p.4 #1 · In stock: Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 E-mount ($799)
WestTexas Sky wrote:
I would like a smaller manual focus model that was maybe variable aperture. Firin zooms maybe.
This seems lost in the middle. The Sony 24-70/4 and 24-105/4 seem like better options. And if you need f/2.8 the Sony seems to win there too.
I really think this lens has its place. The GM version it is expensive... many people does not buy just for that. The Sony 24-70/4 it is really expensive for its quality. If the Tamron is noticable better than the 24-70/4 plus the f2,8, I think it can sell very well.
p.4 #5 · In stock: Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 E-mount ($799)
I don't see it as an advantage but I like to keep it simple. Why more of what already exists...? Its all good. Just sayin'. So many impulse buys on the For Sale forum.
Fred Miranda wrote:
The E-mount system is about to get saturated with options now. The more competition, the better for us.
p.4 #6 · In stock: Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 E-mount ($799)
bjornthun wrote:
Could we start hoping for a Tamron 150-600/5-6.3 G2 FE?
What you need is for Tamron to make an extremely sturdy, weather-resistant MC-11-style adapter for EF -> FE. The native mount won't do anything for you.
As for the 28-75/2.8: I do hope that this lens compares well to the 24-105/4G!
p.4 #7 · In stock: Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 E-mount ($799)
KarmaKramer wrote:
I don't see it as an advantage but I like to keep it simple. Why more of what already exists...? Its all good. Just sayin'. So many impulse buys on the For Sale forum.
One advantage could perhaps be pressure on pricing.
When the A7 series was introduced with only one 35mm, Zeiss was able to charge $800 for their f/2.8 version.
p.4 #9 · In stock: Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 E-mount ($799)
WestTexas Sky wrote:
I would like a smaller manual focus model that was maybe variable aperture. Firin zooms maybe.
This seems lost in the middle. The Sony 24-70/4 and 24-105/4 seem like better options. And if you need f/2.8 the Sony seems to win there too.
some folks are in the 24-105 f4 camp, others in the 24-70 f2.8 camp. It's just preferences.
while shooting canon, I figured I was in the F2.8 camp, f4 low light just made me cringe.
24 vs 28 didnt matter much to me, they were pinch focal lengths when shooting people, which was the main intention of the lens (event/people photography). It does make a big difference for landscapes though, but that's usually covered with another lens.
while the 24-105 gets great reviews, I just wouldnt be as happy with a slow lens like that, mostly primes when I shoot people, but zoom makes more sense when I'm using flash.
I think this lens and its price point will fill a glaring hole in sony's lineup. Based on social media posts I've read from tamron, it will be less than the zony 24-70 f4 and the announcement on pricing and likely preorders will be released mid april.
p.4 #10 · In stock: Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 E-mount ($799)
Fred Miranda wrote:
One advantage could perhaps be pressure on pricing.
When the A7 series was introduced with only one 35mm, Zeiss was able to charge $800 for their f/2.8 version.
I don't believe Zeiss has anything to do with Sony lenses other than "T" coating and a blue sticker (they are designed and built by Sony). and carry the Sony tax on pricing.
p.4 #11 · In stock: Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 E-mount ($799)
mogul wrote:
I don't believe Zeiss has anything to do with Sony lenses other than "T" coating and a blue sticker (they are designed and built by Sony). and carry the Sony tax on pricing.
That's something different. I was referring to pricing...Less choices, like in the case of the first and only announced 35mm, usually mean higher prices.
p.4 #13 · In stock: Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 E-mount ($799)
So it's roughly the same physical size as the 24-105/4 while being 100g lighter, one stop faster, while sacrificing range at both the short end and the long.
Most seem more concered with the 28mm vs. 24mm, though if your wider option is a 16-35 you have a lot of overlap to work with anyway.
Pretty interesting option as the only complaint I have currently about a 16-35/24-105/70-300 easy 3 lens setup is that while it's great for landscape shoots, it doesn't really work in a pinch for portraits or low light when traveling with the family.
16-35/28-75/70-300 with F2.8 from 16-75mm is intriguing for being able to cover landscape, astro, portrait, and tele all with only 3 fairly compact lenses totallying about 4.5lbs (and only 2.75lbs if going somewhere the telephoto won't be required).
p.4 #14 · In stock: Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 E-mount ($799)
Vcize wrote:
So it's roughly the same physical size as the 24-105/4 while being 100g lighter, one stop faster, while sacrificing range at both the short end and the long.
Most seem more concered with the 28mm vs. 24mm, though if your wider option is a 16-35 you have a lot of overlap to work with anyway.
Pretty interesting option as the only complaint I have currently about a 16-35/24-105/70-300 easy 3 lens setup is that while it's great for landscape shoots, it doesn't really work in a pinch for portraits or low light when traveling with the family.
16-35/28-75/70-300 with F2.8 in the middle is intriguing....Show more →
yes it is, yes it is. I have a slightly different setup as I adapt the older 28-75 for the benefits metioned here, small size, f2.8. It's not native and has weak corners, so I have the zeiss 35-70 to take care of that.... but if this one holds up, it can replace two lenses for me.
p.4 #15 · In stock: Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 E-mount ($799)
Fred Miranda wrote:
Yes, it does not have image stabilization but that likely allows for a more compact/lighter optical design with potentially higher IQ. Not really an issue when combined with recent E-mount bodies.
Yep. Probably wouldn't be that helpful given the IBIS in all the recent bodies.
Interesting though because Tamron has been known lately for putting their VC in basically all of their offerings. Different approach for mirrorless, perhaps.
p.4 #16 · In stock: Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 E-mount ($799)
johnctharp wrote:
What you need is for Tamron to make an extremely sturdy, weather-resistant MC-11-style adapter for EF -> FE. The native mount won't do anything for you.
As for the 28-75/2.8: I do hope that this lens compares well to the 24-105/4G!
A native lens will integrate better with the electronic functions of the camera. And I don't want any more adapters.
p.4 #17 · In stock: Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 E-mount ($799)
elimoss wrote:
Interesting though because Tamron has been known lately for putting their VC in basically all of their offerings. Different approach for mirrorless, perhaps.
There is some history here, as they made non-VC versions of their lenses for Sony A-mount for several years, since the Sony bodies had IBIS. I had non-VC versions of their latest 70-210 2.8 and their 24-70 2.8.
p.4 #18 · In stock: Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 E-mount ($799)
bjornthun wrote:
A native lens will integrate better with the electronic functions of the camera. And I don't want any more adapters.
I understand not wanting adapters- but in this case, it makes sense. As for 'integration', it shouldn't be any different than a native lens if properly implemented (and the Sigma MC-11 may not be an example of such given that Sigma lenses sometimes perform better on Metabones adapters).
p.4 #19 · In stock: Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 E-mount ($799)
If it's sharp to the corners by f/5.6, I might well be in for it. The size and weight are great for hiking, and while I almost never take photographs at f/2.8, it is noticeably easier to manual focus at f/2.8 than at f/4.
p.4 #20 · In stock: Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 E-mount ($799)
johnctharp wrote:
I understand not wanting adapters- but in this case, it makes sense. As for 'integration', it shouldn't be any different than a native lens if properly implemented (and the Sigma MC-11 may not be an example of such given that Sigma lenses sometimes perform better on Metabones adapters).
how many sigma (or EF for the matter) lenses have STM motors?
makes a huge difference for video AF, which this lens also targets. Sigma art adapted needs an external mic, fbw sony lenses dont.
