Re: New Lens: Tamron 20-40mm F/2.8 Di III VXD, Thoughts?
Ok, I have just a few here. I was hesitant to even share the last 5 because the lighting was really flat and terrible and could make any lens look bad. But Grandpa brought us covid with his visit, so it's been a pretty tough week to get out and do anything out of the house.
Direct conversions from RAW. No post production of any kind, except I raised the shadows +50 on #5. The built-in lens profile claims to just correct CA, but I don't know how much or how little. All the photos are at 40mm and wide open except #4 which is 20mm and f8.
I would normally edit all of these but I assumed folks want unedited shots.
Further thoughts:
Zoom ring:
This is probably my biggest gripe with the lens so far. I wish it were more damped. It's just a little too easy to turn, and I'm worried it will become easier over time. It's really easy to bump it and turn from 28 to 35 or something. I'm not sure why they made it this easy, maybe folks want that for video?
AF:
I think it's quite good. I'm sure my A7riii is the weakest link here, as I tried swapping between this and some of my other lenses in several shooting situations and they seemed to struggle with the same things. My oldest on his strider going full tilt down the street towards me was just a little too much for this lens, but I wasn't shooting in burst, so it may have done better if my settings were more ideal.
Sharpness:
I guess top tier lenses these days are pretty crazy, but on my 42mp sensor I think this lens is incredibly sharp. It just surprises me that the reviews say this lens is "ok" because I think it's out-resolving the sensor in the center of the image, at any aperture. But I guess the reviewers always have the nicest of the nice lenses and bodies as their personal baseline, so I'm sure this Tamron seems quite average to them.
Rendering:
In nice light I think this lens sings. I don't own any of the nicest GM glass, and maybe those can make a great image in crummy light, but my personal requirement is that if the light is nice, the image should look nice straight out of camera, and I think this lens can do that. My primes are all like that, but the lens this one replaced for me, the Zony 16-35, wasn't like that at all, I'm not entirely sure why.
I'm still getting used to using a zoom as my go-to everyday lens, I think that's going to take a while. I've found myself shooting at 40, 28 and 20 the most over the last week. I'm sure with practice it will become second nature.
Re: New Lens: Tamron 20-40mm F/2.8 Di III VXD, Thoughts?
Ok, I have just a few here. I was hesitant to even share the last 5 because the lighting was really flat and terrible and could make any lens look bad. But Grandpa brought us covid with his visit, so it's been a pretty tough week to get out and do anything out of the house.
No post production of any kind, except I raised the shadows +50 on #6. The built-in lens profile claims to just correct CA, but I don't know how much or how little. All the photos are at 40mm and wide open except #4 which is 20mm and f8.
I would normally edit all of these but I assumed folks want unedited shots.
Further thoughts:
Zoom ring:
This is probably my biggest gripe with the lens so far. I wish it were more damped. It's just a little too easy to turn, and I'm worried it will become easier over time. It's really easy to bump it and turn from 28 to 35 or something. I'm not sure why they made it this easy, maybe folks want that for video?
AF:
I think it's quite good. I'm sure my A7riii is the weakest link here, as I tried swapping between this and some of my other lenses in several shooting situations and they seemed to struggle with the same things. My oldest on his strider going full tilt down the street towards me was just a little too much for this lens, but I wasn't shooting in burst, so it may have done better if my settings were more ideal.
Sharpness:
I guess top tier lenses these days are pretty crazy, but on my 42mp sensor I think this lens is incredibly sharp. It just surprises me that the reviews say this lens is "ok" because I think it's out-resolving the sensor in the center of the image, at any aperture. But I guess the reviewers always have the nicest of the nice lenses and bodies as their personal baseline, so I'm sure this Tamron seems quite average to them.
Rendering:
In nice light I think this lens sings. I don't own any of the nicest GM glass, and maybe those can make a great image in crummy light, but my personal requirement is that if the light is nice, the image should look nice straight out of camera, and I think this lens can do that. My primes are all like that, but the lens this one replaced for me, the Zony 16-35, wasn't like that at all, I'm not entirely sure why.
I'm still getting used to using a zoom as my go-to everyday lens, but I think that's going to take a while. I've found myself shooting at 40, 28 and 20 the most over the last week. I'm sure with practice it will become more second nature.
Nov 06, 2022 at 03:51 PM
Previous versions of Erichimedes's message #16087375 « New Lens: Tamron 20-40mm F/2.8 Di III VXD, Thoughts? »
