As the flagship Thypoch lens, it features high-grade optical elements minimize distortion and flare; dedicated physical aperture ring for smooth, cinematic exposure adjustments; durable build for daily lens shooting
Constant f/2.8 Aperture for Low-Light & Beautiful Bokeh
Bright constant f/2.8 aperture across the entire zoom range delivers excellent low-light performance and smooth background separation for professional-looking images and videos.
Fast & Accurate Autofocus for Photo & Video
Precise AF system with quick, quiet tracking; supports AF/MF switch for instant control; reliable for both static subjects and moving scenes. This makes it a competitive Sony 24-50mm f2.8 alternative. Ideal for both photographers and video creators who need speed and precision.
Compact lens & Lightweight lens
Weighing just around 432g, the Voyager is smaller and lighter than traditional standard zoom lenses, making it ideal for handheld shooting and use with a gimbal. This ensures a comfortable experience all day, earning its reputation as the best travel lens. As a high-performance travel lens, photography lens, and vlog lens all in one, the Voyager allows you to travel light without any unnecessary bulk.
Designed specifically for Sony full-frame E-mount cameras; seamless electronic connection; supports EXIF data, autofocus and camera integration
Limited-time pre-sale early bird offer, enjoy exclusive discounts now!
First batch will start shipping in early June, with US orders prioritized for local warehouse dispatch.
I do wonder how this is 'vintage style glass' when the specs are a near one-to-one match with the Sony 24-50 that I own and love
I do think the price point is really nice though, it's what I paid for my 24-50 as well and it's what a lens like that should cost.
Alan Parker wrote:
I do wonder how this is 'vintage style glass' when the specs are a near one-to-one match with the Sony 24-50 that I own and love
I do think the price point is really nice though, it's what I paid for my 24-50 as well and it's what a lens like that should cost.
Those are B&H's words, Thypoch seems to be fully marketing it as a modern lens (flare control, smooth/pleasing bokeh, minimal fringing, etc) that directly competes with the Sony.
"Optically speaking, we found the lens to be relatively sharp. While there's some vignetting, it's not more than we'd expect from other budget lenses with a focus on being compact. Where it fell down a bit was in flare resistance; Thypoch says the lens has its "Epoch" coating, but there were times where we found that bright lighting outside the frame would result in a washed out image, even when we were shooting with the included lens hood.
Autofocus performance was mostly fine. We tested the lens with a Sony a7R V, and it was usually able to lock onto a subject and follow it, even if it was moving. Still, there were a few instances where it had to hunt in lighting conditions that we'd have expected an own-brand lens to handle without any issues. But given that this is the company's first autofocus lens, period, and that it doesn't have an official E-mount license, its performance was quite impressive."
"Optically speaking, we found the lens to be relatively sharp. While there's some vignetting, it's not more than we'd expect from other budget lenses with a focus on being compact. Where it fell down a bit was in flare resistance; Thypoch says the lens has its "Epoch" coating, but there were times where we found that bright lighting outside the frame would result in a washed out image, even when we were shooting with the included lens hood.
Autofocus performance was mostly fine. We tested the lens with a Sony a7R V, and it was usually able to lock onto a subject and follow it, even if it was moving. Still, there were a few instances where it had to hunt in lighting conditions that we'd have expected an own-brand lens to handle without any issues. But given that this is the company's first autofocus lens, period, and that it doesn't have an official E-mount license, its performance was quite impressive."...Show more →
Looking through their gallery on the typoch and their gallery for the sony 24-50, the Typoch zoom definitely leans into a vintage/cinematic character with inkier contrast and richer colors vs the sony, which is more of a modern rendering which leans into microcontrast and more color separation. Typoch overall looks richer, while the Sony has more tonal and color separation but looks flatter too.
This looks what a zoom from voigtlander would probably render like. Its an interesting take on a zoom, which from a rendering perspective, are traditionally very safe and flat. I haven't had much interest in a zoom in a while for this reason, but this one piques my interest for sure.
Hopefully the Z version of this lens does well and encourages Thypoch to to offer a 16-35/2.8 or 17-35/2.8 with modern image quality for Z mount. The ancient Nikon 17-35/2.8 + FTZ is, disappointingly, still the most useful focal length zoom range for my use. I could lose the Z 14-24 and Z 24-70/2.8 if such a lens existed.
RoamingScott wrote:
I'd rather Thypoch make a few MF lenses that are bespoke for Z...contacts, aperture ring and focus rings that turn the "Nikon way", etc.
Basically the only thing holding me back from the 28mm f/1.4 is no contacts. Typoch could probably fill a decent vacuum left by Nikon not doing a 28mm S lens if they added contacts.
Then again, I spent a decade shooting film cameras, so AF isn't my biggest concern. I may be in the minority
loganme wrote:
Basically the only thing holding me back from the 28mm f/1.4 is no contacts. Typoch could probably fill a decent vacuum left by Nikon not doing a 28mm S lens if they added contacts.
Then again, I spent a decade shooting film cameras, so AF isn't my biggest concern. I may be in the minority
You *could* get the M mount version and a 6-bit adapter, technically haha. But I'm with you, I'd love if they could keep their same pricing and add contacts.
I read Bastin’s review this morning. I always think he’s a little soft on thypoch compared to other manufacturers, but the lenses are cheaper than other offerings and they do send them for review so those things should be accounted for.
I’m not really surprised by this lens at all. It’s a little lower in micro-contrast, struggles with flare resistance and isn’t great at MFD. On the other hand, it offers great CA correction, lower optical vignetting and the internal zoom. To be honest, it’s a lot like their other offerings
I think all their retro flair and all that stuff was marketing. Like a lot of manufacturers, they just have a hard time producing lenses with high-micro contrast and good flare resistance.
I am confused on two things though. Why the resolution drops off from 28 to 50 with diminished contrast at 50mm. I am assuming he got a good copy of the lens.
And why does the vignetting not decrease more when the lens is stopped down?
Does the 5mm difference in the Tamron 16-30/2.8 make that big of an impact to you?
Keith B. wrote:
Hopefully the Z version of this lens does well and encourages Thypoch to to offer a 16-35/2.8 or 17-35/2.8 with modern image quality for Z mount. The ancient Nikon 17-35/2.8 + FTZ is, disappointingly, still the most useful focal length zoom range for my use. I could lose the Z 14-24 and Z 24-70/2.8 if such a lens existed.
I have to say, I can’t think of a lens range that is less useful than this. Way too small a zoom range to bother with making it a zoom. If it was a 24-50 f/2, I could see it, as a replacement for the wide to normal fast primes. But at f/2.8, we’re now in zoom convenience territory and 24-50 just isn’t that convenient a range for such a lens. Heck, I regularly feel constrained by a 24-70, since 70 is too short, which is why I’ve always preferred the 24-120 / 24-104 f/4 lenses instead.
Jman13 wrote:
I have to say, I can’t think of a lens range that is less useful than this. Way too small a zoom range to bother with making it a zoom. If it was a 24-50 f/2, I could see it, as a replacement for the wide to normal fast primes. But at f/2.8, we’re now in zoom convenience territory and 24-50 just isn’t that convenient a range for such a lens. Heck, I regularly feel constrained by a 24-70, since 70 is too short, which is why I’ve always preferred the 24-120 / 24-104 f/4 lenses instead.
It makes sense because a lot of people are happy to carry around just a 28 or 35 or 40mm or a 50 (like me). We can crop a bit further to get to 70mm with current high res sensors. This lens covers those FL’s plus 24mm in an appreciably smaller package than the lenses you are describing.
I think there’s a pretty good reason we keep seeing 24/28 — 50/60mm zoom lenses the last serval years.
Jman13 wrote:
I have to say, I can’t think of a lens range that is less useful than this. Way too small a zoom range to bother with making it a zoom. If it was a 24-50 f/2, I could see it, as a replacement for the wide to normal fast primes. But at f/2.8, we’re now in zoom convenience territory and 24-50 just isn’t that convenient a range for such a lens. Heck, I regularly feel constrained by a 24-70, since 70 is too short, which is why I’ve always preferred the 24-120 / 24-104 f/4 lenses instead.
The many happy Sony owners would have a different opinion.
The flexibility of a single small 2.8 weather sealed internal zoom (in this case) vs carrying a 28, 35, 50 primes for street isn't a hard use case to understand.
