Tamron 35-150mm f2-2.8 announcement

nandbytes wrote: I know a few wedding folks lining up for this lens because there looking to replace 24-70/2.8+70-200mm/2.8 with this one lens. Knowing what we know about the size and aperture now if f2.8 at 35mm bought the size down to 70-180mm levels I'd have preferred that too. but it is what it is now.

If you don't go down past 35mm often, its range and wide aperture would probably be a good wedding option. I've been at a couple of weddings where the second lens was a 70-200/2.8 G (usually on a second camera) and it's a tad heavy. Plus switching cameras still adds a friction.

I can see the appeal of a more seamless 1 lens solution. (And maybe a second camera with a smaller, wide prime)

4paul wrote: I'll add another "almost" opinion, if it were a Secret Handshake 28/2-135/2.8 with Focus Hold and AF/MF buttons I would be thrilled ... I guess I keep the Secret Handshake and a900 to hold it

I agree.

Aavo wrote: Interesting, zoom ring is again next to camera body.

Where'd you see that?

Wētāpunga wrote: Kilkry wrote: ... However, as someone who mostly shoots when travelling somewhere, I can see sort of see why one would bring this schlepp. Especially if no other lens in its range and no tripod. I tend to bring a travel tripod however and for those instances speed is less relevant. I think for travel, there are three traits in a lens you want- range, speed and low weight/size. But with any actual lens, you can only (at best) pick two of those traits

I meant mainly that my definition of "travel" might not be everyone else's which I've always without thinking much interpreted as "small and light". Yours seems to be the standard lens wishlist and reflecting upon it the term can mean many things.
-Travelling to another part of the world where there's a very real danger of theft? Maybe make an old film camera look worn :) Travelling with your spouse to Venice? They might not want to wait for you to setup your tripod or be seen in your and your telephoto lens' company, plus there are airplane restrictions. Going on a daytrip? Perhaps there aren't many restrictions, if it's a photo trip. Planning on staying the night in the outdoors? There will be some weight and size restrictions. Climbing a mountain? Weight and size. Going to Mordor? A fast prime is the best travel lens then. ETc

Aavo wrote: Kilkry wrote: [QUOTE=Aavo] Interesting, zoom ring is again next to camera body. Where'd you see that? Link in the first theme opening post

Right. "With one notable exception, the lens offers similar ergonomics to the company's just-announced 28-75mm F2.8 Di III VXD G2, with focus and zoom rings that are well demarcated from the lens barrel thanks to their slightly greater diameter. However, the zoom and focus rings' positions are switched."

I guess then that the 28-75g2 has the zoom and focus rings in the same position as the 28-75g1, which is to say focus closest to the camera. Perhaps we'll see in reviews indications as to why lenses released at the same time for the same mount with very much the same features and look would differ in this regard.

Yes - a bit disappointed. Heavier and more expensive then I hoped for. But I guess you cannot change physics or the cost of material (and labour).

waldo_posth wrote: Whether this is an "odd" lens I do not want to judge. It is certainly a very attractive zoom range. I already considered buying a Tamron 35-150mm F/2.8-4.0 DI VC OSD for Nikon and Canon DSLRs and put the Canon version to use with Sony E by adding a smart adapter (Techart or Sigma). Tamron has a rather long history in comparable zoom ranges. For quite some time (till it broke) a Tamron SP 24-135mm F/3.5-5.6 had been my standard zoom on the A99M1 - and I still have the very compact, full metal Tamron Telemacro 35-135mm f/3.5-4.5 (soon to be tested with the LA-EA5). These lenses left a very positive impression on me - as do the more recent zooms for Sony FE (the 70-180mm F/2.8 tele zoom in particular). The real innovation is the F/2.0 for the shorter angles (as the F/2.8 had been for their extremely versatile 28-200mm). I am looking forward to see the first reviews and to get more information (price? size? filter size? weight?) on the lens.

Been waiting a long time for a lens like this, so now I have bought it and I love it.
Now, waiting for a 14-35 f2.8 or f4 preferable from Tamron, Canon has a f4 one but it doesn't fit my Sony :-)

addy landzaat wrote: I saw the one picture you posted on the samples page - was not that impressed by the bokeh. Saw some other pictures on your Flickr that were more interesting. Why not share that Draken in the planes thread? Re. a 14-35mm lens: I would prefer a 20-50mm lens - like the 35-150mm that would be do-it-all lens for me. I feel 35mm often it to short and I seldom need wider then 20mm.

Hmmm, don't now how to get it smother in the OOF area??? or perhaps you and I don't have the same formula for bokeh? Which ones do you prefer so I could post them as well?

Oops, was supposed to post the Draken in there but forgot

Yes, a 20-50mm could. do too... but 35mm -> 20mm feels a tad short, found a few, but not for e-mount.