokeh
Not so heavy like 24-70
Nice colour
negative:67mm thread
SAM not as smooth and silent as SSM
28 not wide enough on APSC
comment:This sony lens is quite good. Very sharp wide open. At f4, marvelous. SAM is a little bit noisy compared to SSM, as expected, but not like SAM on 50mm 1.8 or 18-55. The last too much noisier.

The colour is a little yellowish, maybe inherited by the tamron version. If u can find it cheap enough (I got mine for around $550) the SAM and built is quite a plus. Plus QC I think is more than u can find with Tamron.

67mm thread is rather odd. Prefer 72mm like my 20mm RS and CZ 85.

Edit : give colour to 5. Love the colour, not as vivid as the 85 CZ but love it.
reviewer#7405 date: May-5-2010
sharpness: 4
color: 5
build: 4
distortion: 5
flare control: 5
overall: 4.6
tested on:
  • film camera:Film camera
  • APS-C: 6MP6 MP; 10MP10 MP; 12MP12 MP; 14MP14 MP; 16MP16 MP; 20MP20 MP; 24MP24 MP
  • full frame: 24MP24 MP36MP36 MP12MP12 MP
ownership:I used to own this lens
compared to:- Minolta AF 28-75/2.8
- Tamron 17-50/2.8
price paid:
missing
positive:- Weight
- Size
- Aperture 2.8
- Wide Angle on FF
negative:- Expensive
- Cheap distance scale
comment:I bought this together with my Alpha 850. Sure its not the quality of the Zeiss 24-70 neither it has the wide angle of 24mm. It is a good standard zoom. I had the Minolta 28-75 on my A300. The 28mm were not appropriate on APS-C. On FF this is a complete different story.

The price is insane, like lot of the Sony lenses.
reviewer#7403 date: May-5-2010
sharpness: 5
color: 5
build: 5
distortion: 5
flare control: 5
overall: 5
tested on:
  • film camera:Film camera
  • APS-C: 6MP6 MP; 10MP10 MP; 12MP12 MP; 14MP14 MP; 16MP16 MP; 20MP20 MP; 24MP24 MP
  • full frame: 24MP24 MP36MP36 MP12MP12 MP
ownership:I own this lens
compared to:Sony 1.4/50mm
Sony 2.8/70-200 SSM G
price paid:649,00 Euro
positive:Good size, nice weight.
Better build than the Tamron 2.8/28-75 and a cheaper alternative to CZ.
negative:Motor noise
comment:I like this lens.
reviewer#7321 date: Apr-21-2010
sharpness: 5
color: 5
build: 5
distortion: 5
flare control: 5
overall: 5
tested on:
  • film camera:Film camera
  • APS-C: 6MP6 MP; 10MP10 MP; 12MP12 MP; 14MP14 MP; 16MP16 MP; 20MP20 MP; 24MP24 MP
  • full frame: 24MP24 MP36MP36 MP12MP12 MP
ownership:I own this lens
compared to:Sony 18-70mm kit lens
Sony 70-300mm G SSM F4.5 - 5.6
Sigma 50mm EX DG F2.8 Macro
Sigma 10-20mm EX DG F4-5.6
price paid:Ł499
positive:Fast low light lens
Very quiet
Build quality
negative:Cost
comment:I choose this lens becuase I've been wanting to replace my original A100 18-70 kit lens. I have tried the Zeiss 24-70 but love it as I do - It just isn't in my budget and I couldn't justify the cost.

I too have read some reviewers on the net have said the focusing speed and build quality are the same as the Tamron. So bearing in mind I bought my lens at Focus 2010 I compared both - The Sony as mentioned has a much more solid better build feel to it, focusing a little faster, SAM quieter and very accurate.

Downside Tamaron is a lot cheaper - but I wasn't convinced by it and don't have any other tamaron lenses to base build and longevity/usage against.

I got a reasonably good deal at focus on one and so believe it's worth the difference. It's now one of my favourite lenses and is my walkabout lens. I've only used it on my A-700 (not my old a100 backup) and don't have a FF to try it on.

I love the weight and feel of it - it feels perfectly balanced and gives me everything I was looking for in replacing the 18-70 (no brainer really not in the same league).
reviewer#7283 date: Apr-14-2010
sharpness: 5
color: 5
build: 4
distortion: 5
flare control: 4
overall: 4.6
tested on:
  • film camera:Film camera
  • APS-C: 6MP6 MP; 10MP10 MP; 12MP12 MP; 14MP14 MP; 16MP16 MP; 20MP20 MP; 24MP24 MP
  • full frame: 24MP24 MP36MP36 MP12MP12 MP
ownership:I own this lens
compared to:Sigma 10-20
Sony 16-105
Sony 70-300G SSM
Sony 70-400G SSM
Sony 50mm F1.4
Sony 100mm F2.8
price paid:500US ( New)
positive:Compact size, nice weight for low light walk about lens.
Better build than the Tamron 28-75.
67mm filters are less expensive (than 24-70 sizes)
Useable wide open, great from F4 up.
Faster and more accurate almost silent focusing than the Tamron 28-75.
Pleasing bokeh.
FF Lens.
No zoom creep, have yet to use the zoom lock.
Price paid.
negative:SAM - Have to switch on the lens to go to manual focus.
Slight flare under extreme lighting.
List price of the Sony is high.
comment:I choose this lens for a lower light walk about lens, and occasional portrait use. I tried both the Zeiss 24-70 and Sony 28-75. At 2.2 lbs, and the price of the Zeiss didn't justify my amateur uses of the lens. I admit, I loved the build quality of the Zeiss and being a little wider at 24mm, if I was a pro I would have bought it. At less than 1/3 the price of the Zeiss, it was a hard deal to pass up new, and fitted my applications/budget much better. Money saved could pay more than half the cost of the Sony 70-200G, which is on my want list.

While several amateur reviewers on the net have said the focusing speed and build quality are the same as the Tamron, I found the 2 fairly well known reviews I read not to be totally accurate. The Sony has a much more solid feel to it, focusing speed was a little faster, SAM quieter than in body motor and very accurate. Out of the box, was dead on, and lacked the quirks you can run into with the 3rd party Tamron, which is known to be unpredictable, with a variety of makes of DSLR's.

Optically, it's pretty much the same as the Tamron, useable at F2.8, and sharp from F4 up.

Downside is the price, compared to the Tamron. Luckily I only paid $40US more than the Tamron, so it was a no brainer decision. For $800US, I think Sony has over priced it, probably around $650SUS it would be worth the improvments. If you can get a good deal on one it's worth the difference, at full price I'm not sure, I may have paid more and gone for the Zeiss. The Sony 28-75 F2.8, is a nice lens. I've only used it on a A-700, and haven't tried it on a FF Sony DSLR.

SAM is almost silent, but it's not SSM. For the price I would have rated the build quality a 5 (no it's not in the class of a Zeiss, but based on build to the price paid rating). I rated it a 4, because of the quirk with the SAM motor. With my SSM lenses if I want to go manual, I just press the MF button on the back of my A-700, with a SAM motor, I have to switch on the AF/MF switch on the lens - dumb design, SSM is better in this regard, and quieter.

Some Sony descriptions on their websites, mention a pull out lens hood, it's a clip on lens hood, similar to the Tamron.

The Sony 28-75 F2.8, won't match up to the build of the higher priced Zeiss pro lens, and SAM is not SSM. Not going to 24mm, makes the lens more compact, and lighter.

If you can get one at a discounted price, it's a better alternative to than the Tamron, both in build and focusing speed and accuracy. Optically, similar.
reviewer#7240 date: Apr-2-2010
sharpness: 5
color: 5
build: 5
distortion: 5
flare control: 5
overall: 5
tested on:
  • film camera:Film camera
  • APS-C: 6MP6 MP; 10MP10 MP; 12MP12 MP; 14MP14 MP; 16MP16 MP; 20MP20 MP; 24MP24 MP
  • full frame: 24MP24 MP36MP36 MP12MP12 MP
ownership:I own this lens
compared to:
missing
price paid:
missing
positive:Cheaper alternative to CZ as a kit lens on FF
negative:The usual sony rubber ribbing shows marks so easily
comment:Since there are no reviews for this relatively new Sony 2.8 SAM lens I thought I give my initial thoughts. I haven't had it long and purchased it new from WHE (UK) as a walkaround lens for my new 850.
I am studying for a photography degree with the OCA (recommended) and needed a good, fast and sharp kit lens for the quantity of photos I need to take, and chose this as a cheaper option to the 24-70 CZ.

So far I am very please with it in all respects but will return with more detail when I've used it more.
reviews found: 20   

rating summary

lens image
  • total reviews: 20
  • sharpness: 4.70
  • color: 4.80
  • build: 4.30
  • distortion: 4.60
  • flare control: 4.75
  • overall: 4.63

to add your review
you need to login