IN our experience, the Tamron is just as good as the DFA 100 macro. It was our first top quality lens purchase and its atop rate lens on every system. My wife still uses hers as walk around on her K-5. I bought my DFA 100 macro, because my wife uses the Tamron as a walk around and it's rarely available if I want it, and because the DFA is lighter and water resistent. The Tamron has better IQ (micro contrast) than my DA*60-250 at 90mm. It's definitely a DA*quality lens image wise. my wife also borrows the 28-105 on a regular basis for a walk arounds on hikes and outings. You need wider option but it's great APS-c lens, in that it's newer "modern lenses fo riders sensors lens. But for APS-c you should have bought the 16-85, IMHO.
For top quality images hiking
DA 16-85, DA 55-300, DA* 55 1.4 or FA 50 1.4, and DFA 100 macro, would be the hiker's dream kit, and I frequently go out with that equipment.
well OK, I have the 18-135 not the 16-85, but the 16-85 is a better in combination with the DA 55-300 PLM, for obvious reasons.
That gives me great pseudo macro on my walk arounds in both zooms, a dedicated macro for when needed, a low light option for around the campfire or stars, all in a nice lightweight package that fits in a smallish bag. And if you get the DA 55 1.4, all water resistant. Thats just a great outdoor kit.
But, since you've ordered the DFA 28-105, which is a great lens, my wife takes the Tamron 17-50 and Tamron 90 macro, to complete her set. Apparently a Sigma 17-50 would be better, but either will do.
I am reluctant to take anything but WR lenses hiking, not only for moisture resistance, but because they seem to have better more solid, smoother feeling build quality. especially if compared to non FA*, FA lenses. I'm always afraid my FA 35-80 is going to break into pieces.
Last edited by normhead; 06-18-2019 at 08:30 AM.