p.3 #1 · New Lens: Tamron 20-40mm F/2.8 Di III VXD, Thoughts?
Hmmm, I guess this comes either from the focal length of Pancake lenses, or a design team trying to make a tiny 2.8 2X zoom. My kit spits at 28mm or 70mm, until the 35-150 arrives.
I don't see it replacing my 17-28 or for travel the sony 28-60. But lets wait and see, why tamron thought they could sell this.
p.3 #2 · New Lens: Tamron 20-40mm F/2.8 Di III VXD, Thoughts?
I've got the 17-28/2.8 and 28-200/2.8-5.6, with the 28-200 in use most of the time. But, thinking back to wandering places like Rome, Florence, Charleston, Washington, DC, a 20-40 might get almost all of the use and reduce the lens swaps a lot.
p.3 #3 · New Lens: Tamron 20-40mm F/2.8 Di III VXD, Thoughts?
Pixel Perfect wrote:
I hope that IQ is up there with the 17-28, but being touted for vlogging makes me think it won't be in same class. If it is however, I would consider one for sure as I think it's better pairing for my 12-24G than the 17-28 by a long way.
It definitely is NOT internal zoom from the image however.
3 lens travel combo would be maybe 20-40, 24-105, 100-400 or maybe 20-40, 35-150, 200-600.
Sony also touts the 16-35 PZ for vlogging and no-one disputes its IQ. And given Tamron's track record of making high-quality E-Mount zooms (28-75, 28-75 G2, 17-28, 35-150, 70-180...) I really don't think there is any reason to worry that the 20-40/2.8 won't be in the same class.
As for a travel lens combo, you can now do it with 2 lenses with Tamron's parallel announcement this week: 20-40 + 50-400 - 20-400mm zoom range in around 1.5kg, quite incredible really..
p.3 #4 · New Lens: Tamron 20-40mm F/2.8 Di III VXD, Thoughts?
Slalom wrote:
Hmmm, I guess this comes either from the focal length of Pancake lenses, or a design team trying to make a tiny 2.8 2X zoom. My kit spits at 28mm or 70mm, until the 35-150 arrives.
I don't see it replacing my 17-28 or for travel the sony 28-60. But lets wait and see, why tamron thought they could sell this.
For travel, if you have a high resolution body, the 20-40 is somewhat more versatile than the 28-60. The 20-40 in crop mode gives you 60/4.2 at the long end, and I'd be surprised if its IQ doesn't surpass that of the Sony.
p.3 #5 · New Lens: Tamron 20-40mm F/2.8 Di III VXD, Thoughts?
My theory is Tamron's lineup are designs they offered to other companies like Sony, but which were rejected.
I suspect the Nikon 24-50 and Sony 28-60 are Tamrons, but the contracts they have been making are exclusive. So they aren't allowed to sell the same design to multiple manufacturers or put their own brand on it.
It is too bad it won't be an up-to-date Sony branded lens like the 28-60. Most likely it won't support faster than 15 FPS or aperture drive.
p.3 #7 · New Lens: Tamron 20-40mm F/2.8 Di III VXD, Thoughts?
aCuria wrote:
A 16-35/2.8 seems like a much more desirable zoom range than this
The image quality needs to be top shelf for this to be worth it
I'd say 16-35/2.8 doesn't fit Tamron's MO and you may be better off waiting for a Sony 16-35 GM II.
If you look at most of the zooms Tamron have released thus far on the E-Mount, they retain top-notch IQ whilst sacrificing some focal length range vs "traditional" FL ranges in order to achieve quite significant size and weight reductions (e.g. 16-35 -> 16-28, 24-70 -> 28-75, 70-200 -> 70-180).
p.3 #8 · New Lens: Tamron 20-40mm F/2.8 Di III VXD, Thoughts?
maestrofilms wrote:
Lots of people have talked about replacing their 70-200 with the 35-150 and finding they don't miss the extra 50. High resolution cameras have changed how people are approaching their work.
Yes, indeed, and a lot of people (me included) have decided not to, preferring the additional reach of a 70-200. I fully appreciate that everyone has different needs and that Tamron has given us one more option to consider. If I had a spare couple grand I might get a 35-150 and see if I could adapt, but for now I’ll stick with what I’m used to, knowing that I’m someone who regularly uses the 150-200mm range of a 70-200 and regularly dips under 35mm with a 24-70.
p.3 #9 · New Lens: Tamron 20-40mm F/2.8 Di III VXD, Thoughts?
Thank you Tamron, I am really looking forward to this lens.
For me the perfect compromise.
My most used focal lengths for landscape and travel photography are 20/21mm - 35mm - 40mm, I usually use fixed focal lengths from Voigtlander for this.
I particularly like the filter diameter of 67mm. This allows me to use a small and compact filter set (e.g. the Nisi M75) and saves a lot of space in my backpack and money.
According to the information provided by Tamron it should also weigh less than 400 grams and be very compact.
In addition, the Tamron 35-150mm convinces me extremely. If this new wide-angle zoom is anywhere near as good...
And it should also have the same sun stars from about f9 please...
In principle, in the future I will only need this one lens for landscape photography or for climbing attached to a A7c,...
Combined with the 35-150 the perfect setup for long trips.
p.3 #10 · New Lens: Tamron 20-40mm F/2.8 Di III VXD, Thoughts?
I got so excited when I saw this lens on SAR yesterday.
40mm may well be my favorite focal length, and I like wide stuff for hiking. My current hiking kit is the Zony 16-35 and Batis 40mm, along with a light 90 or 135 sometimes. I just hope the IQ is there, and if it is, I'll probably sell my Zony 16-35 and replace it with this lens and a CV 15mm Heliar, dropping 200g from my kit and gaining speed from 20-35mm. Plus I can choose to leave behind either one, and I'd much rather have just the 15mm or just the zoom.
This looks like it could be a perfect one-lens solution for when I need a much lighter kit for bike rides or backpacking with the kids too.
I'm much more of a prime user, because historically zooms cover too much range that I find useless, and are way to big/heavy. If the IQ is there, this lens may well make a zoom user out of me.
p.3 #11 · New Lens: Tamron 20-40mm F/2.8 Di III VXD, Thoughts?
Understandable. It's not for me either. A standard zoom and a 135 that I can crop out to 200 is my happy place.
wordfool wrote:
Yes, indeed, and a lot of people (me included) have decided not to, preferring the additional reach of a 70-200. I fully appreciate that everyone has different needs and that Tamron has given us one more option to consider. If I had a spare couple grand I might get a 35-150 and see if I could adapt, but for now I’ll stick with what I’m used to, knowing that I’m someone who regularly uses the 150-200mm range of a 70-200 and regularly dips under 35mm with a 24-70.
p.3 #12 · New Lens: Tamron 20-40mm F/2.8 Di III VXD, Thoughts?
ryanli wrote:
For travel, if you have a high resolution body, the 20-40 is somewhat more versatile than the 28-60. The 20-40 in crop mode gives you 60/4.2 at the long end, and I'd be surprised if its IQ doesn't surpass that of the Sony.
Or the Sigma 20/1.4, which is a faster 60/4 equivalent on the long end, and significantly faster at 20mm
p.3 #13 · New Lens: Tamron 20-40mm F/2.8 Di III VXD, Thoughts?
wordfool wrote:
Yes, indeed, and a lot of people (me included) have decided not to, preferring the additional reach of a 70-200. I fully appreciate that everyone has different needs and that Tamron has given us one more option to consider. If I had a spare couple grand I might get a 35-150 and see if I could adapt, but for now I’ll stick with what I’m used to, knowing that I’m someone who regularly uses the 150-200mm range of a 70-200 and regularly dips under 35mm with a 24-70.
Exactly this… and I have been cropping from 200mm, when you do this the Sony is an entire stop faster (300/4 vs 300/5.6 equivalent)
p.3 #14 · New Lens: Tamron 20-40mm F/2.8 Di III VXD, Thoughts?
It’s impressively small and light for the f/2.8 zoom that it is. Pretty much the same size as the Sony 16-35mm PZ, which is an f/4. It’s noticeably smaller and lighter than the Tamron 17-28mm. Roughly the same size and weight as the Sony 20mm f/1.8 G, just to put it in perspective.
Sony 16-35mm f/2.8 680g, 122mm long
Sony 16-35mm f/4 PZ 353g, 88mm long
Tamron 17-28mm f/2.8 420g, 99mm long
Tamron 20-40mm f/2.8 365g, 87mm long
Sony 20mm f/1.8 G 373g, 85mm long
Aug 18, 2022 at 12:27 PM
one_abouve_all Offline • [X]
p.3 #15 · New Lens: Tamron 20-40mm F/2.8 Di III VXD, Thoughts?
mudlake wrote:
That’s definitely an opinion. One I disagree with, like your opinions in other threads where you say Sony GM lenses are “flat”. We will have to agree to disagree.
Of course! Different people have different tastes.
p.3 #16 · New Lens: Tamron 20-40mm F/2.8 Di III VXD, Thoughts?
martini_shooter wrote:
It’s impressively small and light for the f/2.8 zoom that it is. Pretty much the same size as the Sony 16-35mm PZ, which is an f/4. It’s noticeably smaller and lighter than the Tamron 17-28mm. Roughly the same size and weight as the Sony 20mm f/1.8 G, just to put it in perspective.
Sony 16-35mm f/2.8 680g, 122mm long
Sony 16-35mm f/4 PZ 353g, 88mm long
Tamron 17-28mm f/2.8 420g, 99mm long
Tamron 20-40mm f/2.8 365g, 87mm long
Sony 20mm f/1.8 G 373g, 85mm long
Looks like they achieved that by making it an external zoom, but I honestly don't care that much. Size matters most to me when it's put in my bag, so it seems like a sensible compromise. The weight is impressive.
p.3 #17 · New Lens: Tamron 20-40mm F/2.8 Di III VXD, Thoughts?
Oddly enough, for how I use my lenses, since 20mm makes me quite happy on the wide, and 40 is my favorite prime.. this could replace my 16-35PZ, 28-75g2, and even 24GM. I doubt I'd ditch all of those for this, but Tamron really makes you think over your whole lens lineup. This plus their new 50-400 or a 70-200 could cover a lot of ground really well.
p.3 #19 · New Lens: Tamron 20-40mm F/2.8 Di III VXD, Thoughts?
Younjulius wrote:
To me, it’s a round 2 of tanrom 28-75 f2.8 g2 vs sony 24-105g f4.
While I like 2.8 aperture, I need to see the image quality and resolution difference before picking between this lens and Sony 16-35pz.
Yeah, I had kinda/sorta narrowed my wide zoom search to the 17-28/2.8 vs. the 16-35PZ but this throws it a bit...I'm not a big ultrawide user and I do like the 35-40 end. So, as you said, it's now time to see how IQ measures up when it's released.
p.3 #20 · New Lens: Tamron 20-40mm F/2.8 Di III VXD, Thoughts?
It's easy for me, I'd much rather have the 16mm end than the 40mm end or f/2.8. I have a bunch of lenses that cover 40mm, including the tiny 40G, but not 16mm. Good to have another option for folks who feel differently, though. It's impressive how Tamron can suss out these little underserved niches with their lens designs.
- 20-400mm zoom range in around 1.5kg, quite incredible really..