p.4 #2 · New Lens: Tamron 20-40mm F/2.8 Di III VXD, Thoughts?
itai195 wrote:
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.
Just spent 4 days on the west coast of Vancouver Island with my 16-35 and the majority of the images were towards the wide end. For me, the 25mm to 85mm images are people oriented and are prime material for the added extra speed.
p.4 #3 · New Lens: Tamron 20-40mm F/2.8 Di III VXD, Thoughts?
Dave Sanders wrote:
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.
Dave
Yeah I was gonna point out the same thing.
I have the Tamron 17-28 and 28-200 combo for when I travel, and am very happy with them.
I also have a set of compact/light primes:
Voigtlander FE 15/4.5
Voigtlander FE 21/3.5
Samyang FE 35/2.8
Zony FE 55/1.8
Samyang FE 75/1.8
and a Sony 100mm STF.
The new Tamron 20-40/2.8 could realistically only replace the 21mm and 35mm lenses. I don’t think it would replace the 17-28mm because I’d always need a second compact zoom lens to cover longer focal lengths beyond 40mm (like the 28-200mm). So the 20-40mm doesn’t fit my lens kit, but it would partner the upcoming 50-400mm pretty well though.
p.4 #5 · New Lens: Tamron 20-40mm F/2.8 Di III VXD, Thoughts?
I think the compactness of this zoom is under-appreciated by some here. It's f/2.8 and only 365g and 8.6cm length, compared to 680g and 12.2cm length for the Sony 16-35mm f/2.8.. so the Tamron is roughly half the weight of the Sony! This of course comes at the cost of wide-angle coverage. No free lunch in optics
Personally, I think this is a pretty brilliant proposition for travel esp. city trips. Much more useful than e.g. the Nikon 24-50mm (which is also f/4.-6.3). Wide-angle <20mm is quite specialized anyway and 40mm vs 35mm is nice to have (50mm would have been even better, but then again not as compact & lightweight or not as fast).
p.4 #8 · New Lens: Tamron 20-40mm F/2.8 Di III VXD, Thoughts?
I think it's a case of different expectations. I was also expecting a 16-35GM competitor but we got, well, again a pretty unique lens. I think it will be priced similarly to 17-28 and it will sell well because, while I'd prefer Tamron went for range/aperture, a lot of people will appreciate the super small size and light weight.
I wanted to replace my Sigma 14-24 with something "more general purpose", but I might try the Tamron anyway...
p.4 #9 · New Lens: Tamron 20-40mm F/2.8 Di III VXD, Thoughts?
First lens in awhile I have been excited about. 20-40 is perfect. Once you get past 20 things start looking unnatural in my opinion, and the size appears great for a 2.8. Hey, pair it with a 50-400 for hiking and your all set
p.4 #10 · New Lens: Tamron 20-40mm F/2.8 Di III VXD, Thoughts?
Tamron is marketing this lens as an alternative to a 24-70/f2.8 zoom, not a 16-35f/2.8 or even the 16-35/f4 some are comparing it too; the idea being a smaller/lighter/faster/cheaper standard zoom, that would suit landscape photographers or videographers, who want a one-lens solution. They even mention cropping to aps-c in their marketing blurb, to get the extra reach to 60mm if occasionally required.
Personally, as a landscape photographer, a 24-70/f2.8 has always been a problem as a one lens solution, as I mostly use the wide to mid end, and not having that extra reach to 20mm is a big issue. The wider f4 zooms obviously cover this, but are less good for astro, or shallow DOF work at the long end; so, I think this does hit a sweet spot of sorts...
p.4 #11 · New Lens: Tamron 20-40mm F/2.8 Di III VXD, Thoughts?
I recently purchased the Tamron 24mm f2.8, and it performs very well on my A7c. This new 20-40mm f2.8 looks promising. If the price is right I'll buy it. It would make the perfect "wide to normal" travel lens for my A7c.
p.4 #13 · New Lens: Tamron 20-40mm F/2.8 Di III VXD, Thoughts?
I wonder if this lens will take advantage of their lens utility software and what kinds of automation they could involve. I’m still exploring it with the 35-150 which I think it would pair nicely with if it’s image quality is on the same level. I don’t shoot wide often and even a 20mm doesn’t always find it’s way into the bag.
p.4 #14 · New Lens: Tamron 20-40mm F/2.8 Di III VXD, Thoughts?
Long ago I tried the Pentax 20-40mm for APS-C but the 30-60mm FF equivalent focal lengths just did not work for me. This full frame 20-40mm actually intrigues me. If image quality is perfect across the abbreviated focal range this could be very compelling. I rarely want anything faster than f/2.8. So if this little thing acts like a small bag of primes (20, 24, 28, 35, 40mm) I would be very interested. Tamron's current crop of E-mount glass is really impressive. I like what they are doing.
p.4 #15 · New Lens: Tamron 20-40mm F/2.8 Di III VXD, Thoughts?
This lens looks really promising!! the only downside is... wait till fall!! I'm looking for a wide angle to pair with 35GM and tamron 70-180, this could be the lens, as an alternative to 20 1.8 or 17-28!!
p.4 #16 · New Lens: Tamron 20-40mm F/2.8 Di III VXD, Thoughts?
I think this will be a fairly inexpensive lens (for a 2.8 zoom); I'd bet under 800$, and potentially under 700$.
I am always tempted by compact lenses - and new zoom ranges - so I got excited at the new offering, but as I reflected on it, realized it wouldn't make sense for me. Of course everyone has different needs.
Let's assume for a second it is paired with a 35-150. If you like shooting wide it doesn't really get you wide enough, so you'd be better off with one of the 16/17-28/35 options.
I thought of it as a lightweight go between for a 12-24 and 35-150/75-150, but really if you're going to do that, why not a 24-70 or 28-75? I guess it would work if you really don't prefer longer focal lengths, but then why not just stick to a wide?
As a single walk around ultra-lightweight lens for an A7C it makes some sense and covers two of my favorite focal lengths (28 and 40), but so do the other options above.
I don't think it's a bad lens, and I always like new ranges and options, but as another poster noted, I would have recommended it either reach 50 or start at 18 or wider. At 20-40 it is neither wide enough or long enough to replace other zooms; so I'd probably rather have a good prime.
p.4 #17 · New Lens: Tamron 20-40mm F/2.8 Di III VXD, Thoughts?
So we see it's small and light. For me the question is sharpness and distortion (rendering comes in there too, but most likely I'd use this for stopped down landscape shooting). If it is sharp through the range, without going overboard on distortion, I'd be interested.
I love my Sigma 14-24, but there are a lot of places I shoot where 20-40 would work great.
p.4 #18 · New Lens: Tamron 20-40mm F/2.8 Di III VXD, Thoughts?
tsdevine wrote:
So we see it's small and light. For me the question is sharpness and distortion (rendering comes in there too, but most likely I'd use this for stopped down landscape shooting). If it is sharp through the range, without going overboard on distortion, I'd be interested.
I love my Sigma 14-24, but there are a lot of places I shoot where 20-40 would work great.
I almost want this lens to have a higher asking price for a Tamron lens with absolutely tremendous IQ chops—similar to their 35-150. While I don't think "vlogger" means a bad quality lens anymore (see the 16-35 f4 G) I'm not so sure it means that a company is going to put forth their absolute best effort.
Looking more forward to the reviews for this lens than I have been for any lens in some time.
p.4 #19 · New Lens: Tamron 20-40mm F/2.8 Di III VXD, Thoughts?
Agree, the cheaper it is.....the less I'm interested. (Under the premise that you get what you pay for.)
JVan_02 wrote:
I almost want this lens to have a higher asking price for a Tamron lens with absolutely tremendous IQ chops—similar to their 35-150. While I don't think "vlogger" means a bad quality lens anymore (see the 16-35 f4 G) I'm not so sure it means that a company is going to put forth their absolute best effort.
Looking more forward to the reviews for this lens than I have been for any lens in some time.
p.4 #20 · New Lens: Tamron 20-40mm F/2.8 Di III VXD, Thoughts?
There are first shots from this lens available (42 and 24 mpix AFAIR), I pasted the link at the top of this page, that give "some" indication of its IQ.
