p.19 #1 · In stock: Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 E-mount ($799)
Arka wrote:
Wow. 550g. 2.8. 28-75. If the optics and AF performance are solid, I will buy one of these, particularly at $799. This is the design prioritization I hope most E-system (and mirrorless) lenses adopt - designs that can leverage the small size and lower-weight advantages of mirrorless platforms by being lightweight themselves. This may very well become my first zoom for the E-mount.
Now, what if Tamron could build a 70-200 f/2.8 that weighed less than 750g?
I agree If Tamron can lead the way to truly utilizing the design short distance flange design criteria for more small/light lenses and at great prices they will lead the way that many photographers will move towards. I must say I was disappointed with Sigma's offerings as there was no design optimizations for the FE mounts.
p.19 #2 · In stock: Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 E-mount ($799)
Keep in mind they had to forego 24-28mm. I hope they keep prioritizing size, even if it means something like 75-150/2.8 or 100-200/2.8
Arka wrote:
Wow. 550g. 2.8. 28-75. If the optics and AF performance are solid, I will buy one of these, particularly at $799. This is the design prioritization I hope most E-system (and mirrorless) lenses adopt - designs that can leverage the small size and lower-weight advantages of mirrorless platforms by being lightweight themselves. This may very well become my first zoom for the E-mount.
Now, what if Tamron could build a 70-200 f/2.8 that weighed less than 750g?
p.19 #3 · In stock: Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 E-mount ($799)
charles.K wrote:
I agree If Tamron can lead the way to truly utilizing the design short distance flange design criteria for more small/light lenses and at great prices they will lead the way that many photographers will move towards. I must say I was disappointed with Sigma's offerings as there was no design optimizations for the FE mounts.
Outside there 135 and 85 Sigma totally blew it with these add ones. They should have started far early and started building FE lenses from the start. Frankly whoever’s decision it was should be let go to find a job somewhere else. They lost a ton of revenue by waiting too long than putting out a band aid solution. I understand size would not matter with 85 and 135 but there wides there is no way I would buy any of them. Sony, Zeiss, VC and now Tamron are killing it.
p.19 #4 · In stock: Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 E-mount ($799)
Mathieu18 wrote:
Keep in mind they had to forego 24-28mm. I hope they keep prioritizing size, even if it means something like 75-150/2.8 or 100-200/2.8
Prioritization is good Matt! Especially if they keeps them from welding the metal tube on like Sigma. I really think shoppers will appreciate this approach with their wallet.
p.19 #5 · In stock: Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 E-mount ($799)
GMPhotography wrote:
Outside there 135 and 85 Sigma totally blew it with these add ones. They should have started far early and started building FE lenses from the start. Frankly whoever’s decision it was should be let go to find a job somewhere else. They lost a ton of revenue by waiting too long than putting out a band aid solution. I understand size would not matter with 85 and 135 but there wides there is no way I would buy any of them. Sony, Zeiss, VC and now Tamron are killing it.
The 35 Art FE with the add on is the same size as the 35mm ZA. Same story for the 50 Art FE and 50mm 1.4Z.
I’m not going to pretend it’s an elegant looking solution, but Inderstand the decision to repurpose the already fantastic art lenses in order to avoid having to spend the R&D resources/tooling costs required to make new lenses, when they already have the materials in their possession.
p.19 #6 · In stock: Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 E-mount ($799)
GMPhotography wrote:
Outside there 135 and 85 Sigma totally blew it with these add ones. They should have started far early and started building FE lenses from the start. Frankly whoever’s decision it was should be let go to find a job somewhere else. They lost a ton of revenue by waiting too long than putting out a band aid solution. I understand size would not matter with 85 and 135 but there wides there is no way I would buy any of them. Sony, Zeiss, VC and now Tamron are killing it.
Guy I bet you'll know, surely Fred will. Does Sony own stake in Tamron? I'm certain they have a piece of the Olympus pie. I hope they are intertwined on some business level--intertwined research would even be better.
p.19 #7 · In stock: Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 E-mount ($799)
eke2k6 wrote:
The 35 Art FE with the add on is the same size as the 35mm ZA. Same story for the 50 Art FE and 50mm 1.4Z.
I’m not going to pretend it’s an elegant looking solution, but Inderstand the decision to repurpose the already fantastic art lenses in order to avoid having to spend the R&D resources/tooling costs required to make new lenses, when they already have the materials in their possession.
I don’t see it like that at all. They took a bad read on the market and did not jump in far early than now. Fire the CEO no excuses here, I’m sorry they screwed up. These lenses are a joke. So how do you explain the 40 1.2 from CV the Laowa 15 f2 the upcoming Laowa 10-18. The Cv 10,12,15. Batis 18,25,85 and 85 all smaller than existing Sigmas . I’m sorry it don’t compute . You want to make revenue than I’m sorry you need to retool.
But this maybe for another thread but I call it extremely lazy and not keeping up with the industry. Just like Nikon and Canon I have no use for them after over 40 years in this business they have become irrelevant. Sad to be honest.
p.19 #8 · In stock: Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 E-mount ($799)
MedicineMan404 wrote:
Guy I bet you'll know, surely Fred will. Does Sony own stake in Tamron? I'm certain they have a piece of the Olympus pie. I hope they are intertwined on some business level--intertwined research would even be better.
I think they do but with this global market and shared resources it’s hard to say. If these where US companies be easier to figure out but being Asian companies with much different laws it’s far harder to figure out. It’s become like TV market maybe only 3 real companies as we know it but a branding bonanza . I’m not opposed to this at all, I worked for a huge Aerospace company so I understand the shared technologies and production so I really don’t have a issue with it and as a business I understand saving and producing revenue for shared resources.
p.19 #9 · In stock: Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 E-mount ($799)
GMPhotography wrote:
I don’t see it like that at all. They took a bad read on the market and did not jump in far early than now. Fire the CEO no excuses here, I’m sorry they screwed up. These lenses are a joke. So how do you explain the 40 1.2 from CV the Laowa 15 f2 the upcoming Laowa 10-18. The Cv 10,12,15. Batis 18,25,85 and 85 all smaller than existing Sigmas . I’m sorry it don’t compute . You want to make revenue than I’m sorry you need to retool.
But this maybe for another thread but I call it extremely lazy and not keeping up with the industry. Just like Nikon and Canon I have no use for them after over 40 years in this business they have become irrelevant. Sad to be honest. ...Show more →
Seriously they lost me and I bet many others feel exactly the same.
p.19 #13 · In stock: Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 E-mount ($799)
I was initially skeptical, but if it betters the 24-105 optically (I don't have one, but I'm looking at one for backpacking), I may grab one as a compliment to the 16-35GM. I don't really need 2.8 in a zoom (the GM is a necessary evil because it's so damn sharp), but if it's a better landscape lens (and hopefully approaching prime quality) than the 24-105 I'll use the GM for wide stuff and the Tamron for the rest and call it a day. I'd still pay an extra $200 for another 4mm on the wide end for a more balanced walk around lens for general use and travel though. Very interested to see how it stacks up against the 24-105.
p.19 #14 · In stock: Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 E-mount ($799)
^asking a lot for it to best the FE24-105. Some really good copies out there. I think your $200 might have gotten you another 4mm but at the expense of another pound...that takes away the walk-around angle for me.
p.19 #15 · In stock: Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 E-mount ($799)
GMPhotography wrote:
I don’t see it like that at all. They took a bad read on the market and did not jump in far early than now. Fire the CEO no excuses here, I’m sorry they screwed up. These lenses are a joke. So how do you explain the 40 1.2 from CV the Laowa 15 f2 the upcoming Laowa 10-18. The Cv 10,12,15. Batis 18,25,85 and 85 all smaller than existing Sigmas . I’m sorry it don’t compute . You want to make revenue than I’m sorry you need to retool.
But this maybe for another thread but I call it extremely lazy and not keeping up with the industry. Just like Nikon and Canon I have no use for them after over 40 years in this business they have become irrelevant. Sad to be honest. ...Show more →
The problem with your logic is that all the lenses you named are either MF, or have apertures 1.8 or smaller. That’s why I did direct comparisons to the 35 and 50 Zony AF lenses with equivalent apertures. Physics still applies, even at these focal lengths. I actually agree with your sentiment on CaNikon, but physics is physics when it comes to lenses.
But I’m really interested in the new Tammy. I’m currently adapting (and am a huge fan of) the old Nikon mount 28-75 as one of my primary travel lenses, and it does double duty between my Sonys and Nikon Df. I just want to see if the optics will warrant an upgrade, as I currently get Eye-AF with the commlite adapter and don’t use the lens for anything professional. I’m not in any massive need for the new version.
p.19 #16 · In stock: Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 E-mount ($799)
GMPhotography wrote:
Outside there 135 and 85 Sigma totally blew it with these add ones. They should have started far early and started building FE lenses from the start. Frankly whoever’s decision it was should be let go to find a job somewhere else. They lost a ton of revenue by waiting too long than putting out a band aid solution. I understand size would not matter with 85 and 135 but there wides there is no way I would buy any of them. Sony, Zeiss, VC and now Tamron are killing it.
I haven't been following this thread, but may respectfully disagree? Everyone can see what Sigma did, but they incurred basically no development costs, and they got to market in one fell swoop with a fairly full product line. They've bought themselves time to go develop native e-mount products, and they've given themselves some runway to see what Canon and Nikon do so that perhaps they don't paint themselves into a corner with a Sony lens formula they can't then reuse for CaNikon. Moreover, any sales they make in the mean time give themselves free, incremental profits on old tech they already had. Like you, I don't want any of it, personally, but it's actually pretty good business. If there was a sufficient installed base so that developing e-mount lenses was the best (risk-adjusted) use of their R&D dollars [er, yen] before now, they'd have done it. (I also suspect that they have been waiting for Canon to tip its hand.) Anyone who buys one of these retrofit lenses has to recognize that their purchase is going to be replaced by a native product that is likely to be significantly better in some ways, perhaps fairly soon, and that the (resale) value of their purchase is going to be decimated when that happens. But, it may also take a while and hopefully they'll get their money's worth in the mean time. These products are not what I wanted to see, either, but I don't think you fire a CEO for generating incremental revenue from a 'new' line of products, with essentially no associated development costs.
p.19 #18 · In stock: Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 E-mount ($799)
'with a fairly full product line.' that I bet many are loath to buy. Sigma fail. They hedged their bets as you say, played it safe, road the fence. Tamron, especially if they have another TRUE E-mount up their sleeve will reap huge rewards. E has the moment, the products, the innovation. Anyone want to play?
p.19 #19 · In stock: Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 E-mount ($799)
24-105 is a very nice focal range, if someone doesn't need f2.8. I wish Tamron made a set of 24-105/4 and 70-200/4 at this price or cheaper ;-)
I feel I cannot give up my 24-70 GM at this time because of its sharpness and wide end at 24mm. I had Tamron 28-75/2.8 for Nikon years ago and as I remember, 28mm was not wide enough for me.
If I sell my 24-70 GM to buy Tamron, then I need to get 12-24/4 as well which I don't really want due to cost and total weight.
But again, this Tamron is very nice lens for someone not having GM yet.
p.19 #20 · In stock: Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 E-mount ($799)
It was 10% for the last 7-10 years or so. Not sure if they sold it recently.
MedicineMan404 wrote:
Guy I bet you'll know, surely Fred will. Does Sony own stake in Tamron? I'm certain they have a piece of the Olympus pie. I hope they are intertwined on some business level--intertwined research would even be better.
If Tamron can lead the way to truly utilizing the design short distance flange design criteria for more small/light lenses and at great prices they will lead the way that many photographers will move towards. I must say I was disappointed with Sigma's offerings as there was no design optimizations for the FE mounts.