p.10 #1 · New Lens: Tamron 20-40mm F/2.8 Di III VXD, Thoughts?
j4nu wrote:
That's the best reviewer out there for portraits . Not sure what she's going to do with 20-40 though...
I too was initially surprised she reviewed this lens, but in the video she has demonstrated very well how versatile the 20-40 range is for environmental portraits, full body, half body, and head-and-shoulder shots.
p.10 #2 · New Lens: Tamron 20-40mm F/2.8 Di III VXD, Thoughts?
Yeah, that's the issue - she can make any lens work .
Well, we know now it's not a bokeh master but I'm still wondering how usable 20-40 is on the long end.
I guess I could get 17-28 quite a bit cheaper but I have a feeling I'd like 20-40 more... 16-35 would probably be even better as a general purpose lens but I'm not entirely convinced by the price/performance ratio of the GM nor the f/4 (dark months ahead) of the G/PZ... If the bokeh of the latter is actually considerably better than the Tamron, then it might be a better choice overall.
p.10 #3 · New Lens: Tamron 20-40mm F/2.8 Di III VXD, Thoughts?
j4nu wrote:
....16-35 would probably be even better as a general purpose lens but I'm not entirely convinced by the price/performance ratio of the GM nor the f/4 (dark months ahead) of the G/PZ... If the bokeh of the latter is actually considerably better than the Tamron, then it might be a better choice overall.
The separation offered by 35mm f2.8 is even less than 40mm f2.8. Entrance pupils of 12.5mm vs. 14.25mm, so not a huge difference, but enough to matter. It's possible the GM has smoother bokeh simply because there's less of it.
I am also slightly concerned how usable it will be at 40, but I think I'll get my copy in and try it before making the final decision. I don't think I'll be able to decide from reading reviews. I found my copy of the Zony 16-35 almost unusable at 35 wide open, but if I'm honest I could never really put my finger on why. There was ok sharpness there, but the images felt lifeless to me, and I only liked using that end of the zoom stopped down. That's not really an option for my use case with this Tamron, but I have higher hopes for it.
Edit: Hmm, having gone through these photos I think I have to join the bad bokeh crowd. I'm not sure Tamron did the right thing here. It looks like typical wide-angle bokeh, but at 40mm. This kinda defeats its purpose as wide-to-normal lens, if you want to use the normal range for (env) portraits to get that nice blur (which at 40/2.8 will not be that plentiful anyway) ...
p.10 #8 · New Lens: Tamron 20-40mm F/2.8 Di III VXD, Thoughts?
Kenmore Camera here in Seattle shows it in stock. I’m was tempted to get on day one as I like the range and size, but agree with j4nu that bokeh at 40mm looks bad, and it needed to nail 40mm/f2.8 to be a useful lens for me.
p.10 #9 · New Lens: Tamron 20-40mm F/2.8 Di III VXD, Thoughts?
The examples from the polish review make this look like a fun and useful lens that would work well for both family pics and travel. I think in actual use, the bokeh from this lens would be totally acceptable and not even something that would bother me most of the time. Like this shot at 40/2.8, it looks nice and very sharp details on her face:
I am still considering the 20-40. Something like CV15 + 20-40 + 50/1.2 + 70-180/2.8 would be a pretty fun setup. I typically pack 17-28 + (35GM or CV40) + 70-180 right now.
p.10 #10 · New Lens: Tamron 20-40mm F/2.8 Di III VXD, Thoughts?
B&H just hit my credit card for the preorder. I expect that I'll see a tracking number soon.
I have high hopes for it. I never liked the soap bubble bokeh on the gen 1 28-75 and it looks like this lens may show some of that when provoked. We'll see if it is enough to bother me in every day shooting.
p.10 #11 · New Lens: Tamron 20-40mm F/2.8 Di III VXD, Thoughts?
grahamgibson wrote:
The examples from the polish review make this look like a fun and useful lens that would work well for both family pics and travel. I think in actual use, the bokeh from this lens would be totally acceptable and not even something that would bother me most of the time. Like this shot at 40/2.8, it looks nice and very sharp details on her face:
I am still considering the 20-40. Something like CV15 + 20-40 + 50/1.2 + 70-180/2.8 would be a pretty fun setup. I typically pack 17-28 + (35GM or CV40) + 70-180 right now.
Thanks for the link to that review, I agree the bokeh in that picture is totally acceptable. I think it will certainly be a mixed bag, although I'm going to try and be optimistic about it until I try it.
I am planning on pairing this with the CV15, actually. That lens should be showing up tomorrow, fingers crossed I got a good one. I haven't decided exactly what the best mate on the long end will be, but for now my Canon nFD 135/3.5 should work nice for landscape/hiking etc.
In case anyone was wondering, I had to call B&H about an unrelated matter just a few minutes ago, and the rep told me that they have not received any lenses from Tamron yet, but that they have quite a few on order. He also told me I'm near the front of the line
EDIT: I just went through the rest of the review on the Polish site, and I actually don't find many of those pictures disagreeable at all.
p.10 #14 · New Lens: Tamron 20-40mm F/2.8 Di III VXD, Thoughts?
grahamgibson wrote:
The examples from the polish review make this look like a fun and useful lens that would work well for both family pics and travel. I think in actual use, the bokeh from this lens would be totally acceptable and not even something that would bother me most of the time. Like this shot at 40/2.8, it looks nice and very sharp details on her face:
I am still considering the 20-40. Something like CV15 + 20-40 + 50/1.2 + 70-180/2.8 would be a pretty fun setup. I typically pack 17-28 + (35GM or CV40) + 70-180 right now.
I think personally I prefer your current set up. The 17-20mm infinitely more useful (to me) than 30-40mm which is readily cropped on a high MP camera.
p.10 #15 · New Lens: Tamron 20-40mm F/2.8 Di III VXD, Thoughts?
grahamgibson wrote:
The examples from the polish review make this look like a fun and useful lens that would work well for both family pics and travel. I think in actual use, the bokeh from this lens would be totally acceptable and not even something that would bother me most of the time. Like this shot at 40/2.8, it looks nice and very sharp details on her face:
I am still considering the 20-40. Something like CV15 + 20-40 + 50/1.2 + 70-180/2.8 would be a pretty fun setup. I typically pack 17-28 + (35GM or CV40) + 70-180 right now.
You can run 3 lenses instead of 4 and still cover this range
p.10 #16 · New Lens: Tamron 20-40mm F/2.8 Di III VXD, Thoughts?
j4nu wrote:
No sight in EU, keep us posted please .
Will do! I'm planning on posting my own thoughts on this lens once I'm able to use it a bit.
Frogfish wrote:
I think personally I prefer your current set up. The 17-20mm infinitely more useful (to me) than 30-40mm which is readily cropped on a high MP camera.
That's why this new lens is so great. It gives us options. Everyone wants something different.
p.10 #17 · New Lens: Tamron 20-40mm F/2.8 Di III VXD, Thoughts?
Adorama is shipping got a tracking #. This focal range is something I've been waiting for since I switched to Sony. Plan to just leave this on the A7c. Can't wait
p.10 #18 · New Lens: Tamron 20-40mm F/2.8 Di III VXD, Thoughts?
Frogfish wrote:
I think personally I prefer your current set up. The 17-20mm infinitely more useful (to me) than 30-40mm which is readily cropped on a high MP camera.
I'm thinking the same. I find I like the flexibility of zooms at the ends of my focal range, and a fast 35-50mm prime feels flexible enough in the middle.
Although I do have a CV15 anyways; it's just such a neat small lens. The alternate 3-lens setup that aCuria suggested is also very good (CV15 + 35GM + 70-180).
p.10 #19 · New Lens: Tamron 20-40mm F/2.8 Di III VXD, Thoughts?
Got mine delivered today, first impression pretty good! Has the potential to replace both my 17-28 and 16-35PZ
Build quality not much better than the 1st gen Tamron FE's. The new black color is nice; rubber ring also offer a lot more grip now. The zoom ring on my copy is very light. Not loose, just light and even resistance which is always nice. As a result you can quite quickly pull from 20 to 40. As a unintended consequence of such quick focal pull, my A1 AF-C will initially lose focus (medium settings etc.). Noticeable focus breath at 40mm too. Have not noticed much if any focus hunting.
p.10 #20 · New Lens: Tamron 20-40mm F/2.8 Di III VXD, Thoughts?
nloth wrote:
Got mine delivered today, first impression pretty good! Has the potential to replace both my 17-28 and 16-35PZ
Build quality not much better than the 1st gen Tamron FE's. The new black color is nice; rubber ring also offer a lot more grip now. The zoom ring on my copy is very light. Not loose, just light and even resistance which is always nice. As a result you can quite quickly pull from 20 to 40. As a unintended consequence of such quick focal pull, my A1 AF-C will initially lose focus (medium settings etc.). Noticeable focus breath at 40mm too. Have not noticed much if any focus hunting.
That is a lot of lenses with overlapping ranges. I had - but sold - the original 17-28. Have had my eyes on the 12-24/GM for a while now, but cannot bring myself to pay the cash (keep hoping Tamron or Sigma will come out with an equally wide or wider alternative).
Curious to hear how you compare the 20-40 with the 17-28 and 16-35PZ. I was keeping my eye on the 16-35 should the next generation of the A7C have a higher MP count...
. Not sure what she's going to do with 20-40 though...
.
.