Has anyone tried the Tamron 20-40mm on aps-c?

I have an ZV-E10 with a Sigma 18-50mm, I also have an A7iv and i was thinking of replacing the Sigma 18-50mm with the 20-40mm instead because i can also use it on full frame. If anyone has tried the combo, how do you like it. Please share any photos of this lens on an aps-c camera if you have the combo.

Thanks in advance

It depends on your photography. I shoot Sony aps-c and for me, 20-40 is in no man's-land. On APS-C 20mm is not wide enough for landscapes and 40mm 2.8 is barely long enough for serious portraits with background separation. I would rather keep using that lens on your FF camera. For Sony aps-c nothing beats the 16-55G. If I could only have one lens- this would be it.

Canon2018 wrote:

It depends on your photography. I shoot Sony aps-c and for me, 20-40 is in no man's-land. On APS-C 20mm is not wide enough for landscapes and 40mm 2.8 is barely long enough for serious portraits with background separation. I would rather keep using that lens on your FF camera. For Sony aps-c nothing beats the 16-55G. If I could only have one lens- this would be it.

The difference in field of view between the 18-50mm sigma and the tamron 20-40mm is not significant.

If the difference is not significant for your type of photography, then go for it! I often take landscape shots and family/portraits. For me, even 18mm are not wide enough so I sold the Sigma 18-50. And for me, 40mm are too short for portraits.

Canon2018 wrote:

If the difference is not significant for your type of photography, then go for it! I often take landscape shots and family/portraits. For me, even 18mm are not wide enough so I sold the Sigma 18-50. And for me, 40mm are too short for portraits.

In your case there is a significant difference between the 40mm (60mm aps-c) on the long end and the 55mm (82.5mm aps-c) and probably more on the wide end with the 16mm vs 20mm. But with the sigma 18-50, its less

Lens (mm) vs horizontal field of view

16mm (24mm on crop) - 73.74 deg

18mm (27mm on crop) -  67.36 deg

20mm (30mm on crop) - 61.93 deg

40mm (60mm on crop) - 33.4 deg

50mm (75mm on crop) - 26.99 deg

55mm (82.5mm on crop) - 24.62 deg

so effectively, I am losing around 5 degrees on the wide end, which is roughly 2.5 degrees on either side and 6.4 degrees on the long end which is 3.2 degrees on either side which is why i said its not that significant.

It might not be significant for you, but I often missed the 16mm when I used the Sigma. In the end I often took an additional wideangle lens and kept switching. With the 16-55 I often travel with this lens only.

Bijo Sam wrote:

I have an ZV-E10 with a Sigma 18-50mm, I also have an A7iv and i was thinking of replacing the Sigma 18-50mm with the 20-40mm instead because i can also use it on full frame. If anyone has tried the combo, how do you like it. Please share any photos of this lens on an aps-c camera if you have the combo.

Thanks in advance

This looks like a weird switch. It arise question why do you actually own ZV-E10.

I also have Sigma 18-50f2.8, after purchase become my most used lens. I can't imagine switch it for bigger lens with even more limited zoom range and worse close focus.

Martin_99 wrote:

Bijo Sam wrote:

I have an ZV-E10 with a Sigma 18-50mm, I also have an A7iv and i was thinking of replacing the Sigma 18-50mm with the 20-40mm instead because i can also use it on full frame. If anyone has tried the combo, how do you like it. Please share any photos of this lens on an aps-c camera if you have the combo.

Thanks in advance

This looks like a weird switch. It arise question why do you actually own ZV-E10.

I also have Sigma 18-50f2.8, after purchase become my most used lens. I can't imagine switch it for bigger lens with even more limited zoom range and worse close focus.

Did you actually read and comprehend my post? I already said why I want to get this lens. As for why I own the ZV-E10, its to use as a compact travel cam when i dont want to lug the FF around. Size wise there isnt much of a difference between the tamron and the sigma, the tam is a bit girthier (67mm) vs the 55mm of the sigma. Zoom range difference as i have already demonstrated with actual field of view values is not that different either.

Bijo Sam wrote:

Martin_99 wrote:

Bijo Sam wrote:

I have an ZV-E10 with a Sigma 18-50mm, I also have an A7iv and i was thinking of replacing the Sigma 18-50mm with the 20-40mm instead because i can also use it on full frame. If anyone has tried the combo, how do you like it. Please share any photos of this lens on an aps-c camera if you have the combo.

Thanks in advance

This looks like a weird switch. It arise question why do you actually own ZV-E10.

I also have Sigma 18-50f2.8, after purchase become my most used lens. I can't imagine switch it for bigger lens with even more limited zoom range and worse close focus.

Did you actually read and comprehend my post? I already said why I want to get this lens. As for why I own the ZV-E10, its to use as a compact travel cam when i dont want to lug the FF around. Size wise there isnt much of a difference between the tamron and the sigma, the tam is a bit girthier (67mm) vs the 55mm of the sigma. Zoom range difference as i have already demonstrated with actual field of view values is not that different either.

I fully read and understand your post. Still, my advice is to keep 18-50f2.8 and buy a second FF lens, chosed without apsc intention and size limitation. The selling price of Sigma is not significant anyway.

Bijo Sam wrote:

I have an ZV-E10 with a Sigma 18-50mm, I also have an A7iv and i was thinking of replacing the Sigma 18-50mm with the 20-40mm instead because i can also use it on full frame. If anyone has tried the combo, how do you like it. Please share any photos of this lens on an aps-c camera if you have the combo.

Thanks in advance

Given that DPR is closing, I'm being more blunt in replies.

I will actually answer the question in the OP:

No, I have not tried that combo.

That's all the OP asked for, not if he should try that combo. if the OP had wanted that answer then he would have asked that question. Just answer the actual question asked rather than provide opinionated blather on the question you wrongly think he should have asked - its not that difficult folks.