Sexy close focus, sharp... Any chance you've used the 28-75/2.8 and have thoughts on how the compare? I have the 28-75 coming in a package, and have used it before, but thinking I'd rather have this one for trips and casual use...
AdaptedLenses wrote:
Sexy close focus, sharp... Any chance you've used the 28-75/2.8 and have thoughts on how the compare? I have the 28-75 coming in a package, and have used it before, but thinking I'd rather have this one for trips and casual use...
As promised the better-half, one comes in one goes I sold the 28-75 a couple of weeks ago. It, to me, is a fantastic lens.
But not a range I shoot in often. Neither is the 28-200, but I feel I need that range covered for what-if shots. I think all the shots I did (posted above) on todays introductory shoot were with the Riv in cropper mode.....me wanting to see the effective 300mm and if it can replace the 70-300G I've been carrying for what-if shots when at wildlife venues.
The other lens here in jeopardy is the FE 24-105G. Jury still out on that one, but weight and comfort on the long walks the 28-200 will replace the 70-300G.
MedicineMan404 wrote:
As promised the better-half, one comes in one goes I sold the 28-75 a couple of weeks ago. It, to me, is a fantastic lens.
But not a range I shoot in often. Neither is the 28-200, but I feel I need that range covered for what-if shots. I think all the shots I did (posted above) on todays introductory shoot were with the Riv in cropper mode.....me wanting to see the effective 300mm and if it can replace the 70-300G I've been carrying for what-if shots when at wildlife venues.
The other lens here in jeopardy is the FE 24-105G. Jury still out on that one, but weight and comfort on the long walks the 28-200 will replace the 70-300G.
Great shots specially the Sparrow one looks amazingly sharp. At least to my eyes, this lens looks amazing and might even break the stigma that comes with "super zooms".
jchapell wrote:
Nice shots!!!
I see the first shot was at 2.8, how about the others? I'm really interested in some stopped down shots w this lens...
A couple more snaps from today. I was hoping, to no avail, that the local pond ducks might give me a BIF opportunity.
Jchapel thanks! Hey, if you click the Flickr link below the image, and after Flickr loads the image, down a bit in blue letters 'show EXIF', click on that and get all the info (like aperture) you'd ever want
Here's another at 28mm F2.8...chain link fence bokeh. Great place to see bokeh falloff.
200mm 5.6 (and again Jchapel, clicking the 'show EXIF' will tell you I was shooting the a7Riv in crop mode for a 300mm effective) By any other name by Stopitdown Stopitdown, on Flickr
And I might add that I just sold the FE24-105G
I also asked the wife if she would ever use the 70-300G again since she's now using the 100400GM (my hand me down to her post adding the 200600G) and she said probably not. So this Tam has usurped two lenses in the kit.
MedicineMan404 wrote:
And I might add that I just sold the FE24-105G
I also asked the wife if she would ever use the 70-300G again since she's now using the 100400GM (my hand me down to her post adding the 200600G) and she said probably not. So this Tam has usurped two lenses in the kit.
Looks really good. Looks like a great option if you just want to carry one lens when out in the woods
Thanks for posting these photos! I have been curious about this lens, because after getting the 200-600, I now have to carry 3 lenses attached to 3 bodies to get the 24-600 range when I go on safari. This lens would take me down to two lenses on two bodies for a 28-600 range. It looks very sharp, which is encouraging. I tried the Sony 24-240 and didn't find it to be sharp enough. If I get the 28-200, I will have to decide whether to part with my 100-400 and/or 24-105.
MedicineMan404 wrote:
And I might add that I just sold the FE24-105G
I also asked the wife if she would ever use the 70-300G again since she's now using the 100400GM (my hand me down to her post adding the 200600G) and she said probably not. So this Tam has usurped two lenses in the kit.
AdaptedLenses wrote:
What ya gonna buy with the funds?
PEX and PEX connectors. We're re-working our cabin's water system/dated early 1970's, for one thing, and I might add another lens to my Fuji system depending on how much I spend for plumbing
dallvr wrote:
Thanks for posting these photos! I have been curious about this lens, because after getting the 200-600, I now have to carry 3 lenses attached to 3 bodies to get the 24-600 range when I go on safari. This lens would take me down to two lenses on two bodies for a 28-600 range. It looks very sharp, which is encouraging. I tried the Sony 24-240 and didn't find it to be sharp enough. If I get the 28-200, I will have to decide whether to part with my 100-400 and/or 24-105.
Parting with the 100400GM is a hard hard decision it is such a stellar lens....easier decision for me since I rarely used the 24-105. It too is a fantastic lens, just not one I grabbed very often.
My travel, wildlife, what-if, do it all Sony kit is now-
Tam 17-28 (abs. love this one)
Tam 28-200 (again not a range I shoot in often)
Sony 200-600 (was my bread-n-butter on the Alaska trip and several trips since)
I was fretting over the 24GM. Have it love it, would be hard to part with it; but still wanting something wider for Milky Way shots. I had the Batis 18 but never did like its fly-wire focus system, at all. THEN I rememberd I have the little Rokinon FE 18mm, so my 3 lens travel kit becomes 4 but the little 18mm barely counts but punches leagues beyond its price. Even Ian Norman,the Milky Way guru, likes it.
ajamils wrote:
Great shots specially the Sparrow one looks amazingly sharp. At least to my eyes, this lens looks amazing and might even break the stigma that comes with "super zooms".
How is the AF?
AJ, for point to point perched bierds AF seems snappy. Ducks weren't flying today in the pond, just swimming around, so no BIF opportunity. I don't think many would consider it for BIF anyway do you? But for what I did shoot AF was just fine.
But remember I had the lens on the camera for 45 min's walking around. Hardly enough time for any and all possibles to show up eh, and everyone knows of the firmware woes Tamron seemingly frequently has....but also address quite quickly.
I need a few of those for an outdoor shower, but yea that’s less fun... goood luck!
MedicineMan404 wrote:
PEX and PEX connectors. We're re-working our cabin's water system/dated early 1970's, for one thing, and I might add another lens to my Fuji system depending on how much I spend for plumbing
nhsonyshooter wrote:
Looks really good. Looks like a great option if you just want to carry one lens when out in the woods
Yep and weather sealing a bonus. Hey, on size/weight, I got the wife to heft the 28200. She nodded her approval and she hates anything photography that is heavy.
dallvr wrote:
Thanks for posting these photos! I have been curious about this lens, because after getting the 200-600, I now have to carry 3 lenses attached to 3 bodies to get the 24-600 range when I go on safari. This lens would take me down to two lenses on two bodies for a 28-600 range. It looks very sharp, which is encouraging. I tried the Sony 24-240 and didn't find it to be sharp enough. If I get the 28-200, I will have to decide whether to part with my 100-400 and/or 24-105.
Dallvr when I was on safari in the Timbavati/Kruger our drives were early morning and afternoon going into evening and I appreciated (though suffered the weight) 2.8mm primes....just thinking out loud about this lens and its aperture range versus the 70-180 and F2.8.
Of course that has to be weighed against lens changes and inside dusty Land Rovers
But I'm like you, 28-200 on the Riv and 200600 on the a9 (you have the a9ii I think) and I'll be good. AND I remembered I have the Rokinon 18/2.8 just in case I get a starry night It doesn't add much to the weight penalty.
I sold the 28-75 a couple of weeks ago. It, to me, is a fantastic lens.
but punches leagues beyond its price. Even Ian Norman,the Milky Way guru, likes it.