p.12 #1 · New Lens: Tamron 20-40mm F/2.8 Di III VXD, Thoughts?
Can't decide if I want this or go for the 16-35mm PZ, I am leaning towards the 16-35mm PZ because I could get rid of my Voigtlander 15mm III, and I don't really need the extra speed that the Tamron 20-40mm provides.
p.12 #2 · New Lens: Tamron 20-40mm F/2.8 Di III VXD, Thoughts?
Butterfingers wrote:
Can't decide if I want this or go for the 16-35mm PZ, I am leaning towards the 16-35mm PZ because I could get rid of my Voigtlander 15mm III, and I don't really need the extra speed that the Tamron 20-40mm provides.
What is the distortion like between the two?
I'd suggest going for the 16-35 if only to get access to a wider FOV. 20mm is a weird starting point for this new lens.
Re: distortion - Gerald Undone mentioned the 20-40mm having a fair bit of distortion and there aren't correction profiles out yet so you'll need to manually adjust.
p.12 #4 · New Lens: Tamron 20-40mm F/2.8 Di III VXD, Thoughts?
therednik wrote:
I'd suggest going for the 16-35 if only to get access to a wider FOV. 20mm is a weird starting point for this new lens.
Re: distortion - Gerald Undone mentioned the 20-40mm having a fair bit of distortion and there aren't correction profiles out yet so you'll need to manually adjust.
Adobe has the profile available already and in CaptureOne you can use the embedded (in RAW) profile...
p.12 #5 · New Lens: Tamron 20-40mm F/2.8 Di III VXD, Thoughts?
therednik wrote:
I'd suggest going for the 16-35 if only to get access to a wider FOV. 20mm is a weird starting point for this new lens.
Re: distortion - Gerald Undone mentioned the 20-40mm having a fair bit of distortion and there aren't correction profiles out yet so you'll need to manually adjust.
I have been looking at the 16-35 PZ f4 , but there are two things I don't like about it; the fact that it is a power zoom instead of a regular zoom, and that it's 4.0.
p.12 #7 · New Lens: Tamron 20-40mm F/2.8 Di III VXD, Thoughts?
tsdevine wrote:
This is the longest "I got the lens" and "no samples posted" in FM history. (Okay, maybe that's an exaggeration.).
Sorry, I tried but apparently I can't link a photo from my Google Drive and I don't currently have B&S subscription. Recommendations for where to host images to share anyone?
On the plus side I got a chance to download my first photos and this lens and I are going to get along quite well. Sharpness is better than I was expecting, nothing glaringly bad to me, but I also don't care about the shape of bokeh balls and such.
p.12 #8 · New Lens: Tamron 20-40mm F/2.8 Di III VXD, Thoughts?
Hmm....there's Flickr, I think you can still do that with the non-Pro account.
I was just kidding, don't put yourself out trying to get samples up here.
formula4speed wrote:
Sorry, I tried but apparently I can't link a photo from my Google Drive and I don't currently have B&S subscription. Recommendations for where to host images to share anyone?
On the plus side I got a chance to download my first photos and this lens and I are going to get along quite well. Sharpness is better than I was expecting, nothing glaringly bad to me, but I also don't care about the shape of bokeh balls and such.
p.12 #11 · New Lens: Tamron 20-40mm F/2.8 Di III VXD, Thoughts?
I got mine earlier this week and took it to the zoo yesterday. My two main lenses are Tamron 35-150 and 50GM which are wonderful lenses but big and heavy. When I wanted to go out for the day with my family I was using the 40 2.5G but it was not wide enough in a lot of circumstances (often we were in confined spaces with other people and I could not step back). I rented a 16-35 GM once for a trip and it was a lovely lens but it was too big, too expensive and I didn't see myself needing the wide end of it that often. I was considering 16-35 PZ but I wanted better low light performance. So when I saw this new Tamron I felt like it was finally the right balance for what I was looking for of size, price, capabilities etc. Since I only take pictures of family I don't care that much about the technical aspects its really just a feeling I get whether I like the lens or not as I go about editing and I was really happy with how the pictures turned out (and so was my dad, the pictures were for his birthday). If I had to make some complaints I would say that compared to the Tamron 35-150 and 50GM these pictures NEED editing whereas the 35-150 and 50 GM are so good out of the camera (especially the 50 GM) you could really not touch them if you were feeling lazy (which I often am). Also, I miss not having the MF/AF switch. This lens is tiny though and a fraction of the price so I'm very content with it and I think it will get a ton of usage!
p.12 #12 · New Lens: Tamron 20-40mm F/2.8 Di III VXD, Thoughts?
-LYS- wrote:
I got mine earlier this week and took it to the zoo yesterday. My two main lenses are Tamron 35-150 and 50GM which are wonderful lenses but big and heavy. When I wanted to go out for the day with my family I was using the 40 2.5G but it was not wide enough in a lot of circumstances (often we were in confined spaces with other people and I could not step back). I rented a 16-35 GM once for a trip and it was a lovely lens but it was too big, too expensive and I didn't see myself needing the wide end of it that often. I was considering 16-35 PZ but I wanted better low light performance. So when I saw this new Tamron I felt like it was finally the right balance for what I was looking for of size, price, capabilities etc. Since I only take pictures of family I don't care that much about the technical aspects its really just a feeling I get whether I like the lens or not as I go about editing and I was really happy with how the pictures turned out (and so was my dad, the pictures were for his birthday). If I had to make some complaints I would say that compared to the Tamron 35-150 and 50GM these pictures NEED editing whereas the 35-150 and 50 GM are so good out of the camera (especially the 50 GM) you could really not touch them if you were feeling lazy (which I often am). Also, I miss not having the MF/AF switch. This lens is tiny though and a fraction of the price so I'm very content with it and I think it will get a ton of usage!...Show more →
Thanks for your feedback!
Could explain a bit more what you mean by "NEED editing" ?
p.12 #13 · New Lens: Tamron 20-40mm F/2.8 Di III VXD, Thoughts?
Both things that you don't like are in its name, so I suppose it's an easy pass
snegron7 wrote:
I have been looking at the 16-35 PZ f4 , but there are two things I don't like about it; the fact that it is a power zoom instead of a regular zoom, and that it's 4.0.
p.12 #14 · New Lens: Tamron 20-40mm F/2.8 Di III VXD, Thoughts?
20-40 is definitely un-orthodox, just like the 35-150.
I do personally really like 20-40 for hybrid shooting; on 1635PZ I have to consciously pull back from 16 a little bit for ultra wide portraits and 2.8 makes me less likely to bring a 20 or 24 prime. Shame I just got my 1635 and now it's redundant.
I'm calling 20-40 the perfect toddler lens
therednik wrote:
I'd suggest going for the 16-35 if only to get access to a wider FOV. 20mm is a weird starting point for this new lens.
Re: distortion - Gerald Undone mentioned the 20-40mm having a fair bit of distortion and there aren't correction profiles out yet so you'll need to manually adjust.
p.12 #15 · New Lens: Tamron 20-40mm F/2.8 Di III VXD, Thoughts?
Ok, I have just a few here. I was hesitant to even share the last 5 because the lighting was really flat and terrible and could make any lens look bad. But Grandpa brought us covid with his visit, so it's been a pretty tough week to get out and do anything out of the house.
Direct conversions from RAW. No post production of any kind, except I raised the shadows +50 on #6. The built-in lens profile claims to just correct CA, but I don't know how much or how little. All the photos are at 40mm and wide open except #4 which is 20mm and f8.
I would normally edit all of these but I assumed folks want unedited shots.
Zoom ring:
This is probably my biggest gripe with the lens so far. I wish it were more damped. It's just a little too easy to turn, and I'm worried it will become easier over time. It's really easy to bump it and turn from 28 to 35 or something. I'm not sure why they made it this easy, maybe folks want that for video?
AF:
I think it's quite good. I'm sure my A7riii is the weakest link here, as I tried swapping between this and some of my other lenses in several shooting situations and they seemed to struggle with the same things. My oldest on his strider going full tilt down the street towards me was just a little too much for this lens, but I wasn't shooting in burst, so it may have done better if my settings were more ideal.
Sharpness:
I guess top tier lenses these days are pretty crazy, but on my 42mp sensor I think this lens is incredibly sharp. It just surprises me that the reviews say this lens is "ok" because I think it's out-resolving the sensor in the center of the image, at any aperture. But I guess the reviewers always have the nicest of the nice lenses and bodies as their personal baseline, so I'm sure this Tamron seems quite average to them.
Rendering:
In nice light I think this lens sings. I don't own any of the nicest GM glass, and maybe those can make a great image in crummy light, but my personal requirement is that if the light is nice, the image should look nice straight out of camera, and I think this lens can do that. My primes are all like that, but the lens this one replaced for me, the Zony 16-35, wasn't like that at all, I'm not entirely sure why.
I'm still getting used to using a zoom as my go-to everyday lens, I think that's going to take a while. I've found myself shooting at 40, 28 and 20 the most over the last week. I'm sure with practice it will become second nature.
p.12 #16 · New Lens: Tamron 20-40mm F/2.8 Di III VXD, Thoughts?
j4nu wrote:
Thanks for your feedback!
Could explain a bit more what you mean by "NEED editing" ?
Ok, I did a test for my own benefit and I'm going to take back what I said. I think that I happened to shoot my first shots on a very grey and overcast day so there was not a lot of contrast and the photos looked really blah. Today I took my 20-40 and 35-150 out head to head and shot in multiple lighting conditions. To my very unstudied eyes the biggest difference I can see is in the bokeh for only certain backgrounds. I put it in manual mode and tried to stand in the same place more or less and shot at 35 2.8. Attached the photos where I see the biggest difference.
PS still very happy with this lens maybe even more so after taking it head to head with my Tamron 35-150.
Edited to add: I didn't label the pictures i felt it would be self explanatory which one is which. Top is 35-150 and Bottom is 20-40.
p.12 #19 · New Lens: Tamron 20-40mm F/2.8 Di III VXD, Thoughts?
I'm about to get my 35-150 and this seems the perfect wide angle complement to that lens esp at only $699. I'd want to see reviews on the IQ and distortion at 20mm before putting an order in, though.
JVan_02 wrote:
Weeeeeow. The only thing that's very confusing for me is that they mention additional wide-angle macro mode in the press text but at the same time only put a ratio of 1:3.8... which, I mean it's not super great.
I think the interest for this type of lens goes up with the IQ. If this is supposed to be a small step up from a kit lens... eh. Dunno how much I'd bite on it to be honest. If they managed to get the level of quality we see in the 35-150 or the 28-75 G2 but with no dip on the long end of the range this is basically the perfect take anywhere zoom lens.
If it's really good, the only thing that would make me happier would be a Sony G badge . I'd definitely be using this thing enough to pay for that extra 5% quality, no questions asked. ...Show more →
p.12 #20 · New Lens: Tamron 20-40mm F/2.8 Di III VXD, Thoughts?
Very interested in how this performs on the high res Sony sensors. I'm selling my 24-105 G, not because I don't like it, but the Nikon 24-120 is even better from my testing (yes I run two systems). So I'm looking at existing line-up for altering. I think I will forgo a 24-70 and instead one possible travel kit would be 12-24G, 20-40, 35-150. However, I want the 70-200 GM II and I can use TC's, it's even lighter than the 35-150, and the 40-70 gap I could work around or just have a 50 prime. If I get the A7RV, a 1.5x crop at 40mm gives me 60mm FoV and still yields 27MP. If the Tammy took a 1.4x TC and focused closer at 150mm it would be in my kit in a heartbeat.
?
. I'd definitely be using this thing enough to pay for that extra 5% quality, no questions asked.