JVan_02 wrote:
Wonder how the GM II will fare against this Tamron G2... especially with regards to price.
Like with the first gen of each, I don't see the GM II eclipsing the Tamron optically—even if the GM II is nicer in some areas, it probably won't be enough to justify the more expensive option on its own. Where this gets interesting for me, is at the time of release of the first gen Tamron, the GM was already established... and the price was the price. At this point, however, the G2 is already out—and it has excellent optics, solid construction (even if the G2 won't be quite as good as the GM II, the G1 Tamron has already proven to be quite the sturdy lens), and even a linear motor (I know, not the 2—4 we're likely to see in the GM II).
We're probably going to see a straight price increase like we did with the 70-200 GM II... but maaaaaaaybe the 28-75 G2 is good enough to keep Sony on its toes price wise. Between the G2 (technical performance) and the Sigma (rendering), the competition has got to be eating into enough of Sony's sales in this area that if the price goes up the only people buying the GM II will be people wanting the GM II's exclusive software features like breathing correction. ...Show more →
Shooting events the difference between 24 and 28 is quite large at times, especially in cramped quarters. For me, that difference is why I would pick a 24-70 over the Tamron if I was to shoot a zoom. I shoot my events with two cameras and a 25 / 85 combo.
I also agree that having a 24mm indoors is invaluable. However, the downside (so far) of midrange zooms that can hit 24 is almost double the weight. Even Tokina's just announced 24-70 f2.8 zoom weights double the Tamron 28-75. Which is why I own the Tamron. When I need wider I go with the Sony 16-35 f2.8 or my 24mm f1.4.
Either the original Tamron 28-75 or the G2 is an excellent lens, even for pro use. Everything has its tradeoffs. For me, I don't often shoot between roughly 40-60mm so having a lighter midrange zoom is that tradeoff that's best for my shooting style.
chez wrote:
Shooting events the difference between 24 and 28 is quite large at times, especially in cramped quarters. For me, that difference is why I would pick a 24-70 over the Tamron if I was to shoot a zoom. I shoot my events with two cameras and a 25 / 85 combo.
onthebeam wrote:
I also agree that having a 24mm indoors is invaluable. However, the downside (so far) of midrange zooms that can hit 24 is almost double the weight. Even Tokina's just announced 24-70 f2.8 zoom weights double the Tamron 28-75. Which is why I own the Tamron. When I need wider I go with the Sony 16-35 f2.8 or my 24mm f1.4.
Either the original Tamron 28-75 or the G2 is an excellent lens, even for pro use. Everything has its tradeoffs. For me, I don't often shoot between roughly 40-60mm so having a lighter midrange zoom is that tradeoff that's best for my shooting style.
When I shoot events it might be 6 hours so a bit more weight is not going affect me much. If I’m shooting a zoom, it’s for convenience and if the lens doesn’t cover the focal lengths I need, then the convenience factor quickly diminishes. Anyways, like I said I shoot primes so the lens doesn’t do anything for me.
Sounds very promising! I am not going to swap back from the Sigma 24-70 to this Tamron again, but I'm happy that they learned from the G1.
I feel like they worked on the 'clinical' look that plagued the G1 too. The colors and rendering is just more pleasing overall.
I got the new G2 lens and tested it against the lens that it will replace: an adapted Canon EF 24-70 II and Sony 18-105 crop lens for walking about.
I tested against a row of trees at a distance of about 80 feet. Both lenses were focused manually at the center of the frame and triggered by self-timer from a sturdy tripod with no wind.
The good news is that both the Canon and the Tamron are very good to excellent in the center and at all apertures and throughout their zoom range.
Where things varied was at the extreme corners. I chose the upper right on both lenses as this is where both were slightly worse.
These are screenshots from C1 zoomed to 200%.
You can look along the bottom to see the settings.
The Canon is on the left side.
Both lens are very sharp at their widest end, regardless of aperture. The Canon exhibits less CA, is warmer and I'll really will miss that extra 4mm on the wide end.
This starts at both lenses wide end (24 and 28mm). I won't bother with a f8 example as its not much different from the wide-open example below: https://www.josephdigital.com/images/fm/C_vs_T_at_Max_Wide_and_WO.jpg
Based on Marc's review I'll be keeping my Sigma 28-70/2.8. It's lighter, smaller, has better bokeh and better center sharpness. I really like my Sigma and I'm glad to see it fares well.
Greentoe accepted a lowball offer for a sigma 24-70. I think to some extent with these lenses you need to try out a copy for yourself as copy variation might be a bigger deal than fundamental differences between lenses. I look forward to comparing the 24-70 with my 24-105, I have seen enough decent things about the 28-75 that I would like to add it to the mix for comparison. Will wait a bit to see if I can get a decent price on it. It is refreshing to see the 35-150 is already starting to drop on edu pricing. We will see, if this lens is a real winner the word will get out and price may stay put for a while.
Is the 35 @ 2.8 shot for the Tamron f/5.6 as it says, or f/2.8?
J-Baird wrote:
I got the new G2 lens and tested it against the lens that it will replace: an adapted Canon EF 24-70 II and Sony 18-105 crop lens for walking about.
I tested against a row of trees at a distance of about 80 feet. Both lenses were focused manually at the center of the frame and triggered by self-timer from a sturdy tripod with no wind.
The good news is that both the Canon and the Tamron are very good to excellent in the center and at all apertures and throughout their zoom range.
Where things varied was at the extreme corners. I chose the upper right on both lenses as this is where both were slightly worse.
These are screenshots from C1 zoomed to 200%.
You can look along the bottom to see the settings.
The Canon is on the left side.
Both lens are very sharp at their widest end, regardless of aperture. The Canon exhibits less CA, is warmer and I'll really will miss that extra 4mm on the wide end.
This starts at both lenses wide end (24 and 28mm). I won't bother with a f8 example as its not much different from the wide-open example below: https://www.josephdigital.com/images/fm/C_vs_T_at_Max_Wide_and_WO.jpg
J-Baird wrote:
I got the new G2 lens and tested it against the lens that it will replace: an adapted Canon EF 24-70 II and Sony 18-105 crop lens for walking about.
I tested against a row of trees at a distance of about 80 feet. Both lenses were focused manually at the center of the frame and triggered by self-timer from a sturdy tripod with no wind...
Thanks for sharing your tests. I'm curious if you've done any shooting/testing at closer distances? I received my copy a couple of days ago and I'm seeing reasonable field curvature or possibly some other alignment issue at the distances I was testing (2 to 4 meters). I need to do some additional testing. I'm also going to hopefully compare it against another copy.
anv8,
post some image example of the 2 to 4 meters distance
Maybe we can figure out what is going on
I just received my lens after work yesterday. I will try some test shots tonight when I check out a band playing
I will try to do some shots at 2-4 meters
rattlebonez wrote:
anv8,
post some image example of the 2 to 4 meters distance
Maybe we can figure out what is going on
I just received my lens after work yesterday. I will try some test shots tonight when I check out a band playing
I will try to do some shots at 2-4 meters
Thanks! I'll try to get some images posted over the weekend. Basically, I focused on a target at the image center at various focal lengths and apertures. I also had a target set up in the upper left corner. The corner target is not as sharp as I would have expected but improves stopping down. I then repeated focusing on the upper left corner target and the corner is sharp, but the center is not. I did Fred's quick decentering test @ 75mm and that looked quite good (but that's at infinity focus).
Hopefully, I have another copy arriving this afternoon so I can do some side-by-side comparisons.
I originally rented the first version of the 28-75 a couple of years ago and was pretty disappointed with corner sharpness so I didn't buy one. I have the Tamron 70-180mm, and it has greatly exceeded my expectations so I have high hopes for the 28-75mm G2.
I picked up a copy, but I'm not sure I will have much time to shoot tests this weekend. I haven't done a rigorous centering test, but in informal testing, my copy seems perfectly centered at all FLs that I tested.
On my a7R III it seems to be very sharp and contrasty across the whole frame, wide open, at 28, 35, 50, and 75. I see some CA, but my impression is that it's no worse than my 24-105 for example.
I haven't done much testing at closer focus points, for possible FC mentioned above. Focus seems fast and build is nice, much better than my Tamron 35mm f/2.8.
I received a second copy and repeated some of my tests side-by-side. I'm shooting some french doors with a target in the center and a target in the upper left corner. I know that it's difficult to know that the lens axis is perfectly perpendicular to the doors which is important for this type of test, but I used a laser to help align things so it should be quite close.
Both lenses are sharp at the center. The first copy is significantly blurrier then the second copy in the upper left corner (and on the left side in general) at 28mm and 35mm. The first copy is slightly blurrier than the second at 50mm and 75mm. I already had confirmed that the first copy was sharp in the corner when the corner was used for focus. I'm going to do some more testing on the second copy, but I'm thinking this is a manufacturing variation issue.
