1bwana1 Offline Upload & Sell: On
|
p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · Anyone REALLY like the Tamron 28-75/2.8 G2? | |
I just recently received my copy of this lens, which I won as part of the prizes ina photography contest. So, I have not had time to do any serious image making with it. I have however tested it well to see if, and where it fits into my collection. IQ wise it doesn't beat my GM prime lenses it the FLs. But that is true of any zoom. The zoom I used in the FL was the Sony 25-105 f/4 G, which I have used successfully for years. The extra speed and better IQ of the Tamron means that I will likely be selling the 24-105 and replacing it with this Tamron. It will have a place along with the 17-28 f/2.8 Tamron, and the 70-200 f/2.8 Sony GM II (+1.4 TC). For fast zooms that ends up being a very capable, compact, and light weight kit. I could travel anywhere with just these tree and be confident I could get almost any shot I needed too.
I would like to make some quick comments about your dislikes. Not to disagree with you about them because that is a personal thing. But, I think some unrealistic expectations may be at the root of your objections.
snegron7 wrote:
I'll be the oddball here as usual and mention things I dislike about the Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 G2:
1. Vignetting is absolutely horrible at all apertures unless you have the in-camera lens correction settings on.
I tend to view vignetting in modern lenses as really kind of a non issue. It was more significant in the days of mechanical lenses and film, when software based profile corrections were not available for it, CA, and distrotion. These days this is considered part of a lens design, and judgment should be made on IQ after the corrections have been applied. Even my suoper expensive Leica lenses rely on profile corrections these days.
Like all things in lenses it must be compared to other lenses of similar FL and speed.
snegron7 wrote:
2. It is longer than I'd like (lengthwise).
Of all the zoom lens, from all the manufactures, in its FL range it is the shortest both at minimum, and more so fully extended. Maybe you just don't like zooms.
At 540 grams, it is also the lightest by over 150 grams.
You do have to make some compromises for the convienience of a zoom.
snegron7 wrote:
3. 28mm is not wide enough for what I consider wide angle. 16mm is wide, not 28mm.
Again I think unrealistic expectations are at play here. It is commonly held that "Wide" andgle is between 24mm - 35mm. The next FLs up are considered "Normal", the next step below 24mm is considered "Ultra Wide". In the scope of FLs this lens is properly labeld a zoom that goes fro "Wide" through Normal" FL. Tamron offers an excellent 17mm-28mm f/2.8 that serves the "Ultra Wide - Wide" zoom range.
snegron7 wrote:
4. It is not a small lens. In otder for ot to balance on my A7c, I had to putchase a bottom plate/grip extension for my A7c.
Not as small as a prime, but as a zoom in its FL, and speed it is the smallest availble in Sony E-Mount. That is pretty darn good.
|