The Tamron 70-180mm F2.8 has its flaws – its sunstars are uninspiring, there's no built-in IS and the reverse zoom-ring-in-front setup drives us a little crazy. But it's an incredibly compact F2.8 tele-zoom with weather sealing, and it's no slouch in terms of sharpness. Chris and Jordan venture into the empty streets of Calgary with the lens – and walk away quite impressed.
Great lens worth every penny. TOP sharpness, TOP focusing speed. I sold my Sony F4 and there is no comparison, the Tamron is significantly sharper, finds focus faster and apertures 2.8 at the same weight as the Sony 70-200 f4.
I just pulled out my 70-200 F4 L with the Sigma adapter, it is extremely sharp at all lengths, with a tad less at the very long end only. It is prime lens sharp at 70, 100, up to 150mm. Corners included. I was tempted to sell it and get the Tamron but I don't think so...
It is sharper than the 24-105mm Sony at overlapping focal lenghts at all apertures . Makes the 24-105 look bad. And my copy of sony keeps up in the corners with primes like 50mm 1.8 and Samyang 45mm 1.8 at overlapping apertures and focal lengths...
Don't know what to say, this tamron looks soft from looking at full pictures. Colors are nice though.
Is it me or all images at 180mm are soft and blurry? even some of them at just over 100mm seem soft or out of focus... Hmm... I was hoping for this to be a jackpot.
The picture of the wall at the long end 180mm @2.8 the lens looks soft even in the center. But it can be also the focusing problem. One image looks like front focused. We need more testing from DPR.
If Chris stopped talking while taking shots he won't need lens stabilization. :) I was actually most impressed by how good the still image samples looked in the video. Maybe I should get an S1H, stop taking stills and just do still photography slide shows with video.
So they did it again: Affordable (relative to the specifications), relatively compact and lightweight, very sharp and with very low LoCA lens...at the expense of some control refinements (no linear focus, no aperture ring...), focal arange and somewhat busy bokeh.
A beer can should be shorter than a stove pipe. There used to be a Vivitar lens affectionately called a stove pipe just like Minolta had their beer can.
One of the most popular lenses for Minolta and Sony A was Minolta 70-210/4 I.e. "the beer can". Now this video implies we got a new Beer can legend coming
I'd much rather have a 70-210 F4 than this one. With today's sensors 1 stop is no big deal. But that extra 30mm is. Not only does 30mm les mean more cropping, but also a harder time focusing on distant objects.
@C++ -- you've got totally wrong. The 30mm you want is almost nothing, just 16%. And this lens is sharper than any 70-210 ever existed, so you can crop 16% with no problem. But 1 stop is a HUGE difference. There are no professional 70-300 lenses, they all consumer grade (pretty mediocre at that). The fact that Tamron had to shorten zoom range is likely an indication that having a good 70-300 is probably not feasible because of size and price limitations. I personally totally happy with Tamron reducing zoom range in exchange for smaller and better quality lens.
The Sony 70-200 F4 is a bad lens, its the worse 70-200 made today. The Nikon 70-200 F4 is very similar in weight and a sharper lens. I'd much rather have it, My guess all the people using the Canon 70-200/4 on Sony cameras won't switch either. It too is a much better lens and has IS.
The compact size and relative affordability make this into much better lens than GM Sony equivalent for some (most?) people. The classic 70-200 2.8, tends to be a bit of a beast to lug around and s nothing if not conspicuous, its is very deliberate carry for a specific job, and its still is, a pro wedding photographer should probably not get this for weddings you are are engaged for professionally, but for weddings you are invited to, take the Tamron because its already in your travel kit bag as its just a good general purpose short telle that compact enough to go anywhere
I must say that "Garbage, Recycling, & Greenwaste Containers" is a masterpiece! Heheheh, jk. 😜
Seriously though, some of the other shots in this gallery are beautiful. Great work, Chris. Certainly one of the more enjoyable DPR Galleries, not to mention that it's also representative of the subject matter the lens is intended for. With a lot of DPR Galleries ya think "Yeah, but... what about how the lens is supposed to be shot?" Not this one. 👍
It does. I have the 70-200mm f4 OSS and I don't get very different results when I use an adapted lens on my A7 III using IBIS. Maybe half a stop difference in favor of the OSS. Not a deal breaker if you have IBIS but using this lens on a body without IBIS is not recommended.
@sabad: Really? The GM has similar sharpness? Aside from the decentering of this particular copy, how *relatively* unsharp it is at/near wide open was my takeaway.
Wow. I'm having trouble believing Sony would crown such relatively weak performance as GM. Nikon and Canon, even Tamron itself with the 70-200mm G2, have a clear lead on Sony with the bread-and-butter reportage optic. Weird...
In my point of view, this is just a 70-300mm kit lens with its zoom range slashed in half and OS removed, just to push the max aperture to f2.8. Ibis just doesn't work at long focal lengths. No VC is a mistake.
No VC is not a good option considering a lot of people who use APS-C cameras don't have IBIS but saying IBIS doesn't work at long focal lengths is old news and no longer relevant. OSS will be better but the differences are very small with modern image stabilization.
Also this lens competes in sharpness with the 70-200mm GM lens so comparing it to a 70-300 kit lens isn't accurate.
It isn't. F 5.6 (or 6.3) and f 2.8 are very, very different. So is 180 compared to 300mm. The lenses are very different for very different purposes. I don't see no VC as a mistake if it lowers cost and weight. The weight on this thing is amazing for the focal range. I have no interest in every owning a 70-200 2.8 again due to the weight but I'd consider this.
i'll take a faster aperture over stabilization any day of the week. Stabilization is not as useful for action photography. Even for portraits I like to use a faster speed. Stabilization would add to the cost anyhow.
In your point of view is the 24-70/2.8 GM just a 24-105/4 OSS with the zoom range cut off and the stabilizer removed so it can hit 2.8?
And is the 24-105 just the 24-200 travel zoom with the zoom range cut in half so that the aperture can be constant f/4?, Thus the GM is just a 24-200 with the zoom range cut in 1/3 and OSS removed so it can hit 2.8?
Its a lens meant for Sony FF users and for them this lens is perfect since the bodies all have IBIS unless you use a very old body. Plus its the only compact 70-200mm f2.8 lens for 35mm systems under $1500
@io_bg & @brendon1000 did you watch the video? At 180mm, 1/250 sec you still get motion blur... Seems pretty pointless to me... Yeah, it is lighter and cheaper, and at the long end, it is also useless at 1/250 sec or slower...
That's probably without IBIS. Even if there was one stop of ibis which is hard to believe 1/180 is the theoretical hand holding capability of this lens. So even a stop ibis means 1/80 or so you should get sharp results. If you get soft results at 1/250 it means ibis is counterproductive.
Yet if the reciprocal rule is in effect, 180mm @ 1/250th should technically be a sharp shot without any form of IS. So either the IS is over-correcting in those situations (doubt it) or it is the photog's technique is at play if you're seeing blur at those settings.
@Smitty1 you are probably right about this being down to photographer's technique. Still, I wanted this lens for lowlight, handheld photography at shutter speeds of around 1/5 of a second... Without lens stabilization, I don't see that happening no matter how good my technique might be...
That's fine, not dismissing your use case, only pointing out that the IS is likely not 'pointless' as you claim. If 1/250th is still causing blur at 180mm then something else is going on here than weak performing IS.
He's having issues with speeds faster than 1/200th of a second though, according to your estimates of the image blur. So IS isn't a factor here. I can cause the best IS to not trap hand shake if I shake my hands too much or jump when the shutter is triggered. And the best IS isn't going to stop subjects from moving in your shot.
You keep pointing to this one test but I have been using ibis bodies for over 5 years now and aside from my current 70-200mm lens all the others were without IS and I used to regularly get sharp shots upto 1/50 seconds though my earlier bodies were safe only for upto 1/80. You can't rely on one test and make a damning conclusion.
Lol, your thinking was my thinking a couple/few month's ago. Except i would have said 100% crap.
But that was Tamron's well-deserved reputation from decades past. And really, up to maybe 5ish or 7ish years ago. in the past few months I've gotten 6 different Tamron lenses and they are almost all i shoot now. They're not the all-in-one varieties though. Those 10x Tami zooms are still rubbish. Hell, Tami's 35mm f1.4 is the highest-rated 35mm lens bar none. And i feel that is a very fair title for it to hold. It makes truly incredible images.
You mean like their 28-75 for Sony FE that was out of stock for months because it sold so well? Or their 35mm f1.4 that was the best 35mm Af lens out there? Or there 24-70 and 70-200 G2 lenses that were nearly as good as their first party counterparts at substantially lower cost? Sounds like you haven’t owned a recent Tamron
Where i disagree is that i passed on the 1st two versions of 24-70mm f2.8G Nikkors because i didn't like the bokeh. Their tendency to onion-ring. Price had nothing to do with it. Then the Tami 24-70mm f2.8 G2 fell into my lap one day and it was on like Donkey Kong. It's an overall nicer lens than the Nikkors. I have no idea what the MTF charts say, nor care. The Tami makes nicer images.
@Arnold Weber - I agree! and the G2 lenses were the ones i was talking about. i tried the first versions and they were good, but the G2 lenses were excellent!
@diness: I haven't compared my 70-200mm f2.8G VR2 Nikkor to my Tami 70-200mm f2.8 G2 yet as i really haven't been shooting long glass at all lately. And usually when i use such a lens it's indoors on my D500 for intimate shows. That will be a very interesting test of the Tami's low-light AF performance. But, with that venue obviously shut down for now, looks like I'll be waiting awhile to get to the bottom of this.
I have found that i have to AFFT via the TAP-in Console for pretty much all my Tamrons on each DSLR body though, and that sucks. However, they all nail AF perfectly on Z6+FTZ regardless of AFFT settings programmed into them, or no AFFT settings.
You just summed up the main advantage of mirrorless cameras. Its not the weight and size savings as its not that huge but its simply the AF accuracy. My friend used to shoot weddings with a D4 and D810 and fast glass. He had issues that one lens would work perfectly on one body but would front or back focus on another. He had a tough time getting sharp shots at max aperture till he got a Z7. With that his hit rate went up a LOT. Especially with eye AF the days of getting tack sharp noses and OOF eyes were all a thing of the past.
IMO that is the most amazing advantage of mirrorless.
We're in a different world. Sigma makes leneses that are not only decent, some are exceptional. And if Sigma can turn 180 degrees, there's no reason Tamron can't make great lenses (except super zooms, of course.)
@Brendon: My Nikkors don't have front or back-focus issues on my DSLRs. That's never been a concern of mine. Not that my DSLRs always nail focus. They still blow it too. MILCs just miss more shots though, because they can't acquire focus in-time, or at all.
My Z6 on FW 3.00 can't focus for crap in low light. My DSLRs beat it in low light.
And i think you mean Eyelash AF, not Eye AF. I'm not impressed too much with it.
This specific AFFT issue is a Tamron issue. And it's really my only gripe about modern higher-end Tamrons.
You got lucky. But my friend is a big time wedding photographer here in my country and he has 4 bodies and some 20 lenses for him and his crew so his sample size is a lot larger than mine or yours and he had issues with some of his lenses though others worked perfectly fine out of the box. He shoots around 50 weddings a year and in India weddings last multiple days and you get huge crowds so he shoots a lot.
@Brendon: I suppose in such an over-the-top high-fatigue situation as shooting something for several days non-stop that the convenience of full-frame Eye(ish) AF tracking could be a lifesaver. As i never shoot more than a few hours non-stop, i don't get truly literally fatigued so other AF methods which require a little more of my input and effort get my better results. I would expect within a year or two from now that MILC tracking and AF will be so good that DSLRs across the board will have lost this particular advantage. But not yet...
I don't know if these guys looked at the samples, but there are some serious issues. Either a bad copy of a lens or just a bad lens design. I feel bad for the 95% of Sony APSC users who don't have IBIS either. Sony and Tamron don't seem to care about them.
Sony has made 45 aps-c cameras and 27 of them have IBIS, so the proportion of Sony users 'without IBIS', that you're so concerned about is 40%, not 95%.
@Rubberdials When you quote misleading numbers or statistics, you have to know that there are others on this site that can check them. Even your percentages are erronious because they imply that the ownership of each camera type is equal, which wont be the case.
This is a nice, cheap tele-zoom, but there is no hiding the fact that no in-lens image stabilization is going to be a negative factor for a lot of Sony e-mount users, especially APSC owners because they don't have IBIS. Used at the long end especially with a teleconverter is going to add a lot of shake, no matter how small and light this lens is.
//When you quote misleading numbers or statistics, you have to know that there are others on this site that can check them.//
You need to address this to Kyle Style not me. He quoted the erroneous percentage. His percentage is actually models without IBIS not users - there is of course no way of knowing the percentage of users with each model.
@Hippo84
//45 aps-c cameras and 27 of them have IBIS" - among these 27 aps-c cameras only one with E-mount(A6600)//
Even if you take it as e-mount only his percentage is still wrong. There are 20 e-mount aps-c cameras and 2 of them have IBIS so the percentage of of users without IBIS is 90% not 95%.
In any case rapping Sony for this is perverse because neither Nikon nor Canon has ever made an aps-c camera with IBIS - either mirrorless or DSLR - so percentage of their users without is 100%.
I can't believe how ignorant Rubberdials is (or just a troll) We are talking about the new Tamron 70-180mm and he stupidly implied 27 Sony APSC cameras with IBIS can mount the lens. Only 2 can... The two most expensive ones that fewer people buy (compared to all the other Sony apsc cameras)
I was being generous when I said 95%, because the real number is higher. The A6000 and A6400 outsell the A6500 and A6600 easily. As Coomer said, the a6000/a6300/a6400/a6100 make up the majority of APS-C e-mount owners.
Arnold Weber is correct. Rubberdials needs to admit he was wrong to everyone, or else he is a weasel. btw, I like how the weasel gives himself likes for posting an obvious lie.
@RubberDials "In any case rapping Sony for this is perverse because neither Nikon nor Canon has ever made an aps-c camera with IBIS - either mirrorless or DSLR - so percentage of their users without is 100%."
@Rubberdials, Why bring up Nikon and Canon in a discussion about an E-Mount lens for Sony other than to try to deflect? No in-lens stabilisation on this lens will be an issue for a lot of Sony users, especially APSC users who could benefit from it. 2 out of 20 models with IBIS according to your last post (90% of cameras without IBIS). The OP had a valid point that most Sony APSC users don't have IBIS on their cameras, which you tried to minimize with misleading information. Do you seriously think this will not be an issue for those users or is this just another one of your reflex, Sony can do no wrong comments. Despite its relatively light weight and size, this is still a large lens to balance on a Sony APSC body, add to that the crop factor and any movement is exaggerated, even more so if a teleconverter is introduced.
@Rubberdials The discussion was about no IS in this lens being an issue when using it on Sony APSC cameras because of the lack of IBIS in the majority of the ones which can mount it. You tried to minimise that by implying that many more Sony cameras that can mount this lens have IBIS than is the case and then for some reason bought up the fact that Nikon and Canon cameras lack IBIS, which is irrelavant in a disussion about this lens which can't be mounted on them. I don't have an issue with cameras not having IBIS, but non-stabilized lenes of this size, particulary when mounted on a crop body would benefit from it. If this was a Canon or Nikon mount I would say the same thing, but it isn't, its a Sony mount, thats why the lack of IBIS in many Sony APSC cameras matters.
The OP made two statements. The first one is about the lens the second one is generic. I answered the second one. Here it is:
"I feel bad for the 95% of Sony APSC users who don't have IBIS either. Sony and Tamron don't seem to care about them."
Sony AND Tamron. Sony doesn't actually make a telephoto zoom in this range without IS, so what is the OP talking about anyway? He's just trying to bash Sony and has been doing it for years on here under countless log-ins.
To say something about this lens. It is not even a conventional FL of 70-200. Compromises have been made to make it extremely small and light. When was the last time you saw an f2.8 zoom with a #67mm filter thread? I wouldn't buy it, but it's pointless to criticise it for not being what it isn't.
@Rubberdials I have no idea if the OP has had different logins or what those posts may have been about. The context of his comments here were in relation to the Tamron lens. You disputted his numbers with misleading numbers and were called out on those by other posters. Rather than admit you made an error you instead double down and try to spin it another way. The lack of IS doesn't make it a bad lens nor does the absence of IBIS on many Sony APSC cameras make them bad cameras, it does make this lens less suited for using with them, not unusable, but certainly compromised compared to lenses with IS. I have noticed on other threads that you have a tendency to blindly defend Sony over any perceived slight and to disparage other brands as a way of deflecting critisism of Sony or your own comments. You and TRU are like mirror images of each other, although he has seemed to mellow lately except when it come to 'pro build quality'.
//Rather than admit you made an error you instead double down and try to spin it another way.//
Okay we're done. I'm the only one who provided accurate figures in this sub thread. There's no error. The list of aps-c DSLR bodies is correct. The list of aps-c e-mount bodies is correct. Both percentages are correct. However you spin it, bake it or put sprinkles on it, '95% of Sony APSC users don't have IBIS' is just a incorrect statement so can the 'you made an error' nonsense.
//I have noticed on other threads that you have a tendency to blindly defend Sony over any perceived slight and to disparage other brands as a way of deflecting critisism of Sony or your own comments.//
Nah, you haven't. But let's see you try to justify that. Link to 3 posts of me 'disparaging other brands' Any brands, any posts by me. Put your money where your mouth is.
@Rubberdials The OP clarified that he was talking about APSC cameras that can mount this Tamron lens, which is how I understood his original post anyway. It is only you who are trying to shift this to include all Sony APSC cameras. The the trouble when quoting statistics or figures out of context, as you have in this thread or quoting one sentence from an article on a camera / lens without taking into account the article as a whole is that it is intentionally misleading. Disparaging may have been a harsh way to describe your posts relating to Sony v other equipment, but intentionally misleading is not, like using a $26,000 Ziess lens as a counterpoint in a discussion about flange sizes or even comparing the size of this lens to the Canon RF 70-200 F2.8 when it is shorter on the long end and has no IS, if it wasn't smaller it would be a shock. The facts you stated were not incorrect but the context in which you stated them was misleading. False equivalence mean anything to you?
"but the context in which you stated them was misleading. False equivalence mean anything to you?//
Some people don't actually read what I write in it's context. For example.
The use of the '$26,000' lens was to disprove a claim made by a Canon user that a 15-35 zoom lens was impossible on e-mount because of the smaller Sony mount. Some people immediately jumped in and said it costs '$26,000' and 'it's a cine lens', 'it's manual focus!'. They immediately assumed I was saying that Sony had its own equivalent of the 15-35RF. Sony can do anything Canon can do, the Canon lens isn't a fantastic achievement etc.. BUT I WASN'T SAYING THAT. I was using the Zeiss lens to show ONLY ONE THING - that e-mount wasn't a technical obstacle to one being made. The cost, the fact it's a cine lens etc. is IRRELEVANT to that point. And that was the ONLY point I was making.
There's no 'false equivalence' because I never said the Zeiss lens was an e-mount version of the Canon. I just said it proved that the mount didn't limit such a lens being made, which it true.
Unfortunately such a specific reply isn't much good on here because most people skin your comments, have made up their mind already what you think about everything and are knee deep in a brand-wars mindset themselves.
If I say it rained when I went to New York does that mean I had a bad time? Since most people don't like rain they would say it did. It actually only means it rained when I went to NY. What about if I said it snowed when I went to NY? Again most people would probably think that I had a magical time because they like snow. They apply their context. The reality is you can't tell anything about what kind of time I had from those statements.
If you're posting about this in good faith - and I will assume you are - conduct the following experiment. Read the next ten posts (or ten old ones) by me pretending you didn't know what thread they were in and what brand of camera I use and see if you don't have a different view afterwards.
"If you're posting about this in good faith" Says the guy who said there are 27 Sony APSC cameras with IS when discussing the new Tamron lens that only works on TWO Sony APSC cameras with IS.
That was not in good faith, and very dishonest. Like everyone said Rubberdials got busted for that lie.
And now he keep lying. I said: (the topic is obviously this new Tamron lens.) "I feel bad for the 95% of Sony APSC users who don't have IBIS either. "
Because this lens will be very limited on those cameras without IBIS.
"Sony (camera maker that leave off IBIS) and Tamron (lens maker that left off IS) don't seem to care about them."
Very straightforward, but Rubberdials keeps lying and implying fake stuff like I meant Sony lenses in the sentence even though Sony lenses were never mentioned.
RubberDials owes everyone an apology, but since he is the most dishonest poster I've ever seen, I bet he makes up more lies.
And now RubberDials keep lying. "I'm the only one who provided accurate figures in this sub thread. There's no error." No RubberDIals and did not provide accurate figures about E mount cameras. He lied and combined cameras from a long ago DEAD system with a different mount that have NOTHING TO DO WITH THE LENS. That is extremely dishonest.
Like I said, I've never seen such a dishonest poster. I am sure he will now lie more and attack me rather than apologize.
Sorry Tamron , my next investment will be a GM lens , I'm tired of low quality lenses . Since September I've been shooting with a Zeiss vario sonnar T* and my photography has improved dramatically , no Tamron for me.
Low quality ? The Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 was MUCH sharper than my Sony Zeiss Vario Sonnar T 24-70mm f4. I got rid of the Zeiss after a few months as I could live without the 4mm of the wide end but found the one stop faster max aperture and the enhanced sharpness was well worth it.
I have the Sony 70-200mm f4 lens and I would buy this Tamron if I get a good deal on it. Nothing wrong with my Sony 70-200mm but its a bit too slow in low light.
Agreed but calling it low quality for those two aspects is like calling BMW low quality because the suspension is stiff. The Tamron is a great sharp lens in a compact package. Its not the best of course but it stands out among the huge plethora of similar 70-200mm f2.8 which stick to the tried and tested formula while Tamron is the sole manufacturer trying something new.
The longer the focal length or the higher the reproduction ratio, the less useful is IBIS, and the more you benefit from in-lens vibration reduction. Above 135mm or thereabouts, I find its effect close to non-existent. That is true across brands. IBIS is great for wide-angle to 'normal'.
Thats not my findings at all. When I use my Sony 70-200mm f4 I can easily handhold at 1/30 using OSS around 80% of the time and 1/50 using IBIS around 80% of the time. Not a huge difference.
The 1/F rule was invented back in film era, when realistically you had just around 10 MP of resolution at best. The more megapixels you have, the faster shutter speed you shall use to achieve the best possible sharpness. On 61 MP camera you need about 1/500 for portraits to freeze the movement of your subject reliably.
@brendon1000 Don't think you can separate OSS from IBIS with either Sony FE 70-200 G or 70-200 GM as both on/off. I have owned both lenses (sold 70-200 G). With 70-200 GM @200mm I can get every photo in tack sharpness on 61mp A7r IV at 1/50, most sharp photos at 1/30 in a ground of 10 consecutive photos. Can push down further to 1/10~1/15 to have a few very sharp photos in a group of 10 photos on A7r IV. IBIS will work but less effective at 180mm, much less reliably and consistently in the most important moments.
I am impressed in the sharpness of this lens but surprised that Chris found some photos are not that sharp even at 1/250 @180mm that will be a concern for those use on. A7r II/II and A7r IV.
You can't do it by normal means but just for the purpose of testing there is a work around. I disable OSS and turn the lens a bit so that it loses contact with the mount and the camera no longer detects it as a native lens so then IBIS comes into play. With OSS 1/30 is pretty easy and I have got a few 1/15 sharp shots but its a toss up. With IBIS 1/50 is reliable but 1/15 was all fully blurred and 1/30 was maybe one in 5 that was sharp. So it wasn't a huge difference as far as my testing went at least. Not sure how they found IBIS so ineffective in the real world.
I have 135 GM and tested IBIS with A7r IV. I could not get reliable tack sharp photos at 1/50 consistently no mention at 1/30 at 135mm. Maybe we have different definition of sharpness. My expectation of hand-held sharpness is basically equal or very close to as on tripod at pixel peeping level.
Maybe? But technique also matters and perhaps it's easier to hand hold a more substantial lens like a 70-200mm f4 lens? Plus you need more shutter speed for higher MP sensors generally as I did the test on the A7 III which is only 24 MP
@PWPhotography To determine if that is good or bad you would need to know how long you can handhold without IBIS.
As other said it is highly unlikely that you can handhold the old 1/f or in this case 1/135th with a 60MP sensor and a crazy sharp lens like that. Also other things matter like technique and the shutter you choose to avoid vibration
@@JacquesBalthazar "The longer the focal length or the higher the reproduction ratio, the less useful is IBIS, and the more you benefit from in-lens vibration reduction. Above 135mm or thereabouts, I find its effect close to non-existent."
You must be doing something wrong. This was shot at 1 / 125 sec @300mm (450mm equivalence) with the older generation IBIS on a Sony A77 Mk1
I have shots that are sharp taken hand held with my 500mm mirror lens as well. IBIS works very well. The idea it's not much use above 135mm is clearly incorrect.
Its an alternative to the other zooms, for the combination small size + light weight + high sharpness + bright + fast AF => this is a strong candidate. If your use case or priorities are different then there are other alternatives available already.
Despite gripes from some people I think this is a great achievement from Tamron. Some users are going to want a small, lightweight, fast zoom and this is it. Nothing else comes close for the price.
What I don't actually need is f2.8. I'm wondering what Tamron could achieve with a similar f4 line, perhaps with longer focal lengths for the same size / weight and IQ.
It would be interesting on my Sony A6500 to complete an also interesting 16 55 f2.8. Too bad we are on the verge of a great recession, I will have to keep what I have and pray that they let me use it soon.
Haha, yeah. My understanding is Aussies consider Fosters pi$$ and they'll drink just about anything else instead, lol. When i was younger Fosters was one of my go-to beers. I don't drink anymore but never thought fosters was crap beer. Just depends on what beer mood you're in. I was never ever committed to any single beer or drink. I drank everything! 😈
amen to that ... i do dilute the "everclear " liquor store 195 proof [stronest "sanitizer" available ] a bit when "disinfecting" my innards .... oh .... wait
Tempting, but I'm not fond of lenses that extend. I'd rather shoot the 70-200mm f/4 lens fixed barrel and use fast primes when I need more light gathering and compact size. Though I like the Tamron 17-28mm 2.8 for being fixed barrel.
Also Lenscoat really needs to make neoprene covers for these Tamron E-mount zoom lenses. The plastic exterior barrels seem prone to scratching.
I have been tracking news of this new Tamron with interest as a possible supplement to my existing and excellent 70-200 GM when I want a lighter kit. However I think the price is way too high. The Tamron is listed at £1349 in the UK, whereas I have just picked up an OB/Like New, Sony 70-200 f4 from MPB.com for £650. That is less than half the cost of the Tamron! For my purposes it is a no-brainer.
Rob, have you noticed any glaring differences in optical quality between the f/2.8 and f/4 versions? I think I'll finally make the leap to full frame soon, and I'm curious if there's more to it than just the extra stop of light (So far the f/4 has been mostly okay aside from very dimly-lit indoors, and I'm expecting the larger sensor to solve that.)
Thanks, Rob, I appreciate it. I'll stick with the f/4 lens as planned for the foreseeable future, unless the value of the larger aperture makes itself painfully apparent in my work.
I'm gonna disagree with Chris on two points - macro capability, and bokeh.
Close-up performance at 70mm is wacky - should Tamron even allow focusing that close at 70mm with that much coma, astigmatism, and/or field curvature? Even though you can't get as close, the other end of the zoom range looks more well-behaved for close-ups. There also appears to be some decentering or field tilt in this sample that contributes to some edge mushiness. Maybe the focusing group gets misaligned a bit at the extremes?
The bokeh does indeed seem to have some structure at times, so it's not for everyone. I just happen to like it, and solid LoCA correction goes a long way, too.
I have to agree, anything out side of the center on that 70mm close up shot was shockingly distorted. I could see some creative possibilities, but it honestly just looked like someone photoshopped in some motion blur. He does mention indirectly in the video, where if you're using the edges, you should focus for the edges instead of focusing on the center and recomposing, that this lens has some field curvature. That's nothing uncommon, though.
The "macro" ability of this lens is a kind of bonus feature when using MF just like Canon RF 24-105mm f/4-7.1. When using the AF, you won't get this close focus distance as in MF and there is no distortion seen in "macro" mode.
I do find the build quality everything else than "professional", from this Tamron 70-180mm F2.8 Di III Zoom, only the price-point, and even it's a fine Zoom, it's too expensive for what it does. ;)
As for build quality @Tamron, i am looking at you, Tamron SP 70-200mm F/2.8 Di VC USD G2!
That's from build a lot more "pro" than this very plasticky, light and smallish, cheapskate looking 70-180 DIII RXD, but DSLMs are smaller vs. their DSLR counterparts usually (well, not Pana with their S1 Series...no offense) and Lenses should being smaller, lighter, which comes with compromises..therefore, i understood that Tamron built something smaller and lighter.
Here's the catch - the 28-75/2.8 DIII RXD was some-what being "cheap", but this 70-180, which does feature the same build, the same Design, doesn't. If i'd need something like that, i'd go Sigma ART series, and/or adapt it then, or buy a Canon 70-200/2.8L USM, adapted. Bigger, cheap, great.
I initially hated the focus-ring nearest the camera (Pentax DFA 28-105, SIgma 120-400), but in normal use, my hand rests on the zoom ring, which is further away and hence gives better stability. Manual F override is less frequent for me, so it makes sense. I now prefer the "new" method, but it's not a strong preference.
Impressively compact and lightweight. Also seems to extend far less than the RF 70-200/2.8. As also said in the video, no need for f/4 zooms anymore with these new Tamron lenses.
No, I'd pick a longer F4 zoom over this 100% A little extra noise with F4 in low light is nothing. It is harder to fix a soft frame. Maybe with better quality control there will be better versions of this lens. I hope so. As of now all the F4 zooms are better at 180 and have 200mm too.
Bring back an improved Minolta beer can!
I am curious to see if it works as well on the Nikon Z system as the other Sony lenses.
Texas Walker: Yes I see the only Nikon 70-200mm lens I see that is 850 gram is the Nikkor 70-200mm F4G ED VR, it is a DSLR lens, it is longer, heavier and more expensive then the Tamron and it is F4 vs F2.8 So indeed the Tamron is a win-win!
The only two things I see in this lens is light weight and small size, everything else I prefer the Canon and Nikon version, SLR or ML. for travel type of usage, I may try one on my 7R4 some day, but for regular use, I rather use my SLR version of Canon 70-200 with adapter. besides lack of in lens stabilization, based on the experience i have with their 28-70, i probably won't be happy with its build quality, and putting the zoom ring in the front, as the reviewed said, it's going to make me hate it more, plus the Bokeh I saw from the review, i guess I will save myself $1200. this lens is targeting at people think the OEM 70-200 from Sony, Canon Nikon is too big and heavy, so I think it will be very popular lens as I do understand a lot of people are looking for small and light lens and willing to sacrifice everything else for that.
Gfrensen, I suggest you view the examples. This lens does not seem to be able to resolve 40MP at 180mm. I'd consider it if it could, Instead I'd rather have a lens that weighs a few extra grams that has more resolution at 200mm. I understand though that you instead value size.
Not sure why you think this lens isnt sharp but other reviewers have compared this lens to the Sony 70-200mm f2.8 GM which means its definitely a sharp lens. The only reason not to consider this lens is if you don't need f2.8, you are a bokeh addict and need the best possible bokeh from a zoom lens or you don't like extending lenses. Other than that sharpness wise this lens is excellent though you may get some sample variation.
Probable there never will be one, not any specific Z designed lens. As for Sigma the same story. However you can use their excellent 70-200mm f/2.8G2 lens with the FTZ adapter
Once I rented the 70-200 G2 and adapted it to Sony body. Actually, I would never purchase a lens THAT heavy and bulky. On both of my Sony cameras the neck strap is replaced to 3mm cord, because these cameras are so lightweight. And with 70-200 G2 I deeply regretted that.
On the other hand, I've pre-ordered the 70-180 because of its featherweight style, which is a great match for MILC.
MLammerse: I didn't request a specific Z designed lens. I requested this lens in Z mount. The only changes would be in the physical mount ring and a 2mm length accommodation for the flange distance difference (between E and Z).
If I wanted to mess with adapters and a heavy thermos tube, I'd buy one. But the size and weight of this 70-180mm lens, while retaining a functional f/2.8, is what is appealing.
Thanks for this very good and early product review. It certainly gives me the info that I need.
Tamron are indeed doing well with their mirrorless lineup. I've got the two short FE zooms but I don't expect to buy this lens as I've got the Sony 70-200/4 OSS lens. It's paid for and does a great job.
Here in the UK this lens is coming to market for £1349. That's more than a new Sony 70-200/4 - about £250 more - which comes with in-built image stabilisation. Enough said.
If that lens works well with converters it will be a killer. The question is: -Why wouldn't Tamron mention that converters are coming, if they are in the pipeline?
I downloaded the example RAW files. The copy they used is clearly decentered. Look at how much worse the right side (above 100mm) is in most of the stopped down shots.
Agreed. Here's one of the samples that shows this well - image #46, 180mm f/5.6. There's a bit of heat distortion but you can still see the right edge is softer than the left:
Eegaahds man that is awful. Hard to find a sharp spot anywhere. But it is there in a few places. Wow. This one shot has me looking closer at the Batis 135 now.
I'm still puzzled by the lack of stabilization. Does anybody know how slow you can go at 180mm on this lens versus the Sony GM to have a proper measured comparison of what we miss?
@DarnGoodPhotos True and which generation of IBIS. Sony IBIS has been improved multiple times throughout the generations. A7 II IBIS will be worse than A7 III IBIS which will be worse than A7R IV IBIS
Actually, makes perfect sense. IBIS can easily handle that kind of focal length. A good IBIS at least.
So unless Sony's IBIS is inherently limited by the narrow throat of the mount that prevents it from being as good as the others, then I would expect it to improve to the point when 180mm is not a problem.
And making a set of compact and lightweight f/2.8 zooms is actually a big selling point and a differentiator. At least someone is delivering on the smaller and lighter promise of mirrorless.
That's what you will get for a cheap lens, it looks like they " strip down " everything to make this cheaper, lighter and smaller, i personally found lens stabilization more effective on telephoto so I will pass.
R5 maybe. R doesn’t have IBIS so the system will be unstabilized. Unlike on most Sony cameras that can stabilize the image without OIS. Sure stabilization isn’t required for many kinds of shooting but still I think it has limited appeal on an unstabilized body.
Stabilisation is a non issue for sports shooters because it doesn't stabilize subject motion so shutter speed is going to be well above the "need for stabilisation" range.
An RF mount version could have some sales potential when the entry-level Canon bodies have IBIS, but not for the R and RP, and I think most R5 owners would shell out for the Canon lens to get the most from their investment.
@camwow13 - well, yes they are still available but they are 21 and 25 years old respectively. I don't think their existence has much bearing on buying decisions today.
The Tamron 70-180mm F2.8 Di III VXD is an affordable, compact telephoto zoom lens for Sony full-frame cameras. It lacks internal image stabilization, but produces sharp results throughout its range.
Impressively compact and no slouch in terms of sharpness: Tamron's 70-180mm F2.8 for Sony E-mount shapes up to be a solid option for a7-series photographers.
What better time to shoot with a telephoto zoom? Chris and Jordan took the Tamron 70-180mm F2.8 and a Sony a7R III into the empty streets of Calgary for some appropriately-distanced street shooting.
Tamron first teased the 70-180mm F2.8 Di III VXD for Sony E-mount last October. Now, we have confirmation of its price and the expected shipping date, pending any further interference from the COVID-19 pandemic.
The Sony a7CR is a high-resolution addition to the company's compact full-frame a7C series. So what did we make of it and where does it leave the a7 IV that it sits just above?
Lomography's LomoChrome '92 is designed to mimic the look of classic drugstore film that used to fill family photo albums. As we discovered, to shoot with it is to embrace the unexpected, from strange color shifts to odd textures and oversized grain.
The LowePro PhotoSport Outdoor is a camera pack for photographers who also need a well-designed daypack for hiking and other outdoor use. If that sounds like you, the PhotoSport Outdoor may be a great choice, but as with any hybrid product, there are a few tradeoffs.
The Sony a7C II refreshes the compact full-frame with a 33MP sensor, the addition of a front control dial, a dedicated 'AI' processor, 10-bit 4K/60p video and more. It's a definite improvement, but it helps if you value its compact form.
Why is the Peak Design Everyday Backpack so widely used? A snazzy design? Exceptional utility? A combination of both? After testing one, it's clear why this bag deserves every accolade it's received.
If you want a compact camera that produces great quality photos without the hassle of changing lenses, there are plenty of choices available for every budget. Read on to find out which portable enthusiast compacts are our favorites.
What's the best camera for travel? Good travel cameras should be small, versatile, and offer good image quality. In this buying guide we've rounded-up several great cameras for travel and recommended the best.
What’s the best camera for around $2000? This price point gives you access to some of the most all-round capable cameras available. Excellent image quality, powerful autofocus and great looking video are the least you can expect. We've picked the models that really stand out.
Above $2500 cameras tend to become increasingly specialized, making it difficult to select a 'best' option. We case our eye over the options costing more than $2500 but less than $4000, to find the best all-rounder.
The Sony a7CR is a high-resolution addition to the company's compact full-frame a7C series. So what did we make of it and where does it leave the a7 IV that it sits just above?
Lomography's LomoChrome '92 is designed to mimic the look of classic drugstore film that used to fill family photo albums. As we discovered, to shoot with it is to embrace the unexpected, from strange color shifts to odd textures and oversized grain.
Sony's gridline update adds up to four customizable grids to which users can add color codes and apply transparency masks. It also raises questions about the future of cameras and what it means for feature updates.
At last, people who don’t want to pay a premium for Apple’s Pro models can capture high-resolution 24MP and 48MP photos using the iPhone 15 and iPhone 15 Plus. Is the lack of a dedicated telephoto lens or the ability to capture Raw images worth the savings for photographers?
Kodak's Super 8 Camera is a hybrid of old and new: it shoots movies using Super 8 motion picture film but incorporates digital elements like a flip-out LCD screen and audio capture. Eight years after we first saw the camera at CES 2016, Kodak is finally bringing it to market.
In this supplement to his recently completed 10-part series on landscape photography, photographer Erez Marom explores how the compositional skills developed for capturing landscapes can be extended to other areas of photography.
If you want a compact camera that produces great quality photos without the hassle of changing lenses, there are plenty of choices available for every budget. Read on to find out which portable enthusiast compacts are our favorites.
Sony, the Associated Press and 'Photo Mechanic' maker Camera Bits have run a month-long field-test to evaluate capture authentication and a subsequent workflow.
A color-accurate monitor is an essential piece of the digital creator's toolkit. In this guide, we'll go over everything you need to know about how color calibration actually works so you can understand the process and improve your workflow.
What's the best camera for travel? Good travel cameras should be small, versatile, and offer good image quality. In this buying guide we've rounded-up several great cameras for travel and recommended the best.
It's that time of year again: When people get up way too early to rush out to big box stores and climb over each other to buy $99 TVs. We've saved you the trip, highlighting the best photo-related deals that can be ordered from the comfort of your own home.
The LowePro PhotoSport Outdoor is a camera pack for photographers who also need a well-designed daypack for hiking and other outdoor use. If that sounds like you, the PhotoSport Outdoor may be a great choice, but as with any hybrid product, there are a few tradeoffs.
Sigma's latest 70-200mm F2.8 offering promises to blend solid build, reasonably light weight and impressive image quality into a relatively affordable package. See how it stacks up in our initial impressions.
The Sony a9 III is heralded as a revolutionary camera, but is all the hype warranted? DPReview's Richard Butler and Dale Baskin break down what's actually new and worth paying attention to.
What’s the best camera for around $2000? This price point gives you access to some of the most all-round capable cameras available. Excellent image quality, powerful autofocus and great looking video are the least you can expect. We've picked the models that really stand out.
DJI's Air 3 and Mini 4 Pro are two of the most popular drones on the market, but there are important differences between the two. In this article, we'll help figure out which of these two popular drones is right for you.
The Sony a7C II refreshes the compact full-frame with a 33MP sensor, the addition of a front control dial, a dedicated 'AI' processor, 10-bit 4K/60p video and more. It's a definite improvement, but it helps if you value its compact form.
Above $2500 cameras tend to become increasingly specialized, making it difficult to select a 'best' option. We case our eye over the options costing more than $2500 but less than $4000, to find the best all-rounder.
The iPhone 15 Pro allows users to capture 48MP photos in HEIF or JPEG format in addition to Raw files, while new lens coatings claim to cut down lens flare. How do the cameras in Apple's latest flagship look in everyday circumstances? Check out our gallery to find out.
Global shutters, that can read all their pixels at exactly the same moment have been the valued by videographers for some time, but this approach has benefits for photographers, too.
We had an opportunity to shoot a pre-production a9 III camera with global shutter following Sony's announcement this week. This gallery includes images captured with the new 300mm F2.8 GM OSS telephoto lens and some high-speed flash photos.
The Sony a9 III is a ground-breaking full-frame mirrorless camera that brings global shutter to deliver unforeseen high-speed capture, flash sync and capabilities not seen before. We delve a little further into the a9III to find out what makes it tick.
The "Big Four" Fashion Weeks – New York, London, Milan and Paris - have wrapped for 2023 but it's never too early to start planning for next season. If shooting Fashion Week is on your bucket list, read on. We'll tell you what opportunities are available for photographers and provide some tips to get you started.
Sony has announced the a9 III: the first full-frame camera to use a global shutter sensor. This gives it the ability to shoot at up to 120 fps with flash sync up to 1/80,000 sec and zero rolling shutter.
What’s the best camera for around $1500? These midrange cameras should have capable autofocus systems, lots of direct controls and the latest sensors offering great image quality. We recommend our favorite options.
Comments