p.39 #1 · In stock: Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 E-mount ($799)
jchapell wrote:
If it is useful in making a decision, here are 3 days of shooting on a few hikes with a mixture of candid, macro, sunstars, video, landscape (a whole lot of chasing kids around too) . Mostly shot w AFC-Wide.
As others have noted, for me it is not quite a replacement for primes WHEN ultimate bokeh quality/corner sharpness is paramount...but having said that, it could easily become my most used lens. https://photos.app.goo.gl/xoZMPlqqFIwRfc4h2 https://photos.app.goo.gl/vn56EzVjUR8JEKYB3
(third link includes SOOC Raws and my edits side by side for most) https://photos.app.goo.gl/fUCJ8YGaWVyXLquj1
Also- I pre-ordered, but when it wouldn't arrive in time for last weekend's climb of Mt Shasta, I bought one locally. If anyone is interested in my second copy before I send it back (unopened) to B&H, let me know. ...Show more →
without high end primes as a reference point, the bokeh looks fine to me. This is also how I want to use my lens, as I've got small kids as well and really dont want to be bothered swapping lenses with them.
For hiking trips like this, it's nice to have a 2.8 for the pleasant blur, and the zoom factor is super useful for video, where cropping in post does not work so well.
I'll save my fast primes for times when I really want to maximize the bokeh and low light levels.
p.39 #2 · In stock: Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 E-mount ($799)
Charlie N wrote:
without high end primes as a reference point, the bokeh looks fine to me. This is also how I want to use my lens, as I've got small kids as well and really dont want to be bothered swapping lenses with them.
For hiking trips like this, it's nice to have a 2.8 for the pleasant blur, and the zoom factor is super useful for video, where cropping in post does not work so well.
I'll save my fast primes for times when I really want to maximize the bokeh and low light levels.
Just an FYI, in my testing the wide area CAF indoors is not that great in video modes. It is acceptable in good light, but it tends to slowly respond to and hunt for targets in ISO1000-3200 settings (domestic, natural, windows open) when PDAF should be very quick.
The 24-240 (my workhorse video lens), 16-35 f4, 35 f1.4, 28 f2, etc. are noticeably quicker in practice.
p.39 #3 · In stock: Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 E-mount ($799)
On which body? This kind of matters a lot. But anything to do with AF is a known question mark right now.
Racethesunset wrote:
Just an FYI, in my testing the wide area CAF indoors is not that great in video modes. It is acceptable in good light, but it tends to slowly respond to and hunt for targets in ISO1000-3200 settings (domestic, natural, windows open) when PDAF should be very quick.
The 24-240 (my workhorse video lens), 16-35 f4, 35 f1.4, 28 f2, etc. are noticeably quicker in practice.
p.39 #4 · In stock: Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 E-mount ($799)
jchapell wrote:
If it is useful in making a decision, here are 3 days of shooting on a few hikes with a mixture of candid, macro, sunstars, video, landscape (a whole lot of chasing kids around too) . Mostly shot w AFC-Wide.
As others have noted, for me it is not quite a replacement for primes WHEN ultimate bokeh quality/corner sharpness is paramount...but having said that, it could easily become my most used lens. https://photos.app.goo.gl/xoZMPlqqFIwRfc4h2 https://photos.app.goo.gl/vn56EzVjUR8JEKYB3
(third link includes SOOC Raws and my edits side by side for most) https://photos.app.goo.gl/fUCJ8YGaWVyXLquj1
Also- I pre-ordered, but when it wouldn't arrive in time for last weekend's climb of Mt Shasta, I bought one locally. If anyone is interested in my second copy before I send it back (unopened) to B&H, let me know. ...Show more →
p.39 #8 · In stock: Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 E-mount ($799)
I’ll should probably grab one of these. Let me know if there is a extra around. I need one for July and I been putting it off. I leave for NY in exactly 30 days for a month there.
For me it shows the difference in colour (adjust in post anyway unless you are a jpg shooter), sharpness (Tamron looks a tad sharper to me) and bokeh (GM wins but not by a huge amount). However for US$1,200 difference in price ? I'd be happy with the lighter, smaller, macro-capable and just as sharp Tamron (though it won't hold it's value so I'll wait for a killer deal before buying).
If you want the absolute best no question, money is no object, a pro who needs the Sony support or are someone who always buys the OEM over 3rd party lenses, then the GM will be your choice. But it's worth taking the test, it's a bit of fun if nothing else ...Show more →
Interesting test to take without really knowing what to look for at first, but I just guessed that the Tamron would have stronger vignetting, and voila--it does and is clearly pretty consistent based on my 85/100. Bokeh showed pretty consistent differences too--GM is ever so slightly smoother to my eye--but it was not always as easy to spot as vignette difference. Even being able to spot the Tamron consistently, I felt the difference to the GM was incredibly minor (at least at these resolutions).
p.39 #12 · In stock: Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 E-mount ($799)
chrismscotland wrote:
I look forward to an Adobe profile being available for correction of any distortion / vignetting actually as I think that'll make a big difference.
The existing profile for the old 28-75 does a pretty nice job, especially with distortion. It's a little overagrressive on vignetting correction, so I dial that back, but its distortion profile is pretty close.
p.39 #15 · In stock: Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 E-mount ($799)
You already know the answer Guy. I suspect you might not want to really know though... Once you know you can't ignore it in an otherwise useful lens!
Honestly though, I think it's a bit irrelevant unless compared to the GM 24-70, can't remember if you Big Bronco'd that one? But the corners don't play with the good primes, they sharpen up better than the 24-70/4, so what's a better "alternative" than this lens? The trade offs of the GM are a flat no to me (weight and price). The 24/70/4 is probably the only other one I'd consider, and I think this better so...
GMPhotography wrote:
Okay I just joined the party. But a extra members Tammy.
p.39 #16 · In stock: Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 E-mount ($799)
A7 III
Focus is quiet, smooth, quick before that CDAF hunt kicks in. I’m not sure why it engages contrast detection earlier. It performs wonderfully in good light.
TheEmrys wrote:
On which body? This kind of matters a lot. But anything to do with AF is a known question mark right now.
p.39 #18 · In stock: Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 E-mount ($799)
Jannik Peters wrote:
Wow, I am surprised about the people who are trying to discredit my findings here, especially users with just a few posts who have contributed nothing but that so far.
People should know by now that we always try to be as honest as possible and give our readers an exact impression of what to expect. I can understand that a honest opinion causes some disappointed expectations or justifications of purchases and but I didn't experience that here.. So far FM members were always able to stand the truth Especially in a case where I even say that I like and keep a lens. ...Show more →
Jannik, I want to thank you for your honest and in-depth evaluations of so many lenses over the years. I have come to trust your judgement and analysis and you always fairly point out both the pros and cons of each. Thanks for your help and hard work and ignore those who can't appreciate your efforts.
p.39 #19 · In stock: Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 E-mount ($799)
curtisb908 wrote:
Jannik, I want to thank you for your honest and in-depth evaluations of so many lenses over the years. I have come to trust your judgement and analysis and you always fairly point out both the pros and cons of each. Thanks for your help and hard work and ignore those who can't appreciate your efforts.
) . Mostly shot w AFC-Wide.
??
Especially in a case where I even say that
