Tamron 24mm f/2.8 Di III OSD M1:2 : Specifications and Opinions

Reviews

What do you think?

Do you want add your opinion? You do it by joining JuzaPhoto, it is easy and free!

There is more: by registering you can create your personal page, publish photos, receive comments, join discussions and you can use all the features of JuzaPhoto. With more than 259000 members, there is space for everyone, from the beginner to the professional.

The following opinions have been automatically translated with Google Translate.

Filippo Trevisan

sent on 15 Febbraio 2026

Pros: Price, sharpness

Cons: AF, Cormatic Rendering

Opinion: Lens used on the A7r2, therefore, tested with a demanding sensor. It has never driven me crazy about color rendering. On the other hand, the lens is very sharp at TA and has a focal length that I find very interesting. Slow and sometimes inaccurate af in low light. Honestly, however, on the second-hand market it is 130/140 euros and I think it's a bargain.

Beppex7

sent on 08 Gennaio 2024

Pros: Price, performance and resolution of sensors with many mpx, compactness, weight.

Cons: None yet.

Opinion: Bought for 215 euros on A. I was hesitant until the last minute due to numerous reviews talking about noisy and poor autofocus. I state that I am not a professional photographer, in my general use and street photo the autofocus is proving to be reliable and quieter than "expected" by some Nostradamus. So a pleasant surprise to find out that it works, and well, or maybe I'm the one who has hearing problems if I don't detect that terrible noise? In continuous Af my specimen goes like a splinter, I don't know who denigrates him where/how he tested this Tamron lens. When I was using Fujifilm, the percentage of in-focus images compared to the wrong ones was much higher, with much more famous lenses. Given the price and the fairly small size, I consider it a valid alternative to lenses of the same focal length of other caliber but much more expensive. From tests done by those who know more than me, I learn that it turns out to solve 60 mpx like only GMs and a few others. Highly recommended.

Jonny70

sent on 02 Novembre 2023

Pros: Minimum focusing distance, sharpness

Cons: Noisy autofocus

Opinion: Nothing to do...... about 2 years ago enticed by the price I had bought the Tamron 35mm f/2.8 that I had put on a Sony A7II, moral of the story returned immediately for the color of the colors, recently I found an opportunity of a Sony A6400 with the 24mm Tamron, here we go again the colors are very artificial, cold and tending to cold blue, Greys are cold tending to ice-coloured. I can't even edit them in Lr or at least I try to, but besides wasting a lot of time it doesn't satisfy me. Take a look at the images in the various galleries and you will immediately notice the colors...... except for some images that were made with certain lights. On the plus side, it's very sharp already at f/2.8, maybe because I tried it on a small format, so it uses only a part of the sensor compared to the full format.

Antonio.bartalozzi

sent on 14 Maggio 2023

Pros: Cost, minimum focus distance, sharpness

Cons: Slow and somewhat noisy autofocus, distortion

Opinion: I bought this lens because I needed to have an intermediate length between my tokina firin 20mm f2 and the Sony 35mm f1.8. I didn't have a very high budget and I researched around. I took the tamron 24mm at 140€ used, in good condition. I must say that I was pleasantly satisfied and the expectations I had, thanks to the reviews of other users, were widely respected. It's a great lens, given the value for money, I don't think you can ask for more from Tamron. The thing that amazed me is the focusing distance, really minimal, which makes it a lens that works curiously well even in macro, at least for my experience. The moles are obviously there. The autofocus is rather slow and in some conditions where responsiveness is required it becomes unusable, it is a bit noisy (which is a problem only for video) and the distortion of the image is quite accentuated. Taking everything into account it is for me promoted with flying colors.

Meschino

sent on 18 Luglio 2022

Pros: Cost, lightness, general yield, dust resistance and atmospheric agents.

Cons: Distortion

Opinion: Excellent lens, mounted on a7III does not disappoint, AF slightly uncertain on some occasions but absolutely negligible, the same applies to the slightly noisy but not disturbing MAF engine. The general quality of the image is excellent as well as the colors, the distortion is evident, but easily recoverable both in the room and in post production, nothing to envy to more noble lenses. To conclude I would say that, given the quality / price ratio is a slow to have.

Gambit

sent on 23 Settembre 2021

Pros: lightness, sharpness, price, size, minimum focusing distance, colors

Cons: I struggle to find some

Opinion: I could do copy paste with the one written by Adfpalermo but compared to other lenses more expensive sony I can not make comparisons because I have not tried. I use it on a7c. I am fully satisfied also for the price purchased just over 200 euros used on amazon. it has in my opinion much more character than the 28 sony and a better yield than the 24 1.8 nikon (but here I think it depends a lot on the goodness of the sensor)

Adfpalermo

sent on 14 Giugno 2020

Pros: Sharpness, Weight, Autofocus, Colors, Price, Size, DOWN

Cons: In relation to his lens None. In absolute terms that is, compared to targets that cost thousands of euros something and the deepening in the review

Opinion: I use this optics with a Sony A7II, in addition to this I own the 50mm Sony 1.8, but I regularly also use many other machines and lenses. I wrote this premise to give a yardstick for the reader. Let's start, the Tamron is a decidedly cheap lens so in relation to its cost I can safely say that it is built really well (despite the plastic body), it has a sharpness already at full opening excellent from board, an autofocus that confirmed a doubt that I had long -brought (that the slowness of the a7II after the last updates was due more to the 50 1.8 than to the car itself) in fact with the Tamron the winning pairing (not the winning pairing (not the winning pairing ( imagine with a7III and superiors), of course I would not recommend it for sports photography but for everything else yes, but this is another speech. The lens is light, decidedly solid, fast, small, it is sharp already at full opening from edge to edge, it is also macro which makes it even more comfortable and versatile, I would recommend it for all kinds of work where a 24mm is useful TRANNE for architectural photographs if strictly professional where it suffers from a minimum of distortion easily correctable and never really annoying except in strictly professional cases. PART 2: and if we want to (improperly)compare it with targets that cost thousands of euros ? I created 2 sections just to highlight the fact that the "defects" that I'm going to list are not at all limiting in the daily use of the lens, I quote them for completeness, although they relate to practically all similar goals that are not ultra premium. DISTORTION: Reduced but there is, It's probably a real problem (or rather has a hassle since it's easily solvable in post) for those working in architectural photography contexts (by heart only 24GM doesn't suffer from it) AUTOFOCUS: quick, precise, but has some slight uncertainty sometimes in keeping the fire on video (really little but the 24gm or the 20G that cost 4 times as much as have this problem) : Compared to the reference it has a slight vignette, nothing worrying and limiting but goals of thousands of euros have not consCLUSIONS: of course I never thought to compare a lens that I bought for about 300 euros to a lens that costs 1500 euros I felt dutiful despite this writing over these clarifications so as not to let the reader misunderstand that when I write "that in relation to the lens has no defect" I did not want to say that since it costs little you have to to be satisfied, but rather, that in order to find optical defects to this lens we must necessarily compare it with targets that cost 4 times as much.