p.8 #1 · New Lens: Tamron 20-40mm F/2.8 Di III VXD, Thoughts?
grahamgibson wrote:
The 17-28/2.8 is like that too. Usually a design tradeoff to improve sharpness, but the bokeh suffers a bit. Seems like a reasonable choice for wider lenses, and you won't always notice the effect--only with very strong/contrasty highlights. It definitely turned me off of the original Tamron 28-75 though, so something to watch for in samples on this lens, mainly at 40mm wide open.
the bokeh looks fine outside of the night scene and contrived OOF (there was no in focus subject).
p.8 #2 · New Lens: Tamron 20-40mm F/2.8 Di III VXD, Thoughts?
Charlie N wrote:
the bokeh looks fine outside of the night scene and contrived OOF (there was no in focus subject).
Yep, exactly my thought. You don't always notice the effect. In most of my shots with the 17-28 the bokeh looks nice. You don't get a lot of blur at 28/2.8 though.
p.8 #4 · New Lens: Tamron 20-40mm F/2.8 Di III VXD, Thoughts?
j4nu wrote:
I'm not really expecting this lens to be a bokeh master, even on the long end...
Subject separation and the quality of the background is actually very important for such a lens. Why else would you buy this lens over a Sony 16-35 F4?
p.8 #5 · New Lens: Tamron 20-40mm F/2.8 Di III VXD, Thoughts?
Lower price, extra stop for low light but subject separation is not closely related to bokeh quality IMHO.
I mean at 40/2.8 it's gonna be hard to depend only on the lens to smooth out the background (more so on the subject/background distance), but it's still gonna blur more than 35/4.
p.8 #7 · New Lens: Tamron 20-40mm F/2.8 Di III VXD, Thoughts?
juicer wrote:
I would be surprised if the image quality isn't as good as the 17-28 or the G2 28-75. Tamron hasn't released a bad lens on the e mount.
This small and light lens can be a single lens for backcountry landscapes and astro. With the sigma 90 and some cropping you cover almost everything, fitting in a small hip pack. The 17-28 and CV50 is a similar set up but requires more lens changes and has less reach.
I'm way behind on this thread so excuse me !
For backcountry I'd be far happier with the 16-35/4 PZ as f2.8 isn't really necessary (and for me personally f2.8 is too slow for Astro, especially if using any FL bar 20mm on this lens). The PZ and a SY75 is a simple backpacking/hiking kit that covers most of the important focal lengths. Even more so if used on an A1 or A7r4 where switching to APSC is very feasible (better AF, metering and easier to compose than cropping in post).
p.8 #8 · New Lens: Tamron 20-40mm F/2.8 Di III VXD, Thoughts?
keepcoding wrote:
Subject separation and the quality of the background is actually very important for such a lens. Why else would you buy this lens over a Sony 16-35 F4?
Well that depends on its intended use doesn't it. Landscapes, architecture, street ... bokeh isn't usually a major consideration.
p.8 #9 · New Lens: Tamron 20-40mm F/2.8 Di III VXD, Thoughts?
keepcoding wrote:
Thanks for posting that. I was checking for weight (it seems around 360g) and weather sealing (yes).
However it's size and weight is very comparable to the PZ and at the price he quoted ($699, which will likely quickly drop after the first few months of release) at least initially, it's not far off the PZ (here in Shanghai).
So do you prefer a constant f2.8 and the 36mm to 40mm range ...or the 16-19mm ? For me it's no contest on an A7r4, I want the 16-19mm as 35mm to 40mm is virtually nothing and easily cropable on a high MP camera.
I'm sure this will find a market ... but more as a single (or one of two lenses) walkaround lens for people who prefer to start at 20mm than 24mm / 28mm.
p.8 #10 · New Lens: Tamron 20-40mm F/2.8 Di III VXD, Thoughts?
Yeah, it all depends on your intended usage.
For me, it has similar appeal like 50-400, where that 50mm on the wide-end makes it more of a "walkaround" lens. That's me though, I generally like to have a "normal" end on my zooms. I have 14-24DN too, but I just miss that long end on my regular, day-to-day shooting... 40/2.8 will also definitely give a nicer "portrait" look than 35/4.
The argument about 2.8 vs 4 is difficult as it, again, depends on your usage. When I'm on vacation in nice places, I generally find that I don't need larger apertures that much. However, around here we're just starting that special time of the year when I get to appreciate those subtle tonal transitions so every bit of extra light helps:
As for the price, in EU the difference is there: 45% (450 €). Of course, if you take it at face value, I guess it's nothing compared to more expensive hobbies .
p.8 #11 · New Lens: Tamron 20-40mm F/2.8 Di III VXD, Thoughts?
I think this lens will be a good "documentary" lens, i.e. taking photos of my family. I don't have much use for wider than 20mm there, 40mm gives me a nice normal FOV and the extra stop over the 16-35pz would be much appreciated when shooting indoors (often).
Admittedly a bit of a niche use case, but I like the idea of it.
p.8 #12 · New Lens: Tamron 20-40mm F/2.8 Di III VXD, Thoughts?
formula4speed wrote:
I think this lens will be a good "documentary" lens, i.e. taking photos of my family. I don't have much use for wider than 20mm there, 40mm gives me a nice normal FOV and the extra stop over the 16-35pz would be much appreciated when shooting indoors (often).
Admittedly a bit of a niche use case, but I like the idea of it.
I completely agree. While I do enjoy other facets of photography, the simple truth is that family photos are probably 80% of what I take, so a lens like this makes a ton of sense for me.
The extra stop of light and the super compact size are very attractive, and I personally see a pretty big difference between 35 and 40mm on the long end.
I think it's hard to understate how much the small size matters for some people. I know for me it's a major factor.
p.8 #13 · New Lens: Tamron 20-40mm F/2.8 Di III VXD, Thoughts?
Erichimedes wrote:
I completely agree. While I do enjoy other facets of photography, the simple truth is that family photos are probably 80% of what I take, so a lens like this makes a ton of sense for me.
The extra stop of light and the super compact size are very attractive, and I personally see a pretty big difference between 35 and 40mm on the long end.
I think it's hard to understate how much the small size matters for some people. I know for me it's a major factor.
Do you actually need wider than 24mm for family photos?
A 24/1.4 or 35/1.4 is a better fit for the indoor use case, and now sigma has a 24/1.4 which seems to do pretty well
p.8 #14 · New Lens: Tamron 20-40mm F/2.8 Di III VXD, Thoughts?
aCuria wrote:
Do you actually need wider than 24mm for family photos?
A 24/1.4 or 35/1.4 is a better fit for the indoor use case, and now sigma has a 24/1.4 which seems to do pretty well
I do, yes. A lot of our family outings are hikes/camping in the mountains and/or desert, and the wide end gives a sense of perspective and place. Not saying everyone will need it, but I'll be quite happy to have it.
While I'm really a prime shooter, and I'd like a faster 24mm eventually, the GM is twice as expensive as the Tamron, and the Sigma is almost twice the weight. The other thing about family is that no one waits up for dad while he's changing lenses from his CV 40 to his 24mm, so a zoom has a speed advantage that's quite important as well.
But all this is theoretical anyway, let's wait until these start to ship before debating the use case.
p.8 #15 · New Lens: Tamron 20-40mm F/2.8 Di III VXD, Thoughts?
Erichimedes wrote:
I do, yes. A lot of our family outings are hikes/camping in the mountains and/or desert, and the wide end gives a sense of perspective and place. Not saying everyone will need it, but I'll be quite happy to have it.
While I'm really a prime shooter, and I'd like a faster 24mm eventually, the GM is twice as expensive as the Tamron, and the Sigma is almost twice the weight. The other thing about family is that no one waits up for dad while he's changing lenses from his CV 40 to his 24mm, so a zoom has a speed advantage that's quite important as well.
But all this is theoretical anyway, let's wait until these start to ship before debating the use case....Show more →
A 20G seems like a fairly good option since you have a 40CV already and you are more of a prime shooter
p.8 #16 · New Lens: Tamron 20-40mm F/2.8 Di III VXD, Thoughts?
aCuria wrote:
Do you actually need wider than 24mm for family photos?
A 24/1.4 or 35/1.4 is a better fit for the indoor use case, and now sigma has a 24/1.4 which seems to do pretty well
My 35/1.8 is my go to lens, but I do somewhat regularly pull out my CV 21/3.5. I love the 21, but it's somewhat slow and manual focus brings its own challenges with toddlers. Generally I'll fire a few frames with the 21, but then switch back to the 35.
The 24/1.4 GM has been very tempting as well, but I think this zoom has the potential to be slightly more useful to me.
I've been a prime guy for a long time, but for family shoots I'm slowly accepting zooms can be very practical. The Tamron 28-200 has been pretty great for our outdoor adventures where I'd be stopping down my primes anyway.
p.8 #17 · New Lens: Tamron 20-40mm F/2.8 Di III VXD, Thoughts?
formula4speed wrote:
The 24/1.4 GM has been very tempting as well, but I think this zoom has the potential to be slightly more useful to me.
I've been a prime guy for a long time, but for family shoots I'm slowly accepting zooms can be very practical. The Tamron 28-200 has been pretty great for our outdoor adventures where I'd be stopping down my primes anyway.
Totally agree with this. I think that if I'm going to have a faster 24mm prime someday (currently have a 2.8) I'd like it to be at least two stops faster than this zoom to have a different enough use case.
I think it just comes down to the weight/range/speed of this Tamron happen to fit with what I was looking for, so I'm very interested. But the jury's still going to be out until I try it of course.
p.8 #19 · New Lens: Tamron 20-40mm F/2.8 Di III VXD, Thoughts?
I’ve been looking for something wider than my 24 GM, something with AF at 40mm to complement my CV 40, and something “video focused”.
I know this Tamron isn’t sexy, but it checks a lot of boxes off… I think the only draw back might be 20mm still might not be wide enough after all the stabilization and cropping.
p.8 #20 · New Lens: Tamron 20-40mm F/2.8 Di III VXD, Thoughts?
akashyap wrote:
I’ve been looking for something wider than my 24 GM, something with AF at 40mm to complement my CV 40, and something “video focused”.
I know this Tamron isn’t sexy, but it checks a lot of boxes off… I think the only draw back might be 20mm still might not be wide enough after all the stabilization and cropping.
16-35pz, not as sexy with f4
but did you say video? absolutely amazing for that.
.