Tamron 28-75mm F2.8 for E-Mount Sample Gallery

In our conversations with Tamron, they noted that it was a design decision to keep weight and size down.

8 months agopermalink

Banh Mi

Dear some ... people who say "Bokeh" is not good like Canikon 24-70mm whatever.
First, Bokeh is something you can not compare on different photos. If you want to compare bokeh between 2 lenses, you need to shoot same photos, same distance, same object, same background, and lights.
Noobs Keep going around and say bokeh render blablablabla. Order this lens first, and then setup a tripod, and compare it with your G Master, Canonikon whatever lens.

9 months agopermalink

Such a shame the bokeh isn’t better it’s really quite rough, not buttery like my 24-70mm f2.8 Nikon. May have to wait a little longer. Ain’t no way I’m forking out for the G master

9 months agopermalink

ChapelThrill23

If bokeh is what you want then get a good prime. 70mm at 2.8 doesn't give you great separation unless you are very close to the subject.

9 months agopermalink

nikon is known for smooth pleasing rendering of OOF areas.

9 months agopermalink

sharpness wide open is not impressive. canon/nikon zooms do better job at mid distance.

9 months agopermalink

Thematic

Who cares about Canon and nikon. This is Sony e mount.

I could troll Canon and Nikon lens topics and let them know their 24-70mm lens reviews worse than the Sony Gmaster.

It's all about options for users.

9 months agopermalink

Really. Which reviews are that? All the ones I’ve seen the Nikon and canon 24-70mm are a bit sharper than the more expensive Sony G master

9 months agopermalink

good to know. when decent reliable camera appears behind e-mount, I will consider checking g-master.

9 months ago*permalink

Try the A7 III

9 months agopermalink

after recent announcement of new EVF from Sony, literally one month after the release, A7 III looks already outdated. Their marketing department is making fun out of customers.

9 months agopermalink

Thematic

Lol because of a potential evf? Nice try Tim.

9 months agopermalink

"potential" means something non-existent, which is not the case. i don't like the way the company deliberately delays announcement of existing new tech until old and outdated one is thrown in the market. a73 may be a good toy for amateur videographers, but its ergonomics, resolution, ruggedness and AF reliability cannot be compared to modern DSLR camera like D850 or 1DX2, not to mention that ridiculous PDAF "banding" issue.

9 months agopermalink

I think you will never able to buy a new camera ...

9 months ago*permalink

I own an old Sony SLT A57 camera dated at 2012, I didn't notice that much of a difference from 1.4M dot to 2.36 dot EVF. It provides more than what an OVF can provide. Histogram in the viewfinder for instance.

9 months ago*permalink

@Tim Koehler, If this is not considered good enough. No camera can suit you. At ISO 6400 without any noise reduction.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/64334648@N08/42350074065/in/dateposted-public/

8 months agopermalink

@ZeroXlim I’m concerned about factors I listed above rather than pure noise capabilities.

8 months agopermalink

Which camera are you using? D850 or 1DX2?

8 months agopermalink

Michael1000

There are no good landscape photos here for evaluating corner to corner sharpness. Either they are too dark, or there are foreground objects, so you don't know where exactly it is focusing. Some simple vista shots in daylight would be great.

9 months agopermalink

6BQ5

I would like to know how quickly this lens can focus and lock on a subject during action photography, especially with subjects moving toward the photographer.

9 months agopermalink

tedolf

What, the cat photo was not enough?

tEdolph

9 months agopermalink

SebKocen

To me, the colors look dull and lifeless.

9 months agopermalink

NemanRa

good for post processing... :)

regards

9 months agopermalink

MatVicensPhoto

^^^ yes. is your monitor calibrated? @SebKocen

9 months agopermalink

tedolf

As you know, that is likely not a function of the lens.

TEdolph

9 months agopermalink

Downloaded 3 of the images, imported them to light room, it ctrl U, did a 20 sec tweak to vibrancy, clarity and saturation.

So regarding your comment... no biggy. If you will trust sony to deal all your images by means of JPEGs, then you are fool. If not then you will be shooting raw, in which case it appears that they are easily editable to be vibrant if that is your thing.

When it comes to shooting on sony on needs to worry less about this sort of thing than the weird color cast you might end up getting.

Anyway... if you want a less dull look in your OOC images, just use the vibrant setting rather than standard.

9 months agopermalink

jbNjpn

Really excited for the review of this; I'm still deciding between this and the 24-105

9 months agopermalink

We hope to review the 24-105 in the coming weeks as well!

9 months agopermalink

jbNjpn

Even better! Thank you so much

9 months agopermalink

bluevellet

DPR is about 10 years behind with lens reviews...

Good to see them, hopefully, reviewing newer lens releases, but there will still a big decade-ling gap in their archive.

9 months agopermalink

"DPR is about 10 years behind with their lens reviews..."

I generally agree with you. All the more important to get caught up now.

"...there will still a big decade-ling gap in their archive."

Unfortunately, this will be true for a little while. But since lenses have a reasonably long shelf life, I'm hoping we'll be able to do a fair bit of backfilling of somewhat older lenses as we also continue to cover the new ones.

9 months agopermalink

stjarvis

Bokeh looks a little rough, definitely not on par with the 24-70 GM.

9 months agopermalink

M43ForMe

Hand wringing over bokeh in an $800 lens vs the $2100 counterpart likely means Tamron hit a home run.

9 months agopermalink

Agreed, bokeh matter. This lens is pretty rough looking and that is a problem

9 months agopermalink

108

hmm this lens, these samples and the price make me dream again of going FF , buy a used A7 II with tilted screen and finally get decent indoor low light shots at mini 1/80 sec of my cat

10 months agopermalink

NemanRa

sounds like a good idea :)

regards

9 months agopermalink

Ideas for other smaller/lighter f/2.8 zooms — 17-28mm and 75-150mm?

10 months agopermalink

Mike99999

Wow, these sample images are less than promising!!! Color me unimpressed!

10 months agopermalink

What about them bothers you?

10 months agopermalink

Ayoul

It seems reasonably sharp at the focus point at f/2.8, except maybe at very very short distance (the cat's eye for instance), and it seems sharp to me at f/8 at the wide end, maybe not at 75, but it's not surprising. What did you expect ? Zeiss contrast and colors ? Voigtlander sunstars ? A sharp lens edge to edge at every aperture ?

9 months agopermalink

Well Mike...

If you don't like it, you can get the 24-70 f4 or the 24-105 f4 or the 24-70GM

Oh wait...

the 24-70f4 is not much better than the kit with corners pretty much soft regardless of your f settings (also not a 2.8)

The 24-105, is 500-600 more, and is no f2.8, and the tamron is just as sharp at f4.

And then there is the GM.... costs almost 3x as much, is 300g heavier. If you had the tamron and the GM, which would you leave the house with most often? Is that "better" IQ SOOOOO good that you would use it as much or more than the tamron?

Oh well...

9 months agopermalink

S Yu

It's impressive that as a generic standard zoom it could focus so close to the cat at all.

9 months agopermalink

S-A-M

I‘ve now spent a day with this lens, and so far I am happy.

Corner sharpness is not awesome, but more than okay for the price, I don’t see much vignetting at F2.8. I don’t agree that it’s not sharp enough for the 42mp sensor. But it’s only been day.

No focus issues with the A7Riii. I get the sense that the slightly older autofocus module doesn’t show the issue, as opposed to the A9 and A7iii that most reviewers I’ve seen seem to use. Haven’t seen any focus misses that weren’t my fault either.

I’m Very happy with the form factor and weight, even though the zoom ring is just wrong. ;-)

10 months agopermalink

Relaxed

It’s interrsting to notice how Sony reprogrammed our expectations from an $800 lens.

9 months agopermalink

Does anybody think Canon or Nikon will be able to introduce new lenses at a pace similar to, or better, than Sony (in their first five years of Full Frame mirrorless Camera)?

10 months agopermalink

joe_leads

I’d say yes, but only if they abandon their DSLR lines of lenses. Their existing users will not be happy.

9 months agopermalink

How much faith do you have that Canon will be “all in” when it comes to mirrorless? Or, will Canon continue to serve both mirrorless with two to four lenses per year and DSLR with a similar number? If so, this leaves mirrorless wide open for Sony who is designing 500MM f/4 & 600MM f/4 Pro lenses and releasing bodies at a rate at least 2.5 times faster than Canon.

Just look back four years and project that forward another four…. Sony will be in dominant Camera, Lens, Technology and Solutions for both Stills and Video. As long as Sony products are reliable and easy to use, people who get paid for their work will move to Sony immediately.

9 months agopermalink

Relaxed

Lenses last a lot longer than digital bodies, and Sony had to catch up.

9 months agopermalink

FrequencyDancer - Sony in 2017 and 2018 is the #1 Imaging company in the world. There is a change coming to consumer/Pro cameras as Canons CEO has said they are deemphasizing photography in favor of office automation and other products since they see photography as a shrinking/losing industry. Sony on the other hand is already diversified, especially in the imaging industry (Far Beyond Canon) from Movies, Broadcast TV, Etc. and Sony is enthusiastic about photography (the opposite of Canon).

There's already a strong movement of people from Canon to Sony. I'm one of them. It won't be too much longer for the flood gates to fully burst open with Sonys rapid release of great quality cameras and lenses and Canons normal five year dormant cycle. The signs are all there. Sorry Frequency - You offer NO FACTS to support your opinion. and you know what they say about opinions...

9 months agopermalink

Hmmm A quick look up of annual corporate actual revenue numbers and projections on the internet -

Canon FY 17 = 4,080BY FY 18 FCST = 4,300BY
Sony FY 16 = 7,603BY FY 17 ACT = 8,544BY FY 18 FCST = 10,200BY

Let me see... If I were going to pick a company which is performing better, it surely wouldn't be Canon. Don't let that door keep hitting you in the head over and over again. I'm sure it hurts after a while...

9 months agopermalink

Max5150

I use Sony and Nikon. I generally like my Nikon lenses better than my Sony lenses. I doubt Nikon will have any problems coming out with good lenses. Sorry!

9 months agopermalink

Charrick1

Although I expect them to put more effort into full frame, the M-series may give you an idea as to the answer, and that is that lens development will not be nearly as fast as in Sony's first five years, although they will get a bit of a boost due to third parties simply adding a Canon mirrorless mount version to their already-released lenses.

9 months agopermalink

Frequency - We completely agree. You just cherry picked the Sony information as you picked older Sony numbers. Pick the most current Financials as I did. Mine are the current and thus the relevant numbers... Ok. I've actually had a lot of fun with our argument. Hopefully we'll get a chance to argue another topic. Have a good day!

9 months agopermalink

dpfan32

I think it's a pretty good kit-lens. But not exceptional for portraits at f2.8
But is it worse to ditch my old Tamron 28-75 f2.8 Canon mount lens which cost me 169 EUR? Nope :)

10 months agopermalink

dpfan32

I shoot with the Canon 5D Mark II and the old cheap Tamron gives me super sharp results even in the corners from f11 and smaller.
But you have to try a few copies to get a good one, my first 28-75 was totally decentered with a blurry right quarter of the picture. The second one I still have has one corner which is not as sharp as the others at wider apertures but this is no issue for me for landscape shots because I can go higher than f11.
I'm curious to see if the new one will have such a lottery going on ;)

9 months agopermalink

ant13r

Have you guys noticed the auto-focus issues that other reviewers are experiencing? Youtube reviewers are saying that this lens gets stuck and the camera needs to be rebooted for recovery.

10 months agopermalink

I've not noticed any such behavior in my time with our copy of the lens - admittedly, I've not done any video shooting with it.

10 months agopermalink

The lens reminds me to my Sigma 18-35 for APS-C (27-53 f/2.7 equivalent). Similar appearance and price. The Tamron offers more reach; the Sigma is made from metal and does not extend during zooming.

Resolution as shown in the samples is of course superior with the Tamron on a 42 MP camera, compared to my use of the Sigma on a 21 MP camera. But I like the bokeh of the Sigma, whereas the out-of-focus areas look disappointing with the Tamron.

For me the Sigma Art 18-35mm f/1.8 on an APS-C body is the better combo, unless I need and am willing to effort the increased resolution.

10 months agopermalink

The A7R3 has an APSC mode and uses APSC lenses just fine.

10 months agopermalink

A high-res full frame camera, like Sony A7R3 or Nikon D850, does indeed offer an attractive upgrade path, as one gets 20MP in APS-C mode ... until APS-C cameras will get 46MP as well ...

10 months agopermalink

OOF looks fine to me. Do you have an image comparison?

9 months agopermalink

Mark K

Ruekon
I have never dare to compare my Sigma 18-35 together with this lens.. To me 18-35 outclasses all the prime lenses at the equivalent focal length and is a gem. Older Tamron 28-75f2.8 is simply a cheap alternative to 24-70f22.8 with lower optical mechanical and optical quality.

9 months agopermalink

I related these lenses because the Sigma 18-35 keeps me happy with APS-C, whereas the Tamron 28-75 would be a similarly priced and optically largely equivalent standard zoom for full frame -- one being longer, the other built better.

Compare e.g. the tree in the background of image 1 of the 18-35 sample gallery:
https://www.dpreview.com/sample-galleries/3731747517/sigma-18-35mm-f1-8-dc-hsm-canon-preview-samples/7747877771

with image 33 or image 4 of this 28-75 sample gallery:
https://4.img-dpreview.com/files/p/TS1200x900~sample_galleries/4843934059/6162500494.jpg
https://4.img-dpreview.com/files/p/TS1200x900~sample_galleries/4843934059/1437695963.jpg

9 months agopermalink

Mark K

I understand. 18-35 and the later 50-100 are the lenses to keep me stay with APSC...

9 months agopermalink

Hmm if we're just talking creamy bokeh, then sure there is a little bit more softening/blending on the sigma than the tamron. But personally, I now lean toward visible bokeh balls because I really dislike the fake blur from smartphones. Before that, I had no problem with the soft blur in general but now it's almost a signature of smartphone photography.

9 months agopermalink

Hmm... I'm sure computational photography could also create a harsh bokeh if that was desired. Fortunately a good lens still offers more. See HubertChen's comment besides the linked photo:
"Pattern in the table shows that corner sharpness of the lens is great, even wide open. Bokeh is lovely even with difficult bright highlights, subjects focus is on the left eye and every hair on that eye is rendered perfectly. The critical transition area to the right eye has a beautiful bokeh. Wonderful lens."

9 months agopermalink

I'm sure they have an app reproducing lens defocus already. It is a little more processor intensive than a conventional blur and with probably mixed results. To me the tamron has great picture quality no question.

9 months ago*permalink

Bokeh ain’t great. Most 24-70 mum f2.8 are considerably smoother

10 months agopermalink

hansip87

for 1/3rd price.. yeah..

10 months agopermalink

FrequentDancer where is a shot with nice bokeh? None to my eye

9 months agopermalink

I'm seeing the same thing here I saw with the 70-200mm f/4 samples, soft images. I looked very closely on all the images with the male model and non of the images are sharp, just look at his eye lashes on the closest eye.

I shot with my 55mm f/1.8 and 85mm f/1.8 and both of them produce razor sharp images. Yes, they are both prime lenses, but still...

10 months agopermalink

Edgar_in_Indy

You must be seeing a different gallery than I am.

10 months agopermalink

TheRealYeats

Looking at the photo you cite, only some of his eyelashes are in focus, due to shallow DOF. The eyelashes that are in focus look sharp enough, without looking *sharpened*.

10 months agopermalink

@TheRealYeats - In terms of shallow DOF, I shot most of my portrait shots at f/2.2 using eye AF on my a7rIII. I rarely have any out of focus issues. I'm not sure what the photographer was using for those shots....my observations are strictly based on my experiences with both 55mm f/1.8 and 85mm f/1.8.

10 months agopermalink

TheRealYeats

@Joed700 - If the photographer was about 4 feet away from the model (just a guess on my part) he's only going to have an in-focus area of about 4 inches. It does not look like the AF was squarely on the model's eye.

I took a quick peek at a couple of the other photos, and what I'm seeing is some...curious... decisions on the focus point. I guess this gallery wasn't curated much.

10 months agopermalink

@ TheRealYeats - Perhaps this video can put things in perspective here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OEZZWiHXTXY

In conclusion, it sounds like this Tamron is sharper than the Sony 24-105mm f/4. There's definitely some focusing issues according to the comment section.

10 months ago*permalink

Just found another video showing the focusing problem with this lens: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=njUJFsJBqxQ

Definitely worth the wait for the firmware update.

10 months agopermalink

@Edgar_in_Indy - Here is the direct quote from Dpreview" We did have a handful of images that were slightly front-focused throughout the course of shooting our sample gallery, but nothing terribly out of the ordinary or resembling a complete focus fail that required restarting the camera or removing and re-mounting the lens."

I guess we are definitely looking at a different gallery. LOL!

9 months agopermalink

Edgar_in_Indy

I'm not gonna go through the gallery again, but looking through it initially I was impressed at the sharpness in most of the shots.

9 months agopermalink

@Edgar_in_Indy - First of all, I'm not sure what kind of photo equipment you are using now...anyhow, there people that makes random comments on this cite that they have no clue what the hack they are talking about. People who actually own and used Sony a7rIII plus the 55mm f/1.8 or 85mm f/1.8 know what a superior lens can produce. If you have not seen samples from these lenses, I would advise you to look at them. The sample gallery for this Tamron is one of the worst (sharpness) I've seen being a Canon, Nikon, Fuji plus Sony user myself.

On top of that, DpReview staff never even bother to mention the front focus issue they've encountered until now. This to me is a bunch of BS!

9 months ago*permalink

Edgar_in_Indy

Your criticisms fall flat when you're comparing a budget zoom lens to very well regarded prime lenses. How well does that 85mm do at 28mm?

The pictures look great to me for what the lens is, and yes, I've used plenty of sharp camera/lens combos and I've perused countless photo galleries from other people, so gear-snobbery isn't going to get your anywhere with me. Your nitpickery simply doesn't make sense at this price point.

And why complain that a budget lens doesn't squeeze every last drop of resolution out of a $3000 42MP body? This isn't a $2000+ lens, like Sony's own competing lens. The price is literally less than half. Hello? Hello?

9 months ago*permalink

Edgar_in_Indy - My initial comment was about the fact that the images were soft. I used the prime lenses examples as a benchmark to show how far off the image quality was. I disagree with your price point argument among other things. First of all, you can buy the Sony 28mm f/2 and 85mm f/1.8 for about a thousand dollar. Either one of the lens I mentioned produce excellent quality. Also, since we can't judge the Tamron lens at the present time due to defect, that should be another debate when they've come up with a fix. In fact, their promotional images by Tamron were way sharper....I too was ready to order this lens. So when I saw these samples, I was just shock and I make the comments above...continue below.

9 months agopermalink

However, you left your comment in a very sarcastic way...looking at different gallery...was totally uncalled for. This left me an impression that you have no clue what sharpness meant. Remember, I have/had Nikon, Canon, Fuji, and Sony. I've seen sharp images produced by many zoom lenses, and this Tamron example is really bad. Anyhow, my point was that if anyone who had used sharp lenses from any camp would not say that these images are sharp, period.

Call me anything you like, but that doesn't change the fact that you are full of it. Also, people who actually know how to look at photos know that too. So save it before you embarrass yourself even further. BTW, sharpness isn't everything in photography in case you don't know...going to gallery looking at photos..lol!!!

9 months ago*permalink

One more thing. The idea that aftermarket brand/cheaper brand cannot outperform expensive brand is old school. Did you ever try the Sigma Art series or the Tamron 85mm f/1.8 or 35mm f/1.8. They both outperform native lenses from Canikon. In fact, the Samyang 35mm f/2.8 ($265) is sharper than my Sony fe 35mm f/2.8 ZA ($745). You really should get yourself educated!!!

9 months agopermalink

otto k

Good work Tamron, now make a 2.8 standard zoom for APS-C E mount cameras.

10 months agopermalink

kty

Since Sony launched its A7 series back in 2013 everybody have complained about the narrow lens options. Look where we have come in just 5 years. Sony's top of the notch G/GM lens collection, FE mounted new Sigma Art's and now this beast from Tamron. It became impossible to stop this rolling stone from Sony. Mirrorless is undeniably "the" future.

10 months agopermalink

Thematic

Zeiss loxia lenses are godly and exclusive to the Sony emount. Veydra lenses are incredible for cinematographers and access to the stunning wide angle Laowa lenses.....

Great times to shoot Sony.

10 months agopermalink

(unknown member)

Samyang started to make FE lenses and now other companies also making FE lenses for Sony.

10 months agopermalink

MikeStern

Oh please stop. You gonna make me cry any second now.

10 months agopermalink

All three major mirrorless systems have expanded quite a bit in short order IMO, with and without 3rd party help. Even Sony's APS-C lineup is pretty decent despite the knocks against it, in some ways better off than crop DSLRs (primes), in others not so much.

Gonna be interesting to see what kinda pace CaNikon can keep/set, I think only one of the two is well equipped to really flesh out a whole new lineup and not rely largely on backwards compatibility. I've got Laowa, Samyang, *and* Sigma ML lenses, I hope they continue to bring out even more unique offerings.

10 months agopermalink

cirtapfotos

Links later..but this new Tamron lens for Sony..has a major Flaw..Auto Focus. Will not Auto Focus..several you tube reviews have all had the same issues. Failure to Auto Focus.

10 months agopermalink

Isn't that issue with video only? Not good if you do video, but perhaps not an issue if you do only stills.

10 months agopermalink

I haven't shot any video with this lens, but I had zero issues with the focus completely failing as shown in a number of YouTube videos. I did have a handful of images front-focused, but not to the extent that would alarm me or make me think our copy of the lens is suspect.

10 months agopermalink

Jhaakas

I thought that the front-focussing issues will only be in SLRs ..in mirrorless I suppose we dont need any AF adjustment as the same sensor is used for AF and image.

10 months agopermalink

mgblack74

@carey..... I thought one of the benefits of on sensor AF was elimination of back/front focusing. (?)

10 months agopermalink

In theory, yes, there should never be misses. But I've experienced (albeit very rarely) situations where an on-sensor system failed. It's far more common on many DSLRs (though our Nikon D5 seems nearly as reliable as an on-sensor system, to be honest).

This photo from this year's CP+ show had a green box confirming focus, but I was disappointed when I got back to my computer and saw it had missed: https://www.dpreview.com/files/p/articles/0625716055/DSC00577.acr.jpeg

10 months agopermalink

tesilab

@mgblack74 It appears to me the difference is with on-sensor pdaf. A green box verifies the focus, but the camera will issue precise movement instructions which may or may not yet be carried out before the shutter fires. This is an educated guess only.

I saw a report that changing shutter to focus priority would help. I always prefer that setting anyway to guarantee focus over timing.

There is also AF-C vs AF-S focusing difference in which AF-S will perform a final cdaf focus confirmation rather than trusting pdaf precision. (I’m talking stills here, I know there was a video discussion.)

10 months agopermalink

Jhaakas

@CareyRose.. thanks for the confirmation. Seems like there can be some exceptions!

10 months agopermalink

otto k

Sometimes the camera will focus on bokeh balls or other out of focus elements that appear to have a sharp edge or two. The more AF points you have and the smaller they are the easier it is to confuse them.

10 months agopermalink

Yep Yep... I have had some focus issues with the 551.8. Though perhaps you might not call it a focus issue.

For example, if you looked along a table surface, and then angled slightly upwards and tried to focus on something on the table, you may or may not get back or front focus on that item, or at least where you want that focus to be. The main reason for this is as someone mentioned focus priority setting, and what is actually in that focus point. After all that point is not infinitely small, and it is possible for the system to lock in on something in that box, but not necessarily what you wanted it to focus on.

10 months agopermalink

Kiril Karaatanasov

"I saw a report that changing shutter to focus priority would help."

I guess stupidity in the form of not reading the manual has taken over YouTube.

Shutter priority means AF is inaccurate. This mode is probably only useful in certain spot shoots where aperture is closed down, liveView turned off etc. etc.

It is possible that 3rd party lenses don't do as good as Sony's own in video. That in itself would require some better educated testing than YouTube videos. If people never read their manuals I guess results will be at best mediocre with any lens.

10 months agopermalink

Alex Zeee

I'm not one of those sharpness freaks/pixel peepers, but from what I can see from the RAW files it looks great., especially for the price. Nice to know that when I finally get an A7RIII I can get one of these + a 12-24G for the same price as a 24-70GM!

10 months agopermalink

jackspra

is it the camera making this lens look so good? Nice shots.

10 months agopermalink

The second sample showing a portrait of "the dpreview model" underlines impressively why we are still using dedicated cameras.

Compare with a smartphone portrait of the same person (iPhone X):
https://www.dpreview.com/articles/8898540845/does-sensor-size-still-make-a-difference

The difference shows up immediately, even if viewing in small size on a laptop monitor.

10 months ago*permalink

tesilab

Yeah, it is a big difference. Looks like the Tamron gives models much longer beards.

10 months agopermalink

This too. But do also observe the dynamic range and the sharpness even visible in small size. ...

To tell it with Janis Joplin:
Oh Lord, won't you buy me a Full Frame Camera?
My friends all use Smartphones, I must make amends.
Worked hard all my lifetime, no help from my friends,
So Lord, won't you buy me a Full Frame Camera?

10 months agopermalink

sceneIt

Sony fanbots like to say they need more interesting lenses to choose from, and when companies make them, they whine and complain... go figure.

10 months agopermalink

fjbyrne

Actually I would say the most disparaging comments seem to be from non-Sony shooters.

10 months agopermalink

mediman30

@ fjbyrne - I agree with you completely!

10 months agopermalink

Most comments seemed positive to me, as a non Sony user, wouldn't know what every random user name is using and I'm not about to go check all their profiles.

10 months agopermalink

fjbyrne

@Impulese "Most comments seemed positive to me" - I agree. I didn't get an overall negative impression when I read through the comments. Since @sceneit made the comment I went back and checked the profiles of those making negative claims and they weren't Sony shooters.

10 months agopermalink

armanius

@DPR staff - can you please add EXIF info when using mobile device browser? I'm viewing with Chrome in Android. Thank you!

10 months agopermalink

Yes please.

10 months agopermalink

EXIF info is not needed on a cell phone or tablet screen. Why, because you can not analyze how good it looks on a 5-10 inch screen. If you really want to see how good a picture is with EXIF data, do it on a larger screen laptop or computer monitor :/
People who try to analyze picture quality on cell phones are wasting their time.

10 months agopermalink

I disagree, what do you care either way?

10 months agopermalink

Sorry Impulses, I was just pointing out a fact. If you don't agree with facts, I did not mean to offend you.

10 months agopermalink

Got a source for these facts?

10 months agopermalink

Check those pictures out again on your cell phone again and get back to me ;)
Think of it as something like common sense.

10 months ago*permalink

armanius

Gotta love those people who don't want others to have things that they themselves don't find useful. Very nice people.

Try getting a better phone with a nice screen. I'm sorry that your phone has bad screen resolution.

10 months agopermalink

A lot of phone and tablet displays are higher DPI AND are better calibrated than the average mundane desktop display that a lot of people still happily use. So please explain why the former is *totally* useless for the purpose of evaluating a pic on DPR, to the point where you have to be an ass about a suggestion that doesn't affect you in the least. Think of it like common human decency.

10 months agopermalink

Ebrahim Saadawi

Of course I can get an excellent evaluation of images if there are 1:1 views available for my phones' pixels. My phone has a avery neturally calibrated 5"+ 1920x1280 screen. Bettee than most mundane computer LCDs.

I believe you mean when the full pictures are shown to fill the entire screen? Yes that's super hard to evaluate anything, but a Note 8 screen really gets me an excellent full view of 12-24mp images. (Where focus is, where sharpness fails, CA, shading, DR, colour), the 5DSR files? I can't make up of anything without a 100%

10 months agopermalink

It's not like it's hard to zoom in on a phone/tablet either, the more streamlined OS and the fact that pinch to zoom is so intuitive means it's probably quicker for some than pixel peeping on old computers (like work systems etc.). I would never argue it's preferable to a nice desktop, but I dunno why Gary here would go out of his way to argue against it.

10 months agopermalink

https://www.camerapricebuster.co.uk/Tamron/Tamron-Sony-E-Mount-Lenses/Tamron-28-75mm-f2.8-Di-III-RXD-Sony-Fit-Lens

at snapa... I have a 10.5 inch ipad pro. Assessing photos on it can be done well enough. It would definitely be nice to be able to have the image info when you are curious about the settings.

And why is that you won't think that one can do an assessment of image on a mobile device such as an ipad? And why exactly is it a waste of time? A filled screen with an image provides you with a good global view on lighting and composition, while zooming in at the critical focus point to 50% and 100% can easily allow a user to determine sharpness.

10 months agopermalink

Kharan

lawny13: I could agree, but iPad Mini displays both EXIF and full size samples correctly, while my Android phone doesn't. So it's a non-issue for iPads, apparently.

10 months agopermalink

taruaS

€829 my hairy a**. It is well over €1000 euros here in France. Mind you, we have the world's best health service, so...

10 months agopermalink

The Fat Fish

Money well spent. I work for the NHS here in the UK and I’d gladly double my tax if it goes to the NHS.

10 months agopermalink

James Stirling

That is weird taruas it is on pre-order everywhere here for £699 which is around €798 . Maybe see shipping costs

10 months agopermalink

lakkot

Just order one from germany. They cost €829 everywhere here, except Amazon where it costs 1000+
You need a link?

10 months agopermalink

Martin JC

@fat fish. Yep, I'd gladly double everyone else's taxes if it went to me too! Thanks for your suggestion....

10 months agopermalink

Kostas L

Google it again. I can see that it costs 899 at digit-photo or fnac.

9 months agopermalink

The Fat Fish

@Martin JC It wouldn’t benefit me but it would benefit the service to patients.

9 months agopermalink

chrisno

42MP is too demanding for zoom lens.. pretty soft in most of samples
prolly gotta downscale to 24MP to get the sharpness I like to

10 months ago*permalink

cirtapfotos

Sigma Art Primes..My Legs are my Zoom.

10 months agopermalink

I use both zooms and primes. My legs like being just legs.

10 months agopermalink

@cirtapfotos
What if you can't zoom with your legs? I guess you just don't get to take the picture, right? It's better to get the shot than get no shot at all, get a zoom.

10 months ago*permalink

le_alain

Yes, zoom or different focal are not needed.

Just take your 35mm standard and move your feets to have 16-300mm angle of view,
and perspective doesn't matter too ....

10 months agopermalink

lakkot

@cirtapfotos
You can make your legs maintain the perspective between shooting something at 200mm and coming close and shooting at 28mm? And no angles change? No distortion? Your legs are amazing. Or you're just full of S.

10 months agopermalink

cirtapfotos

Lakkot..there is always one in the bunch...please stop stealing medication out of your moms purse. Your ignorance is on display.

10 months agopermalink

LiveFromPhilly

Debating between this and the 24-105. Save money and get a faster lens, or spend more for a (possibly) sharper lens with a more useful zoom range.

Either way it's nice to have choice and both lenses are fairly compact.

10 months agopermalink

Swerky

I wish Tamron would update the old 28-75 f2.8 for DSLR, but perhaps Tamron won’t put much work on DSLR anymore.

10 months agopermalink

Alannn123

They released 24-70 2.8 VC G2 a few months ago. There is no need for two lens with pretty much the same focal lenght..

10 months agopermalink

Swerky

The 24-70 is an expensive pro lens. A moderately priced 28-70 at a bit lesser quality would have a different target market. But I’m not sure Tamron would release that because a moderately priced lens generally goes with a moderately priced camera. A new 28-70 would pair well with a D750 or a 6D Mark II. The former is already old and no news of releases from Nikon. And I don’t know wether the latter is doing well in the market. It’s alreasy undergoing major price slashes and offers.

10 months agopermalink

Alannn123

Abeit from autofocus issues that old tamron lenses have old 28-75 is still quite decent lens in terms of optics and price they go for nowadays. :) I've looked some comparisons between the G2 and 28-75 it's really not that drastic considering their age and price differences.

10 months agopermalink

What's with all the people commenting about the focal length? It was there in bold letters on the link you clicked to get here. Why are you complaining like it's a nasty surprise?

10 months agopermalink

Swerky

Some people expect it to go wide to 24 with the same weight, size, quality and cost.

10 months agopermalink

BlueBomberTurbo

People have become physics-dumb as of late.

10 months agopermalink

It probably could go 24mm for same size and cost if they dropped the tele to 60mm. But then "I could never use a standard zoom that only goes to 60mm" would happen instead.

10 months ago*permalink

I'd take 24-60 personally but I'm well aware they're all subjective choices and you can't please everyone.

10 months agopermalink

(unknown member)

tkbslc/ Physically not possible. Having 24mm already increase the size and weight. Tamron 28-75 is way thinner than Canon 24-70mm F4. Tamorn is 67mm and Canon is 77mm. From 28 to 24 is a huge change.

10 months agopermalink

aandi

Probably got upset when clicking the link does not change the 28 to become 24.

10 months ago*permalink

Tamron explained that they cannot make a 24-70 that is smaller than the GM version. So either you get a lens that is bulky and more expensive, or a lightweight and cheaper alternative. Since they target the lower price segment, we already know how it will turn out.

9 months agopermalink

Mais78

Me too, I would take 24-60, for the very simple reason that if you need more reach than that you can use the A7 in crop mode. I use my 24-70 GM as portrait (H&S) lens at 55-60mm in crop mode (with A7RIII you still get a 18MP file).

8 months agopermalink

Sigma made a very compact 24-60 f2.8 about 15 years ago. It's not impossible.

8 months agopermalink

Mais78

a 24-85 f2.8-4 variable aperture would be also nice. Don't know if feasible.

8 months ago*permalink

BlueBomberTurbo

@tkbslc

And Tamron made an absolutely massive 24-105/2.8 back in the day, too! ;)

8 months agopermalink

Astrotripper

I think this is a type of lens that Sony FE system really needed. A reasonably priced zoom that isn't huge or heavy and lets the users actually benefit from the FF sensor. And image quality is really good from what I see here. The bokeh can be pretty hideous in some situations, but you can't have everything.

In short, Sony users are getting more interesting lens options by the month. Enjoy :-)

10 months agopermalink

jst13

No 24mm so a no go lens. It does’t matter how sharp it is. I never would buy a Standard zoom starting at 28mm.

10 months agopermalink

So why are you here looking at the gallery when you knew it started at 28?

Do you go to articles about motorcycles and complain that you need 4 seats?

10 months agopermalink

Nukunukoo

Okay, jst13, don't buy it.

10 months agopermalink

Brian P Smith

I agree it's a lot easier for me to spend twice as much on a lens instead of taking a few steps back.

Heaven forbid people move their feet...

10 months agopermalink

knappe duivel

Moving your feet will change the perspective. It is _not_ the same as changing focal length.

10 months agopermalink

It won't change it THAT much. We aren't taking 24 and 50mm here

10 months agopermalink

Brian P Smith

knappe duivel, we're talking about roughly a 10 degree angle of view difference on the diagonal overall, and even less just vertical and horizontal.. If it was 50mm vs 24mm or even 24mm vs 18mm then yes, but 24-28 is really just a few steps, unless you can't step back a few feet (which happens, but is rare)

10 months agopermalink

I like having 24mm, but I think I'd give it up to get a lightweight easier-to-carry 28-75mm lens. It's not a bad compromise.

10 months agopermalink

You can always get the 24-70 Zeiss and compromise on f2.8 vs 4. Plenty of choices

10 months agopermalink

mgblack74

The difference between 24 and 28mm when it comes to FOV is leaning back. Literally, leaning back. If it's perspective, then yes, there is visual difference. 28mm to me is a happy medium between 24 & 35. It's about compromise.

10 months agopermalink

gustabod

it's only just one step back and you get 24

10 months agopermalink

Pixel Pooper

The 28mm is 17% longer, so if your focus distance is 100 metres you will need to step back 17 metres. You still won't get the same picture though because the angle of view and perspective will be different.

10 months agopermalink

Nukunukoo

Consequently, the difference between an FF 24mm and 28mm is essentially small, however, that's also relative. As a wedding photographer, a wide angle group shot would mean that I would take more than just a few steps back which just MIGHT be an issue on 28mm. Perspective difference is almost imperceptible and I always keep a separate wide-angle zoom with me anyways. =)

10 months agopermalink

jnd

Eh, you can get used to it. My standard everyday zoom is the Sigma 18-35mm which in about 29-56mm in full frame terms. Sure, few times it wasn't wide enough but this range is pretty good and if you really need you can take two shots for stitching later. For the price and weight this Tamron is good deal.

10 months agopermalink

jst13

Wow a lot of 28 mm Fans..enjoy :)

10 months agopermalink

Nukunukoo

jst13 We're NOT 28mm fans, that's actually a silly statement. We're just stating that the focal length at its widest is far FAR from being a dealbreaker. With someone like you who seem to have all brands of cameras and all kinds of mounts and all sorts of lenses on their Gear List, it's a wonder why you even made that statement. Or are you just a camera gear hoarder?

10 months agopermalink

@jst13, why keep bashing the lens when you know that it is designed for smaller size and lighter weight. Sony 24-70 2.8 GM is wider while it is more expensive and heavier, Tamron is the opposite. If you just trolling around, just go away, photography dont need any more troller. Thanks and have a good day.

8 months agopermalink

Dystopia

The images are great for a lens of this type, and the price is very reasonable.

10 months agopermalink

Agreed, although want to see sharpness at wide open on a brick wall :-)

10 months agopermalink

Dystopia

:-)

10 months agopermalink

It looks very good for the price. Nice size & weight too.

10 months agopermalink

vlado29

Wow, I have expected much worse performance based on the initial samples, but this looks actually great for the lens price, also centering looks good on the sample they had... Maybe I will buy it after all :)

10 months agopermalink

bluevellet

Looks good. Price sounds like a bargain.

But if I had a stake in E mount, not wider than 28mm would disqualify this lens for me.

10 months agopermalink

BlueBomberTurbo

Pair it with the stellar, lightweight 12-24, and you're good.

10 months agopermalink

vscd

This is no "SP"-Tamron... no SuperPerformance needed on Sony. But I would seriously like to know if the mirrorless is one reason to let it begin @28mm instad of 24mm...

10 months agopermalink

The new Tamron 24-70 G2 is 902g
The new FE Tamron 28-75 is 550g

The new Tamron 24-70 G2 is 1199$
The new FE Tamron 28-75 is 799$

So i don't think it is about mirrorless vs DSLR and instead about saving 40% of the weight and 30% of the cost. Or in other words a different target market

10 months ago*permalink

lukecookphoto

"no SuperPerformance needed on Sony"

Can't tell if this is bad English or a weird jab at Sony.

10 months ago*permalink

Tamron has sold a cheap/light 28-75mm for full frame SLR for a LONG time. Just updating the formula for mirrorless.

10 months agopermalink

zeratulmrye

Surprisingly good for a 800$ F2.8 zoom...

10 months agopermalink

D200_4me

The only issue with the 28-75 I see is that it's a 28-75. 24-85 (like Nikon) would be more useful to me. Anyway, I'm waiting for a Tamron FE 28-300.

10 months agopermalink

kreislauf

yes agreed. but a 24-300 would be more useful to me. Anyway I'm waiting for a 24-600.
wait...

10 months ago*permalink

adengappasami

24-600..i want 24-2000 like the P900 at 50 grams.

10 months agopermalink

24-85 is too ambitious, 24-70 is much common and standard. From what I have read from early testers it seems this lens is not sharp at edges at F2.8 wide open with strong vignetting until stop down to F4.0 at least. That would be a bigger problem. Also not sure how it performs at 85mm side. In comparison my Canon EF 24-70L/2.8 II already pretty sharp at edges wide open at f2.8 and sharpness cross entire focal length.

Nevertheless you cannot ask too much for a F2.8 zoom at $800 price.

10 months ago*permalink

lotzi

For many photos taken at 2.8, eg. portraits or cat photos with intentionally narrow depth of field, the vignetting and loss of sharpness at the edges are not that relevant.

10 months agopermalink

https://www.flickr.com/photos/55485085@N04/37996141232/in/album-72157662042216928/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/55485085@N04/24253500197/in/album-72157662042216928/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/55485085@N04/24253502407/in/album-72157662042216928/

Agreed in those usages. But edge sharpness and vignetting matter in low-light hand-held indoor or landscape/cityscape type photos, such as

EF 24-70L/2.8 II is outstanding and itself is not big and heavy (noticeably lighter than FE 24-70 GM) but it's not a native lens and has to on an adapter, then together the size/weight is basically the same as FE 24-70 GM. Canon version is better at 70mm side and wide open from what I have seen.

10 months ago*permalink

lotzi

Agreed, this is not the right lens for those kind of photos. (Or, at least it will visibly less sharp in the corners compared to the GM 24-70/2.8).

10 months ago*permalink

Judge is still out yet. I only heard some early reviewers. Let's wait and see some formal detail reviews compared to FE 24-70 GM and FE 24-105G. Personally I am looking for a native FE lens in that range for traveling. Canon zoom is great (its sunstar is outstanding) but it's not a native mount lens and my goal is to get rid of adapter completely except only one lens eventually, 17L TS-E, a MF lens anyway.

10 months agopermalink

lakkot

And I am waiting for Tamron 16-600 F2.

10 months agopermalink

zzzxtreme

I'd like a 35-105mm 😁

9 months agopermalink

nandbytes

@Carey Rose/DPR staff,

Did you guys come across any focussing issues?
Could you guys perhaps test it out also?

10 months ago*permalink

https://www.tamron.co.jp/news/press_release/20180530.html

I didn't come across any of the issues I've seen around the web where the focus completely fails. I had a handful of images that were slightly front-focused, but honestly, I've had occasional focus misses on the a7R III with native Sony lenses too. So I didn't notice anything worrisome with our copy of this lens.

10 months agopermalink

MikeRan

User Dovis is has discovered Tamron's official initial response to the focusing problems. They are aware and seem to believe they can fix the problem via a firmware update which would be delivered through the camera body. (Not requiring a tap-in type adapter)...

From Dovis:

Just got reply from Tamron support:

"Tamron confirms that in some circumstances the AF of the Tamron A036SF does not work correctly.

Information about this case was published today on the Tamron Japanese website (global site on May 31st).

Tamron is searching for the cause and will release a lens firmware update, to be conducted via camera.

Further details will be announced.

We sincerely apologize to all users and potential purchasers for any inconvenience this issue may cause."

10 months ago*permalink

fjbyrne

Apparently conforming to the E-mount spec allows you to do firmware updates through the camera just like native lenses. Well done both Sony and Tamron.

10 months agopermalink

@MikeRan thanks for the update and the link!

10 months agopermalink

Goflorp

A good example of how to handle "hickups".
recognize it, send out a message that you are working on it, then fix the problem.

9 months agopermalink

SmilerGrogan

Dude, thanks for the shots with lots of stuff in the foreground; some lenses/camera combos get confused by the foreground busy-ness and try to focus on that instead of the actual subject. Looks like this lens works well with whatever Sony's autofocus algos are thinking.

And, like one of the poster's below I urge that you guys shake the Tokina tree and see what falls out. They've always been a source of quiet wonderment when it comes to lenses.

10 months ago*permalink

Glad you like the gallery and found the images useful!

I'm with you on Tokina, particularly their new 20mm. It's tough because of our being US-based, and them not having any distribution system for us...but I'll see what we can do.

10 months agopermalink

steelhead3

Tamron needs to put forth a statement about focus issues and how they are going to rectify them before a review is complete.

10 months agopermalink

https://youtu.be/njUJFsJBqxQ

For all people that don't know, almost every reviewer has found problems with the focus locking up. Many people also complain in the forums about this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HEeD-bdLhyM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eVcscCI2QBI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OEZZWiHXTXY

10 months agopermalink

MikeRan

Tamron has made an official statement. See my comment above.

10 months agopermalink

ozturert

Tamron is not like some others who fixes problems in the next versions, they have already issued a press release about the issue:

https://www.tamron.co.jp/news/press_release/20180530.html

10 months agopermalink

MikeRan

That’s almost exactly what I said before.

10 months agopermalink

FWIW, I didn't have anything like these complete focus fails on our copy. There were a couple times that the lens front-focused just slightly, but it was definitely a rarity.

10 months agopermalink

Great lens, if I didn't just bought the 24-105 G, this would be on the top of my list

10 months agopermalink

lotzi

It is interesting to contemplate whether one can make an argument for buying this lens in addition to the 24-105.

10 months agopermalink

@lotzi
If you just use zooms than sure, but with all my primes my needs for faster aperture are covered

10 months agopermalink

eno2

Very good image quality and nice cat photos. :)

10 months agopermalink

This might well be my next purchase. I've been looking for good walk around zoom lens for travelling but didn't want to shell out £2k for the G lens. Corner sharpness and bokeh look very decent! I'd like a wide angle one as well but debating between the new Sigma FE 20mm 1.4 or 24mm. Any ideas?

10 months agopermalink

Neez

24mm isn't wide enough for me. Especially when traveling and walking inside of buildings with large crowds.

10 months ago*permalink

Do you need the F1.4? Otherwise you can save a lot of weight with the Batis or loxia lenses.

There is also the Tokina Firin with AF

10 months agopermalink