Erichimedes wrote:
This bugs the heck out of me too. Even just allowing their own TC's to be used with 3rd party lenses would be nice, but nope. I hope in time they change this policy.
Still very excited for this Tamron though!
Yes, I have to admit given my experience with the 28–200mm that I can’t help but be intrigued by this one...
While I love my GM prime kit (14, 24, 50, 135) I too have had great luck with the Tamron zooms. The only non-Tamron zoom I have is the 28-60, otherwise I have the 28-200, 70-180, and 70-300. This lens would be an interesting alternative to the 70-300. But a lot of it will come down to cost- I consider their 70-300 a bargain, not sure how this will fall.
The other consideration is that I had planned on eventually picking up their 150-500 for more reach, I just need to look at my upcoming use cases and figure out what makes more sense.
WOW. Some lens specs one-upmanship from Tamron there. Compared to the Sigma 100-400 OS DN, the Tamron has a negligible weight difference and is actually shorter, if also negligibly so. But you gain the 50-100mm FL at the wide end (anyone remember the original Bigma 50-500 HSM?), and a potentially useful 1:2 magnification ratio at the short end.
ryanli wrote:
WOW. Some lens specs one-upmanship from Tamron there. Compared to the Sigma 100-400 OS DN, the Tamron has a negligible weight difference and is actually shorter, if also negligibly so.
It's certainly an interesting offering! I'm curious how it'll work in the field for people. The macro capability at 50mm is a surprising choice, but it might help people! It doesn't state what the magnification at 400mm will be or what the MFD is.
I do feel like this might be a more complete product than the Sigma 100-400, but that might be my personal opinion. I like the clean looks of the Sigma, but at the end of the day that's not too important.
Alan Parker wrote:
It's certainly an interesting offering! I'm curious how it'll work in the field for people. The macro capability at 50mm is a surprising choice, but it might help people! It doesn't state what the magnification at 400mm will be or what the MFD is.
I do feel like this might be a more complete product than the 100-400, but that might be my personal opinion.
Yes, I agree with your last point. Tamron made their intent quite clear in the linked post with the basketball shoot: it could replace - and indeed surpass, FL-wise - both 70-200 and 100-400 in one lens.
(Why go for a 17-28 / 35-150 two-lens combo.. when you could have 17-28 / 50-400?)
Erichimedes wrote:
This bugs the heck out of me too. Even just allowing their own TC's to be used with 3rd party lenses would be nice, but nope. I hope in time they change this policy.
Still very excited for this Tamron though!
Is there anything that hinders that a 3d party manufacturer makes their lens compatible with Sonys TCs?
ryanli wrote:
Yes, I agree with your last point. Tamron made their intent quite clear in the linked post with the basketball shoot: it could replace - and indeed surpass, FL-wise - both 70-200 and 100-400 in one lens.
(Why go for a 17-28 / 35-150 two-lens combo.. when you could have 17-28 / 50-400?)
Why go for a 17-28 / 50-400 two-lens combo.. when you could have 17-28 / 28-200 (smaller/lighter two-lens combo)?
I'm waiting for Sony 100-400 replacement at 2.5LBs and 1:2 magnification. Saw some rumors about 70-400 and it can't be too far. 70-200 II gives me hope. I know it will cost 3 times that of Tamron for sure. But it'll be worth it for better AF (FPS and hopefully faster drive) and a third stop better light. Also the 1:2 magnification @ somewhat longer FL would be nice. I'd love to get the 50mm at wide end but not with any AF compromise.
lattesweden wrote:
Is there anything that hinders that a 3d party manufacturer makes their lens compatible with Sonys TCs?
The Sony TC's are only compatible with 6 lenses, and I don't even know if they will work with other Sony lenses. I know that mechanically, the TC has a big part that sticks forward into the matching lens, so that rules out quite a few lenses right away. But they don't work with third party lenses, and I'm sure it's part of their E-mount agreement to keep it that way.
It seems silly to me. It's not encouraging me to buy Sony lenses, if that's what they're after.
It will be interesting to see what focal lengths this lens is optimized for. For my needs going wider to 50mm doesn’t add much value to my needs as I will always carry the 24-105. I think the 100-400 length is pretty ideal and the Sigma is sharpest at the long end of the range……with some evaluations saying that it’s as sharp as the Sony 100-400. Where I think the Tamron may be stronger is in AF speed. The Sigyis good but the Tamron may be better.
pjmsj21 wrote:
It will be interesting to see what focal lengths this lens is optimized for. For my needs going wider to 50mm doesn’t add much value to my needs as I will always carry the 24-105. I think the 100-400 length is pretty ideal and the Sigma is sharpest at the long end of the range……with some evaluations saying that it’s as sharp as the Sony 100-400. Where I think the Tamron may be stronger is in AF speed. The Sigyis good but the Tamron may be better.
I can see the use case for 50-400 for myself, as once I get a tripod foot, adapter rings and NDs set up, I'm not that keen on changing lenses. But you're right...the Sigma is what I consider the bar for affordable telephotos, it'll be interesting to see how the Tamron compares. One of them is likely to be my next lens purchase.
So far I’ve been impressed by the Tamron zooms. The 28-200 is a great all in one. Loved the 70-180 and would still have it but added the 70-200 GMII as an upgrade.
Not sure if I *need* a 50-400 with the 70-200 and 1.4tc but it would potentially be a killer travel lens.
I’m definitely interested in this. I wouldn’t carry it around all the time, just as I don’t carry around a FF camera all the time. But for my landscape kit - yes.
