p.5 #1 · New Lens: Tamron 20-40mm F/2.8 Di III VXD, Thoughts?
Ooh, thanks! I missed that.
j4nu wrote:
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.
p.5 #2 · New Lens: Tamron 20-40mm F/2.8 Di III VXD, Thoughts?
Dave McKeegan has a new video out regarding Tamron "Hitting It Out Of The Park". This new 20-40 paired with the 35-150 would make a great travel combo. And Dave said it would be nice if Tamron came out with a 10-20 f2.8 and have another "holy trinity" of lenses.
Also he mentioned since Tamron is on a roll that a 120-400 f4 or 120-300 f2.8 would be nice!
p.5 #3 · New Lens: Tamron 20-40mm F/2.8 Di III VXD, Thoughts?
nhsonyshooter wrote:
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
I just watched a video from Dave McKeegan and he talked about the new 20-40 and mentioned the 50-400. He was suggesting Tamron come out with a 120-300 f2.8 or 120-400 f4 as well as a 10-20 f2.8 for another Tamron "holy trinity". 10-20, 20-40 and 35-150.
p.5 #4 · New Lens: Tamron 20-40mm F/2.8 Di III VXD, Thoughts?
If they get the image quality top notch, this will be a very interesting alternative to a 24-70/2.8 for travel.
I would pair it with either a 50GM or 85/1.8 and be pretty happy. Or…to be really light and flexible, pair it with the 50/1.8 (which is actually a good little lens) and the Voigtlander 15/4.5. The 20-40/2.8 would live on the camera unless I needed really wide or fast aperture. Hmm…
p.5 #5 · New Lens: Tamron 20-40mm F/2.8 Di III VXD, Thoughts?
This reminds me of my old Canon 20-35 2.8L I had in my Canon days...a value "L" lens when I was starting out, and I loved it for travel & indoor events (within a house etc.). The size/weight were a big plus. The issue for me will be if it'd see enough use to justify as I have a 24 GM, 28-60, as well as a 35 2.8. One could make the argument that in the right scenario (which have come up) this single lens would make more sense than all 3 of those. I'll wait on reviews and figure out what I want to do, but I'm definitely interested due to the size/weight.
p.5 #6 · New Lens: Tamron 20-40mm F/2.8 Di III VXD, Thoughts?
HelBen85 wrote:
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.
Can you use the m75 kit on full frame without mechanical vignetting? I tried asking on another forum, and it is supposedly made for aps-c.
Also... All these lens choices are anxiety inducing.
This almost makes me regret buying the 28-75mm g2 and the 17-28mm.
I personally love the rendering of the G2... Great color/contrast/sharpnest, and albeit being 2.8 it can give this pretty amazing 3d look in certain situations. It was worth all the days looking through comparisons and sharpness tests.
I do wish it started at 24mm though... Even if they had to reduce to 60-65mm to keep the size small with 67mm filters.
The 17-28mm is good enough for an uw zoom, but it is definetely not on the same level.
The main issue for me is that after 3 months I never used it for real, only for a few test shots.
The fl range is too short in the long range to be usable too me.
Whenever things get too tight I think about the 2 minutes that it would take to change lenses placing the backpack on the ground, blowing dust out of the sensor/lenses to be sure, to take only a couple of shots before having to change to the G2 again due to being too short on the long end, so I end up using 28mm on the G2 instead anyway.
The 20-40mm seems to be almost perfect and would pair well with the 50-400mm (does anyone knows of a 70-200/300mm that is affordable and has great sharpness across the frame? The tamron 70-180mm has soft corners and the 70-300 is even worse). But I do share the feeling that it would be much better if it went up to 50mm as I also use 50mm a lot.
What do you guys think? Would you replace your 17-28mm with it?
p.5 #7 · New Lens: Tamron 20-40mm F/2.8 Di III VXD, Thoughts?
For me personally, there is a huge difference between 28 and 35. 35 is my favorite focal length for people photography. 28 has always been no-mans land for me. Not quite wide enough for architectural photography. Not tight enough for people photography.
If this lens is similar in price/IQ to the 17-28, then it could be an awesome one-lens solution. Where as, if I had the 17-28, I'd still need to carry along an additional prime to take pics of my family.
p.5 #8 · New Lens: Tamron 20-40mm F/2.8 Di III VXD, Thoughts?
I don’t personally see this lens replacing my 17-28/2.8, since I think I would still want a 35-55mm fast prime—either the 35GM, CV40, or 55/1.8. It’s easy to crop in a bit at 28mm, whereas stitching wider can be difficult.
p.5 #9 · New Lens: Tamron 20-40mm F/2.8 Di III VXD, Thoughts?
vindellama wrote:
Can you use the m75 kit on full frame without mechanical vignetting? I tried asking on another forum, and it is supposedly made for aps-c.
The NISI homepage does not state that the M75 is only recommended for APS-C.
It only says that (slight) vignetting cannot be ruled out for lenses with a focal length wider than 24mm.
I have used the M75 very often with my Voigtlander fixed focal lengths 21mm, 35mm, 40mm as well as with the Tamron 70-180mm (the latter has a 67mm filter diameter) and in practice I cannot notice any significant deterioration in the vignetting that is already present with these lenses.
Here is a picture taken with the 70-180mm and the NISI m75 kit.
But I can't say how it looks with a 20mm lens (and 67mm filter diameter), I could actually try that with my Sony 20mm 1.8 G...
However, I suspect that I can use the M75 kit with the new Tamron 20-40mm without any major problems.
For me, this is one of the most important criteria for travel lenses. The M75 kit with the most important filters is so small and compact that I can always take it with me, it fits in a larger trouser pocket.
p.5 #10 · New Lens: Tamron 20-40mm F/2.8 Di III VXD, Thoughts?
I am happy to see a company making a wider standard zoom. I have been wishing for a 20-50mm f4 for years. This could be a very convenient lens. Personally it's going to come down to IQ for me. As long as they didn't make to many trades off in IQ to make it small, light and fast, I will probably pick it up.
p.5 #13 · New Lens: Tamron 20-40mm F/2.8 Di III VXD, Thoughts?
Yeah, I think I've talked myself into trying this one out at least. It's not what I wanted, but I just need something longer than my Sigma 14-24, which ends up being unused most of the time. I have a feeling the 20-40 will be a step up in IQ compared to 17-28 or Sigma 16-28 (which would be tempting, but as shown in the other thread, it looses sharpness a bit, but visibly, on the long end).
p.5 #14 · New Lens: Tamron 20-40mm F/2.8 Di III VXD, Thoughts?
j4nu wrote:
Yeah, I think I've talked myself into trying this one out at least. It's not what I wanted, but I just need something longer than my Sigma 14-24, which ends up being unused most of the time. I have a feeling the 20-40 will be a step up in IQ compared to 17-28 or Sigma 16-28 (which would be tempting, but as shown in the other thread, it looses sharpness a bit, but visibly, on the long end).
Same. I'll get this. I think I'm ok with sharpness drop-off at the long end, since that's what I'll be using on people. I'd much rather have it keep sharpness at the wide end since that's the landacape/architecture focal length.
Also somebody mentioned this earlier. Things start getting funky wider then 20mm. I took a 15mm on a trip recently and wound up shooting it cropped the whole time because the distortion looked bad.
p.5 #16 · New Lens: Tamron 20-40mm F/2.8 Di III VXD, Thoughts?
That was my concern reading Tamron’s marketing… seems targeting video content creators more than photographers. Given weight (365g) and filter size and physical size constraints I imagine optical quality may not be top notch but I’d love to be wrong as this would be a near perfect one lens solution for me (though I’d prefer a bit faster, even a half stop).
Kudos to Tamron for innovating on zoom ranges. I’d still like a 24-50 f2.8 more than this lens.
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.5 #17 · New Lens: Tamron 20-40mm F/2.8 Di III VXD, Thoughts?
snegron7 wrote:
Has anyone heard anything about a release date yet?
Wondering the same. I'm kind of dying to know the price as well. The size, weight, speed, and range are so perfect for my needs that I've almost decided I'm probably going to get it regardless of how well it tests. Tamron's releases have been good enough for me in the last few years, so I'm assuming this will be the same. The only possibly deal breaker would be massive distortion at the wide end, but even then...
p.5 #20 · New Lens: Tamron 20-40mm F/2.8 Di III VXD, Thoughts?
Here is why this lens attracts me and then - once I go through the logic - repels me.
Assuming it is very high quality, it becomes an excellent, small bridge lens between a long tele and an UWA. If - for instance - I traveled with the 12-24 and 35-150 (or 50-400 - or perhaps even the 100-400); this small lens could bridge the two without adding much weight; and make a great walk around/street lens in the process (28 and 40 being my favorite walk around Focal Lengths).
However... One of the major attractions to the 35-150 and/or 50-400 is you can pair it with an UWA - like a 16-35 - and have a great two lens solution. If I am going to add a 4th lens, why not a 24-70, 24-105 or 28-75? They give a lot more flexibility; and the 28-75 G2 is light, reasonably priced, and provides portrait length (I recently sold it for the 24-70 GM II).
I guess my point is this is attractive - as any new focal length and small lens might be - but it doesn't solve any problems for me unless it ends up being so darn good, it becomes my go to street lens with an A7C.
