p.13 #4 · In stock: Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 E-mount ($799)
Stoffer wrote:
The FE 12-24 and this 28-75 would cover a reasonable wide focal length range for a decent weight. Might not be a bad combo choice for some.
I think if one does go down this route that you may want to think about like having a prime in 21 and 85 to compliment it. Kind of a mix and match your gapping around it. I know I’ll probably add a 85 AF lens back into my AF kit even though I have a Loxia 85. I’ve been cheating a bit without one because of the 24-105 but I also have a Batis 135 that helps me in that
p.13 #5 · In stock: Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 E-mount ($799)
Stoffer wrote:
The FE 12-24 and this 28-75 would cover a reasonable wide focal length range for a decent weight. Might not be a bad combo choice for some.
Stoffer the Sony 24-70GM weighs 1.95 pounds, the Tam in question 1.21 pounds. To others that difference means little. To me it means a lot especially at F2.8.
I'm already packing the 12-24 and 24-105 but there are times when this lens will get the nod when loading out. 12-24, 28-75, 100-400. I can live without the missing digits here and there.
Honestly 75-100mm has been a no man's land in my shooting.
p.13 #7 · In stock: Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 E-mount ($799)
Stoffer wrote:
The FE 12-24 and this 28-75 would cover a reasonable wide focal length range for a decent weight. Might not be a bad combo choice for some.
Tamron says more are forthcoming. I'd love this to form Tamron's trio with an equally compact 18-28/2.8 and 75-150/2.8
p.13 #8 · In stock: Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 E-mount ($799)
Mathieu18 wrote:
Tamron says more are forthcoming. I'd love this to form Tamron's trio with an equally compact 18-28/2.8 and 75-150/2.8
I personally would love a compact 80-200, or 90-210. When I'm at 70mm I'm already in long portrait territory and no longer need "wide" coverage. However I would still buy a 75-150 if it adhered to the lightweight design of this lens.
p.13 #10 · In stock: Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 E-mount ($799)
Mike00 wrote:
This looks like a formidable competitor to Sony's 24-105mm zoom. If this comes out at $899, Sony would need to eventually scoot their zoom down in price some.
The real question is, what matters more, f/2.8 or the 75-105mm end of the zoom.
If it's nice and light, I'd take the 2.8 and give up the 75-105. I'd rather have more flexibility with light than with focal range. With it coming in at a lower price than the 24-105, that's icing on the cake.
p.13 #11 · In stock: Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 E-mount ($799)
I could get on board with some gaps, go 100-200/2.8 and 16-24/2.8 or something. They say more are coming, so it'll be interesting to see what's next.
Geoff CB wrote:
I personally would love a compact 80-200, or 90-210. When I'm at 70mm I'm already in long portrait territory and no longer need "wide" coverage. However I would still buy a 75-150 if it adhered to the lightweight design of this lens.
p.13 #13 · In stock: Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 E-mount ($799)
Mike00 wrote:
This looks like a formidable competitor to Sony's 24-105mm zoom. If this comes out at $899, Sony would need to eventually scoot their zoom down in price some.
The real question is, what matters more, f/2.8 or the 75-105mm end of the zoom.
I wonder if Tamron'll ever revisit/revise their old 28-105mm f/2.8. It was a bit of a beast to carry and not as good optically as you might hope for. But they were the only company I know that tried it, and it wasn't awful.
p.13 #16 · In stock: Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 E-mount ($799)
Mathieu18 wrote:
It’s SR5, that’s a quick pre-order for me... this lens is perfect for when I want AF.
I may get one too if it's good, even though I have the 24-105. The way I look at it, I can use it as a 35mm f2.8, 50mm f2.8 and 85mm f2.8. The Sony 35mm f2.8 is listed for $748. I know its size advantage though.
p.13 #17 · In stock: Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 E-mount ($799)
kdrk888 wrote:
I may get one too if it's good, even though I have the 24-105. The way I look at it, I can use it as a 35mm f2.8, 50mm f2.8 and 85mm f2.8. The Sony 35mm f2.8 is listed for $748. I know its size advantage though.
there's just no way I will get rid of the 35 f2.8, even if I get the 28-75.
799 would be mighty attractive. I already have the old 28-75 and it does the job, but no fun with old non native gear
p.13 #19 · In stock: Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 E-mount ($799)
This question may be totally premature/impossible to answer, but is there any info out there on this lens’ af performance? I’m still using an adapted Tamron 24-70 because I can’t afford the gm, but would really need to get something with native af. And this is so light, it could do double duty as a hiking lens.
p.13 #20 · In stock: Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 E-mount ($799)
Jimi3 wrote:
This question may be totally premature/impossible to answer, but is there any info out there on this lens’ af performance? I’m still using an adapted Tamron 24-70 because I can’t afford the gm, but would really need to get something with native af. And this is so light, it could do double duty as a hiking lens.
Keep in mind by all accounts, Tamron builds the Batis line of lenses for Zeiss, and they built the 180200 lens for the original APS-C line, so AF should be pretty solid, though maybe not as good as Sony's absolute best. They've said it'll support Eye-AF etc. It'll still meet my needs I suspect.
