Thypoch Voyager 24-50 f/2.8
p.3 #1Thypoch Voyager 24-50 f/2.8
Alan Parker wrote:
I had high hopes for this lens, but it's not looking very good
I had high hopes for this lens, but it's not looking very good
May 15, 2026 at 01:08 PM
p.3 #2Thypoch Voyager 24-50 f/2.8
phinix wrote:
Why the hell they cannot start from 20mm...
Tamron did, with the 20-40/2.8. Unfortunately, it, like their 17-50/4, leaves you wishing for better optics.
Why the hell they cannot start from 20mm...
Tamron did, with the 20-40/2.8. Unfortunately, it, like their 17-50/4, leaves you wishing for better optics.
May 15, 2026 at 06:02 PM
p.3 #3Thypoch Voyager 24-50 f/2.8
Nick Dakota wrote:
Does Voigtlander have exclusive rights for contacts use or just too expensive for the other brands?
I don't know that anyone here can answer that question. I know they have to have license deals with the manufacturers, but that appears to be open to Sigma (Canon) and Tamron (Nikon) so I doubt it's exclusive.
Does Voigtlander have exclusive rights for contacts use or just too expensive for the other brands?
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.I don't know that anyone here can answer that question. I know they have to have license deals with the manufacturers, but that appears to be open to Sigma (Canon) and Tamron (Nikon) so I doubt it's exclusive.
May 15, 2026 at 06:05 PM
p.3 #4Thypoch Voyager 24-50 f/2.8
Thypoch didn't have electronic contacts for any of their manual focus lenses for any mount before so I think they didn't especially try to negotiate a mount license contract with Nikon for those.
I don't think Nikon would make exclusive licensing contracts with specific manufacturer like Cosina (that would promise exclusion of other vendors). That sounds like it might be against some trade laws too. It may be that the hurdle is high for achieving those contracts and it might take a lot of time and effort (perhaps easier for Japanese companies with local presence) and Nikon is probably very selective about licensing considering competition with their own lineup especially when it comes to AF lenses.
I don't think Nikon would make exclusive licensing contracts with specific manufacturer like Cosina (that would promise exclusion of other vendors). That sounds like it might be against some trade laws too. It may be that the hurdle is high for achieving those contracts and it might take a lot of time and effort (perhaps easier for Japanese companies with local presence) and Nikon is probably very selective about licensing considering competition with their own lineup especially when it comes to AF lenses.
May 15, 2026 at 06:23 PM
p.3 #5Thypoch Voyager 24-50 f/2.8
Steve Spencer wrote:
My guess is because it's a zoom and it, like the Sony 25-50/2.8 and even the Canon 24-70/4L, started its life as a 28mm design and the engineers went from there. Every zoom has a sweet spot, and, with one possible exception I know of (the Minolta MD 24-50/4, which seems best at 50) and probably a very small number of other little weird exceptions, they aren't at their objective best at either end and tend to lose the most resolution at the long end. Even zooms like the 70-200GMII, which has a well-earned reputation for consistency across its range, is still at its objective best at 135 from a resolution and correction perspective, but it also has the most generous, lengthy sweet spot of any zoom I've used, so distortion and coma become the only noticeable tells between focal lengths when studying the raws. Most designs don't fare so well, and that's especially true for less expensive alternatives.Totally agree Brad, but would just add this is especially true if you add the constraint to keep the lens small as Thypoch did here. If you want to keep a lens small, you want a zoom, you want a relatively fast aperture, there are going to be some optical constraints. I think Thypoch did a credible job here, but I also share nehemiah's assessment that to me the lack of contrast and weak flare resistance, which is typical in my view to Thypoch lenses and even their primes, is what would give me pause about getting this lens,...Show more →
True, size does matter, especially when it comes to distortion, apparently.
I see what you're saying. I can't say I have any interest in owning anything in the current offering, but, just like with Samyang's new shorter zooms, I was curious enough to live vicariously. I try not to formulate an opinion without using a lens, but I'm not seeing anything I didn't expect out of company's first AF lens. Overall, it looks like a usable effort that doesn't quite stick the landing.
freaklikeme wrote
nehemiahphoto wrote
Why the resolution drops off from 28 to 50 with diminished contrast at 50mm.True, size does matter, especially when it comes to distortion, apparently.
I see what you're saying. I can't say I have any interest in owning anything in the current offering, but, just like with Samyang's new shorter zooms, I was curious enough to live vicariously. I try not to formulate an opinion without using a lens, but I'm not seeing anything I didn't expect out of company's first AF lens. Overall, it looks like a usable effort that doesn't quite stick the landing.
May 15, 2026 at 08:51 PM
p.3 #6Thypoch Voyager 24-50 f/2.8
I'm with Jordan- too short of a zoom range for the relatively slow max aperture. I'd rather carry a prime (or two) that is faster and/or smaller.
May 15, 2026 at 09:11 PM
p.3 #7Thypoch Voyager 24-50 f/2.8
nehemiahphoto wrote:
My guess is because it's a zoom and it, like the Sony 25-50/2.8 and even the Canon 24-70/4L, started its life as a 28mm design and the engineers went from there. Every zoom has a sweet spot, and, with one possible exception I know of (the Minolta MD 24-50/4, which seems best at 50) and probably a very small number of other little weird exceptions, they aren't at their objective best at either end and tend to lose the most resolution at the long end. Even zooms like the 70-200GMII, which has a well-earned reputation for consistency across its range, is still at its objective best at 135 from a resolution and correction perspective, but it also has the most generous, lengthy sweet spot of any zoom I've used, so distortion and coma become the only noticeable tells between focal lengths when studying the raws. Most designs don't fare so well, and that's especially true for less expensive alternatives.Thanks for the answer Brad.
I am pretty used to zooms having strong and weak points, but from an optical design perspective (something that is totally outside of my knowledge), I didn’t really think about it as a prime that is essentially stretched across a range.
In the old days the 70/80–200mm’s were typically soft at the longer end, and standard zooms were soft on the wide end. Things have changed in recent years as lenses seem to be optimized for certain focal lens in intelligently (UW now performing best at the widest FL).
With this new Thypoch, I was not surprised...Show more →
Anytime. I'm happy to parrot the information I've picked up from all the smart people leading conferences I attend.
Which UWAs have you been using that are strongest at their widest settings? I don't spend a lot of time with the lens type, but the Canon 15-35Ls and Sony 16-35GMIIs we have at work hit their best between 18 and 20mm. I have only single lens experience with the latest Tamron 18-28 and Sigma 16-28mm, but both needed some zooming in to hit their absolute best. What's universal about them, where they have predecessors, is that they're all better than their predecessors at the wide end. But they are still zooms.
I see what you're saying about the differences, but I don't think anyone but Thypoch can give you a definitive answer. To me, it looks like the kind of compromises you accept when you need/want the $1300 lens, but can only afford the $619 one.
freaklikeme wrote
nehemiahphoto wrote
Why the resolution drops off from 28 to 50 with diminished contrast at 50mm.I am pretty used to zooms having strong and weak points, but from an optical design perspective (something that is totally outside of my knowledge), I didn’t really think about it as a prime that is essentially stretched across a range.
In the old days the 70/80–200mm’s were typically soft at the longer end, and standard zooms were soft on the wide end. Things have changed in recent years as lenses seem to be optimized for certain focal lens in intelligently (UW now performing best at the widest FL).
With this new Thypoch, I was not surprised...Show more →
Anytime. I'm happy to parrot the information I've picked up from all the smart people leading conferences I attend.
Which UWAs have you been using that are strongest at their widest settings? I don't spend a lot of time with the lens type, but the Canon 15-35Ls and Sony 16-35GMIIs we have at work hit their best between 18 and 20mm. I have only single lens experience with the latest Tamron 18-28 and Sigma 16-28mm, but both needed some zooming in to hit their absolute best. What's universal about them, where they have predecessors, is that they're all better than their predecessors at the wide end. But they are still zooms.
I see what you're saying about the differences, but I don't think anyone but Thypoch can give you a definitive answer. To me, it looks like the kind of compromises you accept when you need/want the $1300 lens, but can only afford the $619 one.
May 16, 2026 at 12:14 AM
p.3 #8Thypoch Voyager 24-50 f/2.8
freaklikeme wrote:
My guess is because it's a zoom and it, like the Sony 25-50/2.8 and even the Canon 24-70/4L, started its life as a 28mm design and the engineers went from there. Every zoom has a sweet spot, and, with one possible exception I know of (the Minolta MD 24-50/4, which seems best at 50) and probably a very small number of other little weird exceptions, they aren't at their objective best at either end and tend to lose the most resolution at the long end. Even zooms like the 70-200GMII, which has a well-earned reputation for consistency across its range, is still at its objective best at 135 from a resolution and correction perspective, but it also has the most generous, lengthy sweet spot of any zoom I've used, so distortion and coma become the only noticeable tells between focal lengths when studying the raws. Most designs don't fare so well, and that's especially true for less expensive alternatives.Thanks for the answer Brad.
I am pretty used to zooms having strong and weak points, but from an optical design perspective (something that is totally outside of my knowledge), I didn’t really think about it as a prime that is essentially stretched across a range.
In the old days the 70/80–200mm’s were typically soft at the longer end, and standard zooms were soft on the wide end. Things have changed in recent years as lenses seem to be optimized for certain focal lens in intelligently (UW now performing best at the widest FL).
With this new Thypoch, I was not surprised that some FL’s are weaker than others, but why the disparity is so large. The Sony 24 - 50 seems to do appreciably better overall with the exception at 24mm. And Dustin Abott’s testing puts the mid-zone and corners as being better on the Sony, but the center on the Thypoch. Across the rest of the range, especially towards 50mm, the Sony seems to trounce it.
Maybe it’s penalty or the smaller size and internal zoom?Anytime. I'm happy to parrot the information I've picked up from all the smart people leading conferences I attend.
Which UWAs have you been using that are strongest at their widest settings? I don't spend a lot of time with the lens type, but the Canon 15-35Ls and Sony 16-35GMIIs we have at work hit their best between 18 and 20mm. I have only single lens experience with the latest Tamron 18-28 and Sigma 16-28mm, but both needed some zooming in to hit their absolute best. What's universal about them, where they have predecessors, is that they're all better than their...Show more →
Aren't we all parroting?
I don't think any of use are optical engineers or involved in the actual productions of lenses. We have to stick to downstream observations once the lenses are built.
The new Samyang 14-24 is best on the wide end. The OG 14 - 24 Nikon is best on the wide end. Same with the Sigma 14-28/2.8, Tamron 17-28/2.8, Sigma 16-28/2.8...I am sure there are others. My copies of those last 2 were better at the wide end. Though one was a pinch decentered. Looking at PhillipReeve's Tamron 17-28/2.8, his was also better at the wide end. Same with my Sigma 16-28/2.8. I am also sure not every ultra-wide follow the same resolution distribution pattern across FL's.
I didn't formally test it, but I think the Tamron 20-40/2.8 was better at 20mm or below 30mm than 40mm. I mostly shot it for video though where it doesn't really matter.
You are probably right--the performance is reflective of price. The price difference is large. Part of me also remembers the 35/1.4 Simera, which is the technically weakest of the Simera line from a technical IQ perspective and I'd argue a rendering perspective. That line seemed to do better with the more recent releases and I wonder if that pattern with hold true if Thypoch makes more zoom lenses after getting their feet wet with this one.
nehemiahphoto wrote
freaklikeme wrote
nehemiahphoto wrote
Why the resolution drops off from 28 to 50 with diminished contrast at 50mm.I am pretty used to zooms having strong and weak points, but from an optical design perspective (something that is totally outside of my knowledge), I didn’t really think about it as a prime that is essentially stretched across a range.
In the old days the 70/80–200mm’s were typically soft at the longer end, and standard zooms were soft on the wide end. Things have changed in recent years as lenses seem to be optimized for certain focal lens in intelligently (UW now performing best at the widest FL).
With this new Thypoch, I was not surprised that some FL’s are weaker than others, but why the disparity is so large. The Sony 24 - 50 seems to do appreciably better overall with the exception at 24mm. And Dustin Abott’s testing puts the mid-zone and corners as being better on the Sony, but the center on the Thypoch. Across the rest of the range, especially towards 50mm, the Sony seems to trounce it.
Maybe it’s penalty or the smaller size and internal zoom?
Which UWAs have you been using that are strongest at their widest settings? I don't spend a lot of time with the lens type, but the Canon 15-35Ls and Sony 16-35GMIIs we have at work hit their best between 18 and 20mm. I have only single lens experience with the latest Tamron 18-28 and Sigma 16-28mm, but both needed some zooming in to hit their absolute best. What's universal about them, where they have predecessors, is that they're all better than their...Show more →
Aren't we all parroting?
I don't think any of use are optical engineers or involved in the actual productions of lenses. We have to stick to downstream observations once the lenses are built.The new Samyang 14-24 is best on the wide end. The OG 14 - 24 Nikon is best on the wide end. Same with the Sigma 14-28/2.8, Tamron 17-28/2.8, Sigma 16-28/2.8...I am sure there are others. My copies of those last 2 were better at the wide end. Though one was a pinch decentered. Looking at PhillipReeve's Tamron 17-28/2.8, his was also better at the wide end. Same with my Sigma 16-28/2.8. I am also sure not every ultra-wide follow the same resolution distribution pattern across FL's.
I didn't formally test it, but I think the Tamron 20-40/2.8 was better at 20mm or below 30mm than 40mm. I mostly shot it for video though where it doesn't really matter.
You are probably right--the performance is reflective of price. The price difference is large. Part of me also remembers the 35/1.4 Simera, which is the technically weakest of the Simera line from a technical IQ perspective and I'd argue a rendering perspective. That line seemed to do better with the more recent releases and I wonder if that pattern with hold true if Thypoch makes more zoom lenses after getting their feet wet with this one.
May 16, 2026 at 09:51 AM
|
p.3 #9Thypoch Voyager 24-50 f/2.8
nehemiahphoto wrote:
My guess is because it's a zoom and it, like the Sony 25-50/2.8 and even the Canon 24-70/4L, started its life as a 28mm design and the engineers went from there. Every zoom has a sweet spot, and, with one possible exception I know of (the Minolta MD 24-50/4, which seems best at 50) and probably a very small number of other little weird exceptions, they aren't at their objective best at either end and tend to lose the most resolution at the long end. Even zooms like the 70-200GMII, which has a well-earned reputation for consistency across its range, is still at its objective best at 135 from a resolution and correction perspective, but it also has the most generous, lengthy sweet spot of any zoom I've used, so distortion and coma become the only noticeable tells between focal lengths when studying the raws. Most designs don't fare so well, and that's especially true for less expensive alternatives.Thanks for the answer Brad.
I am pretty used to zooms having strong and weak points, but from an optical design perspective (something that is totally outside of my knowledge), I didn’t really think about it as a prime that is essentially stretched across a range.
In the old days the 70/80–200mm’s were typically soft at the longer end, and standard zooms were soft on the wide end. Things have changed in recent years as lenses seem to be optimized for certain focal lens in intelligently (UW now performing best at the widest FL).
With this new Thypoch, I was not surprised that some FL’s are weaker than others, but why the disparity is so large. The Sony 24 - 50 seems to do appreciably better overall with the exception at 24mm. And Dustin Abott’s testing puts the mid-zone and corners as being better on the Sony, but the center on the Thypoch. Across the rest of the range, especially towards 50mm, the Sony seems to trounce it.
Maybe it’s penalty or the smaller size and internal zoom?Anytime. I'm happy to parrot the information I've picked up from all the smart people leading conferences I attend.
Which UWAs have you been using that are strongest at their widest settings? I don't spend a lot of time with the lens type, but the Canon 15-35Ls and Sony 16-35GMIIs we have at work hit their best between 18 and 20mm. I have only single lens experience with the latest Tamron 18-28 and Sigma 16-28mm, but both needed some zooming in to hit their absolute best. What's universal about them, where they have predecessors, is that they're all better than their predecessors at the wide end. But they are still zooms.
I see what you're saying about the differences, but I don't think anyone but Thypoch can give you a definitive answer. To me, it looks like the kind of compromises you accept when you need/want the $1300 lens, but can only afford the $619 one.Aren't we all parroting? I don't think any of use are optical engineers or involved in the actual productions of lenses. We have to stick to downstream observations once the lenses are built.
The new Samyang 14-24 is best on the wide end. The OG 14 - 24 Nikon is best on the wide end. Same with the Sigma 14-28/2.8, Tamron 17-28/2.8, Sigma 16-28/2.8...I am sure there are others. My copies of those last 2 were better at the wide end. Though one was a pinch decentered. Looking at PhillipReeve's Tamron 17-28/2.8, his was also better at the wide end....Show more →
Just to be clear, when you say "at the widest end", you're not talking about the absolute widest settings with the decent (Tamron's 17-28) to horrendous (Canon 15-35) distortion, and varying levels of weaker transverse CA, coma, FC, and astigmatism correction, right? Those things all get better zoomed in three to six mm. The central resolution may be higher at the widest setting depending on aperture, but the rest of the capture gets treated to a steep drop-off over the frame. Zoom in a few millimeters, and the performance becomes more balanced.
We'll see about their future. It wouldn't surprise me if it's a 16-25/2.8 that's also slightly smaller and underperforming versus the Sony with about the same price difference. I'm doubtful about the overall adoption rate for either, but I also doubt they have a high bar for success with their first AF lenses.
freaklikeme wrote
nehemiahphoto wrote
freaklikeme wrote
nehemiahphoto wrote
Why the resolution drops off from 28 to 50 with diminished contrast at 50mm.I am pretty used to zooms having strong and weak points, but from an optical design perspective (something that is totally outside of my knowledge), I didn’t really think about it as a prime that is essentially stretched across a range.
In the old days the 70/80–200mm’s were typically soft at the longer end, and standard zooms were soft on the wide end. Things have changed in recent years as lenses seem to be optimized for certain focal lens in intelligently (UW now performing best at the widest FL).
With this new Thypoch, I was not surprised that some FL’s are weaker than others, but why the disparity is so large. The Sony 24 - 50 seems to do appreciably better overall with the exception at 24mm. And Dustin Abott’s testing puts the mid-zone and corners as being better on the Sony, but the center on the Thypoch. Across the rest of the range, especially towards 50mm, the Sony seems to trounce it.
Maybe it’s penalty or the smaller size and internal zoom?
Which UWAs have you been using that are strongest at their widest settings? I don't spend a lot of time with the lens type, but the Canon 15-35Ls and Sony 16-35GMIIs we have at work hit their best between 18 and 20mm. I have only single lens experience with the latest Tamron 18-28 and Sigma 16-28mm, but both needed some zooming in to hit their absolute best. What's universal about them, where they have predecessors, is that they're all better than their predecessors at the wide end. But they are still zooms.
I see what you're saying about the differences, but I don't think anyone but Thypoch can give you a definitive answer. To me, it looks like the kind of compromises you accept when you need/want the $1300 lens, but can only afford the $619 one.
I don't think any of use are optical engineers or involved in the actual productions of lenses. We have to stick to downstream observations once the lenses are built.The new Samyang 14-24 is best on the wide end. The OG 14 - 24 Nikon is best on the wide end. Same with the Sigma 14-28/2.8, Tamron 17-28/2.8, Sigma 16-28/2.8...I am sure there are others. My copies of those last 2 were better at the wide end. Though one was a pinch decentered. Looking at PhillipReeve's Tamron 17-28/2.8, his was also better at the wide end....Show more →
Just to be clear, when you say "at the widest end", you're not talking about the absolute widest settings with the decent (Tamron's 17-28) to horrendous (Canon 15-35) distortion, and varying levels of weaker transverse CA, coma, FC, and astigmatism correction, right? Those things all get better zoomed in three to six mm. The central resolution may be higher at the widest setting depending on aperture, but the rest of the capture gets treated to a steep drop-off over the frame. Zoom in a few millimeters, and the performance becomes more balanced.
We'll see about their future. It wouldn't surprise me if it's a 16-25/2.8 that's also slightly smaller and underperforming versus the Sony with about the same price difference. I'm doubtful about the overall adoption rate for either, but I also doubt they have a high bar for success with their first AF lenses.
May 16, 2026 at 05:41 PM
p.3 #10Thypoch Voyager 24-50 f/2.8
freaklikeme wrote:
My guess is because it's a zoom and it, like the Sony 25-50/2.8 and even the Canon 24-70/4L, started its life as a 28mm design and the engineers went from there. Every zoom has a sweet spot, and, with one possible exception I know of (the Minolta MD 24-50/4, which seems best at 50) and probably a very small number of other little weird exceptions, they aren't at their objective best at either end and tend to lose the most resolution at the long end. Even zooms like the 70-200GMII, which has a well-earned reputation for consistency across its range, is still at its objective best at 135 from a resolution and correction perspective, but it also has the most generous, lengthy sweet spot of any zoom I've used, so distortion and coma become the only noticeable tells between focal lengths when studying the raws. Most designs don't fare so well, and that's especially true for less expensive alternatives.Thanks for the answer Brad.
I am pretty used to zooms having strong and weak points, but from an optical design perspective (something that is totally outside of my knowledge), I didn’t really think about it as a prime that is essentially stretched across a range.
In the old days the 70/80–200mm’s were typically soft at the longer end, and standard zooms were soft on the wide end. Things have changed in recent years as lenses seem to be optimized for certain focal lens in intelligently (UW now performing best at the widest FL).
With this new Thypoch, I was not surprised that some FL’s are weaker than others, but why the disparity is so large. The Sony 24 - 50 seems to do appreciably better overall with the exception at 24mm. And Dustin Abott’s testing puts the mid-zone and corners as being better on the Sony, but the center on the Thypoch. Across the rest of the range, especially towards 50mm, the Sony seems to trounce it.
Maybe it’s penalty or the smaller size and internal zoom?Anytime. I'm happy to parrot the information I've picked up from all the smart people leading conferences I attend.
Which UWAs have you been using that are strongest at their widest settings? I don't spend a lot of time with the lens type, but the Canon 15-35Ls and Sony 16-35GMIIs we have at work hit their best between 18 and 20mm. I have only single lens experience with the latest Tamron 18-28 and Sigma 16-28mm, but both needed some zooming in to hit their absolute best. What's universal about them, where they have predecessors, is that they're all better than their predecessors at the wide end. But they are still zooms.
I see what you're saying about the differences, but I don't think anyone but Thypoch can give you a definitive answer. To me, it looks like the kind of compromises you accept when you need/want the $1300 lens, but can only afford the $619 one.Aren't we all parroting? I don't think any of use are optical engineers or involved in the actual productions of lenses. We have to stick to downstream observations once the lenses are built.
The new Samyang 14-24 is best on the wide end. The OG 14 - 24 Nikon is best on the wide end. Same with the Sigma 14-28/2.8, Tamron 17-28/2.8, Sigma 16-28/2.8...I am sure there are others. My copies of those last 2 were better at the wide end. Though one was a pinch decentered. Looking at PhillipReeve's Tamron 17-28/2.8, his was also better at the wide end. Same with my Sigma 16-28/2.8. I am also sure not every ultra-wide follow the same resolution distribution pattern across FL's.
I didn't formally test it, but I think the Tamron 20-40/2.8 was better at 20mm or below 30mm than 40mm. I mostly shot it for video though where it doesn't really matter.
You are probably right--the performance is reflective of price. The price difference is large. Part of me also remembers the 35/1.4 Simera, which is the technically weakest of the Simera line from a technical IQ perspective and I'd argue a rendering perspective. That line seemed to do better with the more recent releases and I wonder if that pattern with hold true if Thypoch makes more zoom lenses after getting their feet wet with this one.Just to be clear, when you say "at the widest end", you're not talking about the absolute widest settings with the decent (Tamron's 17-28) to horrendous (Canon 15-35) distortion, and varying levels of weaker transverse CA, coma, FC, and astigmatism correction, right? Those things all get better zoomed in three to six mm. The central resolution may be higher at the widest setting depending on aperture, but the rest of the capture gets treated to a steep drop-off over the frame. Zoom in a few millimeters, and the performance becomes more balanced.
We'll see about their future. It wouldn't surprise...Show more →
Maybe a couple MM in is better. I've sold the wide angle zooms we are talking about--I pretty much shoot small primes these days only. In my experience, at least with the lenses I've listed and owned--I found the performance better on the wide end--so for the Tamron 17-28 at @17mm. Reeve's is similar:
https://phillipreeve.net/blog/review-tamron-17-28mm-f-2-8-di-iii-rxd/
Perhaps some of that is being corrected digitally, but my feeling is that even with corrections, the wide end is better than 3-6mm zoomed in. But you have me curious--which I enjoy. Do you have crops or a credible review or something?
Yes, I also can't see this new Thypoch doing well even with gracious reviews and hype. I think once things settle out, shooters aren't going to care about "it's the first Chineses AF lens!" when looking at their images. It's not just Thypoch either--I remember when the Zony 24-70/4. What a dud.
nehemiahphoto wrote
freaklikeme wrote
nehemiahphoto wrote
freaklikeme wrote
nehemiahphoto wrote
Why the resolution drops off from 28 to 50 with diminished contrast at 50mm.I am pretty used to zooms having strong and weak points, but from an optical design perspective (something that is totally outside of my knowledge), I didn’t really think about it as a prime that is essentially stretched across a range.
In the old days the 70/80–200mm’s were typically soft at the longer end, and standard zooms were soft on the wide end. Things have changed in recent years as lenses seem to be optimized for certain focal lens in intelligently (UW now performing best at the widest FL).
With this new Thypoch, I was not surprised that some FL’s are weaker than others, but why the disparity is so large. The Sony 24 - 50 seems to do appreciably better overall with the exception at 24mm. And Dustin Abott’s testing puts the mid-zone and corners as being better on the Sony, but the center on the Thypoch. Across the rest of the range, especially towards 50mm, the Sony seems to trounce it.
Maybe it’s penalty or the smaller size and internal zoom?
Which UWAs have you been using that are strongest at their widest settings? I don't spend a lot of time with the lens type, but the Canon 15-35Ls and Sony 16-35GMIIs we have at work hit their best between 18 and 20mm. I have only single lens experience with the latest Tamron 18-28 and Sigma 16-28mm, but both needed some zooming in to hit their absolute best. What's universal about them, where they have predecessors, is that they're all better than their predecessors at the wide end. But they are still zooms.
I see what you're saying about the differences, but I don't think anyone but Thypoch can give you a definitive answer. To me, it looks like the kind of compromises you accept when you need/want the $1300 lens, but can only afford the $619 one.
I don't think any of use are optical engineers or involved in the actual productions of lenses. We have to stick to downstream observations once the lenses are built.The new Samyang 14-24 is best on the wide end. The OG 14 - 24 Nikon is best on the wide end. Same with the Sigma 14-28/2.8, Tamron 17-28/2.8, Sigma 16-28/2.8...I am sure there are others. My copies of those last 2 were better at the wide end. Though one was a pinch decentered. Looking at PhillipReeve's Tamron 17-28/2.8, his was also better at the wide end. Same with my Sigma 16-28/2.8. I am also sure not every ultra-wide follow the same resolution distribution pattern across FL's.
I didn't formally test it, but I think the Tamron 20-40/2.8 was better at 20mm or below 30mm than 40mm. I mostly shot it for video though where it doesn't really matter.
You are probably right--the performance is reflective of price. The price difference is large. Part of me also remembers the 35/1.4 Simera, which is the technically weakest of the Simera line from a technical IQ perspective and I'd argue a rendering perspective. That line seemed to do better with the more recent releases and I wonder if that pattern with hold true if Thypoch makes more zoom lenses after getting their feet wet with this one.
We'll see about their future. It wouldn't surprise...Show more →
Maybe a couple MM in is better. I've sold the wide angle zooms we are talking about--I pretty much shoot small primes these days only. In my experience, at least with the lenses I've listed and owned--I found the performance better on the wide end--so for the Tamron 17-28 at @17mm. Reeve's is similar:
https://phillipreeve.net/blog/review-tamron-17-28mm-f-2-8-di-iii-rxd/
Perhaps some of that is being corrected digitally, but my feeling is that even with corrections, the wide end is better than 3-6mm zoomed in. But you have me curious--which I enjoy. Do you have crops or a credible review or something?
Yes, I also can't see this new Thypoch doing well even with gracious reviews and hype. I think once things settle out, shooters aren't going to care about "it's the first Chineses AF lens!" when looking at their images. It's not just Thypoch either--I remember when the Zony 24-70/4. What a dud.
May 17, 2026 at 01:46 PM
p.3 #11Thypoch Voyager 24-50 f/2.8
Agree. The z mount desparately needs a 16-35 f/2.8. I will trade my 14-24 in for it in a heartbeat.
May 17, 2026 at 07:23 PM
p.3 #13Thypoch Voyager 24-50 f/2.8
nehemiahphoto wrote:
Thanks for the answer Brad.
I am pretty used to zooms having strong and weak points, but from an optical design perspective (something that is totally outside of my knowledge), I didn’t really think about it as a prime that is essentially stretched across a range.
In the old days the 70/80–200mm’s were typically soft at the longer end, and standard zooms were soft on the wide end. Things have changed in recent years as lenses seem to be optimized for certain focal lens in intelligently (UW now performing best at the widest FL).
With this new Thypoch, I was not surprised that some FL’s are weaker than others, but why the disparity is so large. The Sony 24 - 50 seems to do appreciably better overall with the exception at 24mm. And Dustin Abott’s testing puts the mid-zone and corners as being better on the Sony, but the center on the Thypoch. Across the rest of the range, especially towards 50mm, the Sony seems to trounce it.
Maybe it’s penalty or the smaller size and internal zoom?Anytime. I'm happy to parrot the information I've picked up from all the smart people leading conferences I attend.
Which UWAs have you been using that are strongest at their widest settings? I don't spend a lot of time with the lens type, but the Canon 15-35Ls and Sony 16-35GMIIs we have at work hit their best between 18 and 20mm. I have only single lens experience with the latest Tamron 18-28 and Sigma 16-28mm, but both needed some zooming in to hit their absolute best. What's universal about them, where they have predecessors, is that they're all better than their predecessors at the wide end. But they are still zooms.
I see what you're saying about the differences, but I don't think anyone but Thypoch can give you a definitive answer. To me, it looks like the kind of compromises you accept when you need/want the $1300 lens, but can only afford the $619 one.Aren't we all parroting? I don't think any of use are optical engineers or involved in the actual productions of lenses. We have to stick to downstream observations once the lenses are built.
The new Samyang 14-24 is best on the wide end. The OG 14 - 24 Nikon is best on the wide end. Same with the Sigma 14-28/2.8, Tamron 17-28/2.8, Sigma 16-28/2.8...I am sure there are others. My copies of those last 2 were better at the wide end. Though one was a pinch decentered. Looking at PhillipReeve's Tamron 17-28/2.8, his was also better at the wide end. Same with my Sigma 16-28/2.8. I am also sure not every ultra-wide follow the same resolution distribution pattern across FL's.
I didn't formally test it, but I think the Tamron 20-40/2.8 was better at 20mm or below 30mm than 40mm. I mostly shot it for video though where it doesn't really matter.
You are probably right--the performance is reflective of price. The price difference is large. Part of me also remembers the 35/1.4 Simera, which is the technically weakest of the Simera line from a technical IQ perspective and I'd argue a rendering perspective. That line seemed to do better with the more recent releases and I wonder if that pattern with hold true if Thypoch makes more zoom lenses after getting their feet wet with this one.Just to be clear, when you say "at the widest end", you're not talking about the absolute widest settings with the decent (Tamron's 17-28) to horrendous (Canon 15-35) distortion, and varying levels of weaker transverse CA, coma, FC, and astigmatism correction, right? Those things all get better zoomed in three to six mm. The central resolution may be higher at the widest setting depending on aperture, but the rest of the capture gets treated to a steep drop-off over the frame. Zoom in a few millimeters, and the performance becomes more balanced.
We'll see about their future. It wouldn't surprise me if it's a 16-25/2.8 that's also slightly smaller and underperforming versus the Sony with about the same price difference. I'm doubtful about the overall adoption rate for either, but I also doubt they have a high bar for success with their first AF lenses.Maybe a couple MM in is better. I've sold the wide angle zooms we are talking about--I pretty much shoot small primes these days only. In my experience, at least with the lenses I've listed and owned--I found the performance better on the wide end--so for the Tamron 17-28 at @17mm. Reeve's is similar:
https://phillipreeve.net/blog/review-tamron-17-28mm-f-2-8-di-iii-rxd/
Perhaps some of that is being corrected digitally, but my feeling is that even with corrections, the wide end is better than 3-6mm zoomed in. But you have me curious--which I enjoy. Do you have crops or a credible review or something?
Yes, I also can't see...Show more →
I feel like the samples on PR are telling the story pretty efficiently. The samples at 17 have punchy centers and a very quick slide into mush. His 21 samples show slightly less punchy centers, but also more punch in the mid-to-corners, creating a more even across-the-frame draw. Klaus' MTF 50 testing on OL shows the same thing:
https://opticallimits.com/sony/tamron-17-28mm-f-2-8-di-iii-rxd-review/
And for the Sigma:
https://opticallimits.com/sony/sigma-16-28mm-f-2-8-dg-dn-contemporary-review/
I actually think the sweet spot for both is 20mm, which is marked on both. I don't know why no one tests there.
freaklikeme wrote
nehemiahphoto wrote
freaklikeme wrote
nehemiahphoto wrote
freaklikeme wrote
My guess is because it's a zoom and it, like the Sony 25-50/2.8 and even the Canon 24-70/4L, started its life as a 28mm design and the engineers went from there. Every zoom has a sweet spot, and, with one possible exception I know of (the Minolta MD 24-50/4, which seems best at 50) and probably a very small number of other little weird exceptions, they aren't at their objective best at either end and tend to lose the most resolution at the long end. Even zooms like the 70-200GMII, which has a well-earned reputation for consistency across its range, is still at its objective best at 135 from a resolution and correction perspective, but it also has the most generous, lengthy sweet spot of any zoom I've used, so distortion and coma become the only noticeable tells between focal lengths when studying the raws. Most designs don't fare so well, and that's especially true for less expensive alternatives.I am pretty used to zooms having strong and weak points, but from an optical design perspective (something that is totally outside of my knowledge), I didn’t really think about it as a prime that is essentially stretched across a range.
In the old days the 70/80–200mm’s were typically soft at the longer end, and standard zooms were soft on the wide end. Things have changed in recent years as lenses seem to be optimized for certain focal lens in intelligently (UW now performing best at the widest FL).
With this new Thypoch, I was not surprised that some FL’s are weaker than others, but why the disparity is so large. The Sony 24 - 50 seems to do appreciably better overall with the exception at 24mm. And Dustin Abott’s testing puts the mid-zone and corners as being better on the Sony, but the center on the Thypoch. Across the rest of the range, especially towards 50mm, the Sony seems to trounce it.
Maybe it’s penalty or the smaller size and internal zoom?
Which UWAs have you been using that are strongest at their widest settings? I don't spend a lot of time with the lens type, but the Canon 15-35Ls and Sony 16-35GMIIs we have at work hit their best between 18 and 20mm. I have only single lens experience with the latest Tamron 18-28 and Sigma 16-28mm, but both needed some zooming in to hit their absolute best. What's universal about them, where they have predecessors, is that they're all better than their predecessors at the wide end. But they are still zooms.
I see what you're saying about the differences, but I don't think anyone but Thypoch can give you a definitive answer. To me, it looks like the kind of compromises you accept when you need/want the $1300 lens, but can only afford the $619 one.
I don't think any of use are optical engineers or involved in the actual productions of lenses. We have to stick to downstream observations once the lenses are built.The new Samyang 14-24 is best on the wide end. The OG 14 - 24 Nikon is best on the wide end. Same with the Sigma 14-28/2.8, Tamron 17-28/2.8, Sigma 16-28/2.8...I am sure there are others. My copies of those last 2 were better at the wide end. Though one was a pinch decentered. Looking at PhillipReeve's Tamron 17-28/2.8, his was also better at the wide end. Same with my Sigma 16-28/2.8. I am also sure not every ultra-wide follow the same resolution distribution pattern across FL's.
I didn't formally test it, but I think the Tamron 20-40/2.8 was better at 20mm or below 30mm than 40mm. I mostly shot it for video though where it doesn't really matter.
You are probably right--the performance is reflective of price. The price difference is large. Part of me also remembers the 35/1.4 Simera, which is the technically weakest of the Simera line from a technical IQ perspective and I'd argue a rendering perspective. That line seemed to do better with the more recent releases and I wonder if that pattern with hold true if Thypoch makes more zoom lenses after getting their feet wet with this one.
We'll see about their future. It wouldn't surprise me if it's a 16-25/2.8 that's also slightly smaller and underperforming versus the Sony with about the same price difference. I'm doubtful about the overall adoption rate for either, but I also doubt they have a high bar for success with their first AF lenses.
https://phillipreeve.net/blog/review-tamron-17-28mm-f-2-8-di-iii-rxd/
Perhaps some of that is being corrected digitally, but my feeling is that even with corrections, the wide end is better than 3-6mm zoomed in. But you have me curious--which I enjoy. Do you have crops or a credible review or something?
Yes, I also can't see...Show more →
I feel like the samples on PR are telling the story pretty efficiently. The samples at 17 have punchy centers and a very quick slide into mush. His 21 samples show slightly less punchy centers, but also more punch in the mid-to-corners, creating a more even across-the-frame draw. Klaus' MTF 50 testing on OL shows the same thing:
https://opticallimits.com/sony/tamron-17-28mm-f-2-8-di-iii-rxd-review/
And for the Sigma:
https://opticallimits.com/sony/sigma-16-28mm-f-2-8-dg-dn-contemporary-review/
I actually think the sweet spot for both is 20mm, which is marked on both. I don't know why no one tests there.
May 18, 2026 at 07:15 PM
p.3 #14Thypoch Voyager 24-50 f/2.8
I'd be curious to see a direct comparison of the Thypoch 24-50 to the Samyang 24-60 - the latter already very much established (and therefore discounted - to as low as GBP 470 on British shores)
May 19, 2026 at 05:04 AM
p.3 #15Thypoch Voyager 24-50 f/2.8
ryanli wrote:
I'd be curious to see a direct comparison of the Thypoch 24-50 to the Samyang 24-60 - the latter already very much established (and therefore discounted - to as low as GBP 470 on British shores)
Frost has very standardized reviews and he evaluates both.
They are both budget options and both struggle with good IQ at the long end. There are some other differences, but both of them seem to fall short of the Sony. They also both have some unique characteristics.
I'd be curious to see a direct comparison of the Thypoch 24-50 to the Samyang 24-60 - the latter already very much established (and therefore discounted - to as low as GBP 470 on British shores)
Frost has very standardized reviews and he evaluates both.
They are both budget options and both struggle with good IQ at the long end. There are some other differences, but both of them seem to fall short of the Sony. They also both have some unique characteristics.
May 19, 2026 at 10:11 AM