Reading mode: Light Dark

Tamron's rumored 14-200mm and 14-300mm lenses--who's excited?!

Go to last post
grasscatcher said:
I would much rather see a sharp 100-400 telezoom, something that is sorely missing in the m43 market. Give us two versions, a 2.8-4.0 PRO and a smaller, lighter, cheaper 3.5-6.3 version.
Click to expand...
Sure, as long as it has OIS!
 
Astrotripper said:
I don't understand Tamron at all. There's a whole in the MFT system in regards to fast variable aperture zooms. There's another whole on the telephoto end. But no, they decided to make exactly the same superzoom as Olympus and Panasonic offers. And even price it the same.

I just don't get it. If they'd made a decent weather-sealed 12-50 or 12-60 with f/2.8-4.0 aperture, that would be a bestseller. Instead, we get another redundant lens, and some patents for even more fairly useless lenses. I doubt Tamron will get anywhere in MFT world. They'll probably give up on it after their first try, as I just don't see how their 14-150 could sell in any meaningful numbers.
Click to expand...
I agree - their newly introduced superzoom is as interesting as watching paint dry. A 14-200/300 would involve even more compromises in terms of size/weight/speed/IQ.

In fairness to Tamron, the have considerable experience with superzooms so perhaps the 14-150 was an easy development effort for them and therefore represented a low-risk entry into the still unproven* m43 system. The Panasonic 42.5/1.7 seems similar. With the experience they gained from the 42.5/1.2, it seems plausible that the 1.7 didn't require significant effort to develop.

* - given the dearth of m43 from third party manufacturers, it's fair to say that they still believe it's unproven. What the rest of us think doesn't matter.
 
I am as excited as an eskimo being offered an ice-cream !

That sort of non-sensical range mimicking those of small sensors compact camera is good enough for non-discerning photographers who I guess are not many among MFT users. The myth of the one universal lens doing it all like a swiss army knife is still prévalent.

Tamron, you are a good company known for its astute marketing. How about a 100-200 f/4 without IQ compromise ?
 
I would be very excited. There are always reservations about super-zooms, but, to me, the biggest hassle in any trip walking through a new town with exciting things to photograph, is to stop and find a safe place to change lenses every half an hour (sometimes even more frequently). If this lens becomes to "all in one" reasonable compromise, and if the size is not very disproportionate, it would be a great lens to have.
 
a 14-100 f2 would be better,or one of there 90mm 2.5 lens too many super zooms out there
 
OrdinarilyInordinate said:
http://www.43rumors.com/tamron-patents-an-extreme-14-300mm-micro-four-thirds-lens-design/

I hope they get made and don't cost an arm and half a leg... 14-300mm would be such an excellent situational convenience, as long as Tamron manages to keep it light. Although it did well with making a reasonably sized and weighted APS-C 18-300mm recently.
Click to expand...
More importantly, they need to keep it sharp. There's no point of a fuzzy 300mm that yields less detail than a sharp 150mm. I obviously haven't tried them all, but from objective tests (dxo & slrgear) there appear to be very few decent interchangeable superzooms on any mount. Availability of the Panny 14-140 was one of the things that attracted me to u4/3. I hope the Tamron is worthy competition, but I won't hold my breath.

I'd rather see someone break out of the 14mm box and deliver an 8x+ zoom starting at 10 or 12mm.
 
Last edited:
TomFid said:
I'd rather see someone break out of the 14mm box and deliver an 8x+ zoom starting at 10 or 12mm.
Click to expand...
Yes indeed, but that might be very difficult from a technical point of view and not very commercially attractive in terms of having a large number somewhere.

Large numbers sell things ;)
 
I'm sure gullible/ignorant customers are the reason for the existence of so many crappy 300mm superzooms over the years. But it still seems like a failure of imagination and marketing, that nearly every superzoom and kit lens has to start at 28mm equivalent.
 
If it's a dedicated mFT lens, I welcome it. Any manufacturer entering into mFT improves the system. Yes, I would love a reasonably priced, small, reasonably fast 200 or 300 telephoto for sports or birding.
 
as an owner of the 14-150 Tamron, I purchased it as the smallest example of that genre. It makes for the perfect walk around lens. I will pair it with a couple of small fast primes, if I have to. There are many of those available from Olympus. Panasonic, Voightlander, etc.
 
put this in the wrong place - go one post down.
 
who just want a better camera than the compact they have. And a super zoom fits their needs.
 
Michael M Fliegel said:
If it's a dedicated mFT lens, I welcome it. Any manufacturer entering into mFT improves the system. Yes, I would love a reasonably priced, small, reasonably fast 200 or 300 telephoto for sports or birding.
Click to expand...
I'm just the opposite, I would like a slow 300 prime, as I always use a tripod.

Peter Del
 
jeffharris said:
OrdinarilyInordinate said:
I hope they get made and don't cost an arm and half a leg... 14-300mm would be such an excellent situational convenience, as long as Tamron manages to keep it light. Although it did well with making a reasonably sized and weighted APS-C 18-300mm recently.
Click to expand...
If it wasn't a Tamron there might be something to get excited about.

I can't image the image quality would be particularly good for a lens with that sort of range. It's tough enough for the 10x superzooms to reach acceptable quality, image a 20x+ ultra-zoom?
Click to expand...
My Tamron 90mm macro lens worked just fine for me. If I were just using Nikon DX gear, I'd be using it (and a Sigma 150mm macro.)

I'll wait and see on the long zoom range. The 25-400 mm eq. lens in the Panasonic FZ1000 seems to be getting good reviews and good reports from happy users.
 
harveysteeves said:
who just want a better camera than the compact they have. And a super zoom fits their needs.
Click to expand...
And let's not forget the "Instamatic 104" crowd. It's not like the masses were screaming for high quality pictures back then, either.

And that's why phones are crushing compact sales. All most people really want is a simple snapshot 99% of the time.
 
IMO, I'd rather go with quality over quantity and that includes the wide range of super zooms. They might be convenient, but tend to just give you mediocre IQ at a wide range of focal lengths.
 
Astrotripper said:
Those are as unexciting as their 14-150 superzoom for MFT. And with cameras like Panasonic FZ1000 or Sony RX10 on the market, I don't see slow superzooms for MFT making much sense.

I don't understand Tamron at all. There's a whole in the MFT system in regards to fast variable aperture zooms. There's another whole on the telephoto end. But no, they decided to make exactly the same superzoom as Olympus and Panasonic offers. And even price it the same.

I just don't get it. If they'd made a decent weather-sealed 12-50 or 12-60 with f/2.8-4.0 aperture, that would be a bestseller. Instead, we get another redundant lens, and some patents for even more fairly useless lenses. I doubt Tamron will get anywhere in MFT world. They'll probably give up on it after their first try, as I just don't see how their 14-150 could sell in any meaningful numbers.
Click to expand...
Tamron has a history of building super zooms so, it's probably why choose to enter M43 with one. I got the Tamron 14-150mm f/3.5-5.8 to use with my E-M10. It is well built and smaller and lighter than my 12-40mm f/2.8 Pro or my 35-100mm f/2.8. Of course, they are constant aperture pro-grade zooms. I wasn't all that thrilled with the results I got and sent the lens back.

To me, the M43 super zooms we have now are sort of the "jack of all and master of none". Pushing the range out to 14-200mm or 14-300mm is maybe going too far.
 
Bobby Rue Goldberg said:
So, no, I'm not excited about these lenses (jack of all trades but master of none?), but I like the fact that Tamron is on board.
Click to expand...
Tamron has some nice lenses these days, and the prospect of more high quality optics is promising. That said, I'm not going to buy a superzoom. It's the wrong quality/size/price ratio for me.
 
bs1946 said:
Astrotripper said:
Those are as unexciting as their 14-150 superzoom for MFT. And with cameras like Panasonic FZ1000 or Sony RX10 on the market, I don't see slow superzooms for MFT making much sense.

I don't understand Tamron at all. There's a whole in the MFT system in regards to fast variable aperture zooms. There's another whole on the telephoto end. But no, they decided to make exactly the same superzoom as Olympus and Panasonic offers. And even price it the same.

I just don't get it. If they'd made a decent weather-sealed 12-50 or 12-60 with f/2.8-4.0 aperture, that would be a bestseller. Instead, we get another redundant lens, and some patents for even more fairly useless lenses. I doubt Tamron will get anywhere in MFT world. They'll probably give up on it after their first try, as I just don't see how their 14-150 could sell in any meaningful numbers.
Click to expand...
Tamron has a history of building super zooms so, it's probably why choose to enter M43 with one.
Click to expand...
Yep, that may very well be the case.
bs1946 said:
To me, the M43 super zooms we have now are sort of the "jack of all and master of none".
Click to expand...
Yep, that's what they are. Which is not a bad thing of course. Sometimes convenience is more important than quality (assuming it stays acceptable).

The problem is that premium, large sensor super zoom cameras like RX10 and FZ1000 made the MFT super zoom lenses largely obsolete. Sure, such a lens will still be a bit cheaper. But those cameras offer much more. Any difference in DOF control or sensor performance is offset by much faster lenses. In the end, you get similar quality, but more of other things (wider angle, larger range, larger aperture, and so on). This was not the case when Tamron started developing their lens (and it was supposed to have optical stabilization at first). But now the situation is a bit different.

It'll be interesting to see if Tamron ever decides to develop other lenses for MFT.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top