stormy2211 wrote

As I have already read it is not working like a classic cisco switch (command line e.g.) or similar and the default vlan could not be removed or secured.

No VLAN-capable switch lets you "remove" the default/native/primary VLAN, since this is what PVID (the Primary VLAN ID) is for on any port, be it a port assigned to only one network ("access" port) or a port assigned to several networks/VLANs ("trunk" port) in addition to its primary network. This behavior is demanded by the 802.1Q standard, which does not mention the terms "access" and "trunk" ports at all.

So, the only drawback of SG105E/108E is 1) that the primary VLAN for trunk ports is fixed to VID 1 on egress (meaning even VLAN1-tagged packets will be forwarded untagged on a trunk), 2) that you cannot remove port membership from VLAN1 (meaning every port is always able to receive untagged frames sent over the trunk) and 3) that the switch's UI is - so to say - constant member of VLAN1 (meaning it can be reached through any other VLAN).

If you can accept this - for example because you can ensure that a) VID1 is not used outside the switch and b) untagged packets never appear on the trunk -, then yes, this switch can distribute two network uplinks to the three remaining (tagged) ports with isolation between the VLANs.

If you need further control over the default/native/primary VLAN or if you need to have the switch's Web-UI respond only in a mgmt VLAN (but not to clients in Net01/Net02), then a TL-SG2008 would fit better IMHO.