OK, the excitement wore off, now the thinking begins

So I became really excited by the newly announced Tamron 20-40 2.8. I currently shoot most of my photography with 21 and 35 equivalents and the thought of an all in one solution really piqued my interest. But, and this is a huge but, I’m used to primes. So it got me thinking about the Sigma 20/2 and 35/2 combo instead. I’d get the same range in faster lenses, but it would require me to carry a bag, whereas the 20-40 would not. I know, first world problems, but still. Anyhow, I’d be interested to hear from anyone who shot predominantly with primes and switched to zooms. Do you regret it? Do you like it? Do you find yourself missing the prime experience? Any thoughts would be appreciated. Thanks.

For local and dedicated shoots, I mostly shoot fast primes, except for telephoto zooms with sports/nature. Otherwise, I use zooms mainly for travel, for convenience.

A relatively slow f2.8 20-40mm really doesn't get my juices flowing, like an f2 would; although, I realize it would be big and heavy, relatively speaking.

--
Jeff
Florida, USA
http://www.gr8photography.com

I need to use my wide angle lenses more often. I haven't really used the 17-28 much at all. It is a really limited zoom range. 20-40 is at least a full 2x zoom.

I've got an old 22-55mm zoom and do like that range. This would be wider on both ends.

The 2.5/40G is already pretty marginal for me, and I don't love the Sigma 35/2.

Why don’t you like the Sigma 35/2?

I much prefer a zoom to changing lenses, but I am happy to stick with a single focal length in urban environments, and enjoy fast primes from time to time

Kyle Logan said:

Why don’t you like the Sigma 35/2?

Click to expand...

These Sigmas are nice desk toys, but as working lenses they are far from optimal.

I come from more of a large and medium format background so would usually start with a set of three primes. To give FF equivalents, because most people are used to that and it’s confusing when cameras ranged from 4x5 to 2 1/4 square, I would start with a 50 85 and 28. More or less. I That habit carried over into small formats like 35 mm

A close friend poked fun at my old habits. He claimed zoom lenses as his super power. He was a few years older than me and also came from larger formats. So I looked into it and changed to zooms.



Quality if you pixel peep is not as good. That’s pretty much a fact. If you print it’s actually dam hard to see. If you want super fast glass it’s back to primes. So I have two 1.4 primes for that stuff. Might buy one more

One big advantage is composition. The zoom with your feet thing is actually not a thing. Perspective is a function of the distance from you to the subject not the focal length of the lens. If you frame a scene and the arrangement of foreground, mid ground and background is important to you then you pick your viewpoint and moving back and forward will change the composition fundamentally. Being able to pick the exact spot you want to stand and then include or exclude elements using focal length to frame is actually more precise. Zoom is great for that. Unless you have primes spaced out every 5mm. Good luck with that.



I’m not averse to changing lenses. Even in a dusty environment, but a zoom is faster than switching lenses. You still end up changing lenses however. Well I do.



I get the shot discipline thing with a single prime but I have been at this so long I’m not romantic about it anymore. You could always gaffer tape the zoom to single focal length if that thrills you I guess.

It depends on the situation.

I like using primes, typically a 35mm + 21 (or 18mm) and a short tele or telezoom.

However zooms are definitely an advantage when:

- I want to avoid taking the time to change lenses, usually if I'm out & about with other people.

- I want to avoid changing lenses because of possible dust (or pollen or drizzle or snow or...) on the sensor.

For years I used a MF adapted 21-35 zoom along with a short tele or telezoom, now I use the PZ 16-35. If the 20-40 has better rendering than the PZ, I'd seriously consider it.

Kyle Logan said:

So I became really excited by the newly announced Tamron 20-40 2.8. I currently shoot most of my photography with 21 and 35 equivalents and the thought of an all in one solution really piqued my interest. But, and this is a huge but, I’m used to primes. So it got me thinking about the Sigma 20/2 and 35/2 combo instead. I’d get the same range in faster lenses, but it would require me to carry a bag, whereas the 20-40 would not. I know, first world problems, but still. Anyhow, I’d be interested to hear from anyone who shot predominantly with primes and switched to zooms. Do you regret it? Do you like it? Do you find yourself missing the prime experience? Any thoughts would be appreciated. Thanks.

Click to expand...

The idea is intriguing. One smallish lens with reasonable speed. Not really different to the existing underwhelming 16 .. 35 mm lenses but with the benefit being smaller than most of them.

I use the G 12 .. 24 in city scapes and for landscape where I use f/7.1 for DOF reasons - when I need faster speed for dim situations of for DOF I really love the GM 35 which is as small as the tampon 20 .. 40 but two stops faster and tack sharp corner to corner beating all existing 35 mm primes.

I doubt the Tamron will be as sharp two stops slower.

So what’s the value proposition?

I guess at the end of the day it is all about video and 2ndly about photo.

In case the next iPhone will get 48 MP this solution is easily beating any weight savings the smallest and lightest lens could bring - we‘ll know more in seven days.

For the specialty work extreme lenses - being wider or being faster - will do the trick.

And in case the next iPhone won’t get the boost in pixels the one after that do.

At daylight the upcoming smartphones are probably the better walk about lenses in the range of the Tamron 20 .. 40

Just a bit food for thought

Love the 12-24 g, don’t understand why it isn’t more popular. Total gem, like the 200-600

SafariBob said:

Love the 12-24 g, don’t understand why it isn’t more popular. Total gem, like the 200-600

Click to expand...

Very simple - they‘ve obviously never tried it.

With a few exceptions I‘ve tried most Tamron and Sony lenses - the Sigma lenses are excluded due to their size and weight and the Samyang/Rokinon I tested/bought did not impress me.

Tamron has a very interesting way of addressing niches others don’t fill or desire to invest in.

The new 20 .. 40 is very obviously a video blogger‘s device.

Having had a 2nd and 3rd thought it does not make a lot of sense to me from a photographic standpoint.

a Compact 35 .. 90 f/2.0ish would be more on my wishlist - doubt it could be done though.

The upcoming iPhone 14 PRO will hit my city-scape photographing much more.

--
__________________________________
... having is better than needing

TL;DR: get the zoom.

Here's how I see it. If you're considering a zoom at all, it's probably the right lens. There's a lot of hype and romance around primes, but the reality is that they're often just impractical and not the best choice.

Over time I realized I absolutely loath changing lenses, so I've built a kit that minimizes them as much as possible. I basically have 1 lens for outdoors (Tamron 28-200), 1 main indoor lens (SY 35 1.8), and a "fun" lens (SY 45 1.8). I used to have an UWA prime for architecture (SY 14 2.8) but I dropped it So I think it comes down to how you want to use the lens. If it's going to be a general purpose lens I would def go for the zoom. You won't miss the extra stop of light and Tamron zooms tend to have nice rendering IME.

I used to shoot FE with primes and MFT with zooms. Then my landscape tutor told me it was silly to use primes, so I added the 28-75/2.8 to shoot with Loxia 21mm and CV 15mm. Now I mostly shoot FE with 17-28, 28-75 and 100-400 GM and use the primes for special purposes.

My MFT on the other hand has a small configuration with 10/2 and 25/1.4 on an EM1.1, which is both small and versatile.

The full MFT kit is 8mm fisheye, 10/2, 12-40 and 40-150 on an OM1.

For me, zooms are the general purpose and landscape lenses. Primes are for lightness or when you need a macro, TS lens, shallow DoF, sun stars or particular rendering.

A Sony 20/1.8 G plus Sigma 35/2 makes perfect sense to me as an alternative to the Tamron 20-40mm. I could imagine having all three.

Andrew

--
Infinite are the arguments of mages. Truth is a jewel with many facets. Ursula K LeGuin
Please feel free to edit any images that I post

How so? This lacks specifics and I’d really like to know.

Jeff2013 said:

For local and dedicated shoots, I mostly shoot fast primes, except for telephoto zooms with sports/nature. Otherwise, I use zooms mainly for travel, for convenience.

A relatively slow f2.8 20-40mm really doesn't get my juices flowing, like an f2 would; although, I realize it would be big and heavy, relatively speaking.

Click to expand...

Exact same thought, F2.8 still pretty slow compare to GMs, and for a such short focal range, I really don't see a point owning such lens. I still believe my new Sigma 20 F1.4 ( or even my 20 F1.8G) + 35GM will serve me much better.

SafariBob said:

Love the 12-24 g, don’t understand why it isn’t more popular. Total gem, like the 200-600

Click to expand...

I owned one for very short period of time and sold it awhile back, pretty decent lens but most of the time I use 12 -14mm range is for Milky Way landscape, and F4 is pretty useless so I replaced it with the 14GM + 20G, now with the Sigma 20 F1,4, and when I need the longer end, I prefer the Voigtlanger 21 F1.4 and 24GM much better therefore this lens stays in the closet most of the time.

Kyle Logan said:

How so? This lacks specifics and I’d really like to know.

Click to expand...

I don't like touching metal. I use lenses outdoors in all weather. I have also owned and used many cheap metal lenses which were fine. I've also owned old metal Tokinas and Sigmas which were horribly constructed garbage. Some people claim those to be built like tanks. These Sigmas are put together well. They are fine for playing with indoors in temperature controlled environments--like desk toys. I like them for their optics, but the 35/2 doesn't stand out optically.

Interesting. Thx for responding.

Dan_168 said:

SafariBob said:

Love the 12-24 g, don’t understand why it isn’t more popular. Total gem, like the 200-600

Click to expand...

I owned one for very short period of time and sold it awhile back, pretty decent lens but most of the time I use 12 -14mm range is for Milky Way landscape, and F4 is pretty useless so I replaced it with the 14GM + 20G, now with the Sigma 20 F1,4, and when I need the longer end, I prefer the Voigtlanger 21 F1.4 and 24GM much better therefore this lens stays in the closet most of the time.

Click to expand...

I own the GM 14 as well and only use this one-trick pony for astro photography. For everything else the G 12 .. 24 wins hands down.

It is as sharp or even a tack sharper at the wide end and very handy when it comes two walk about photography. The only zoom I've ever accepted as good enough. Easily on par with my spectacular Loxia 21 stopped down to f/7.1 - which is the perfect setting for good DOF and diffraction limit on the A7R IV

Kyle Logan said:

Why don’t you like the Sigma 35/2?

Click to expand...

I didn't like Sigma 35/2 because of slow focusing, pretty high distortion and vignetting. And it weighs more than other 35mm for no good reason. I simply didn't enjoy using it.