The Amazing Sony A1/A7/A9/APS-C & Anything else welcome Mega Thread!

f/2.8 said:
No you can't use a t.c with the Sony 70-200 f/4 or the Tamron.
Click to expand...

Shame really. I checked a lot of my shots and I use the 200mm of the 2.8 quite a lot so decided to keep hold.
 
Anyone moving on a Samyang lens station?
 
JJ! said:
So with a max budget of £180 or so I’m looking for a small lens for a photography project involving the yard and horses and the surrounding woods.

Preference in small and light and ok in low ish light. Samyang 35mm, Sony 50mm, what else....?
Click to expand...

My answer to almost everything is an adapted film era lens. If the picture you want to take can be taken with a manual lens then f1.7, f1.8 and f2 options are available at 45, 50/55/58mm and f2.8's are available at 24, 28 and 35mm and all can be used via an adapter costing less than £20.
 
Last edited:
nandbytes said:
less sharp, larger, not as fast, can't use with TCs.
So doesn't really seem all that favourable to me. I'd rather wait till tamron drops in price than buy and sell. of course that means some waiting time :p
Click to expand...
I've been on the fence about the F4 vs the Tamron, both have pluses and minuses. If the Tamron launched at £1000-1100 that would mean it would come into the £900 range reasonably quickly which would make it very appealing. However, at £1349 it's £500 more than a mint used Sony f4 and as I was on the fence anyway that makes a big difference. Of course, I'm not in any rush at the moment as all events I was going to have been cancelled/postponed so I will bide my time and see what happens to the price of the Tamron.
JJ! said:
How does everyone know how sharp the Tamron is? I watched the video where the German guy said it’s sharper but that’s just one review? Any others?
Click to expand...
There was a good video posted on here showing actual test samples of all 3 lenses (tamron and the f2.8 and F4 Sonys), but it's the only one so far. That being said, the differences were at pixel level and I'm not sure you'd see a great deal in the real world. Where the GM was noticeably better was in contrast when shooting backlit scenes.
 
snerkler said:
I've been on the fence about the F4 vs the Tamron, both have pluses and minuses. If the Tamron launched at £1000-1100 that would mean it would come into the £900 range reasonably quickly which would make it very appealing. However, at £1349 it's £500 more than a mint used Sony f4 and as I was on the fence anyway that makes a big difference. Of course, I'm not in any rush at the moment as all events I was going to have been cancelled/postponed so I will bide my time and see what happens to the price of the Tamron.
Click to expand...

exactly time is on your/our side atm.
No need to jump into making a decision. For all you know there may be even a sigma 70-200mm before you are able get out and do some serious shooting. And if sigma are going to price it as aggressively as their 24-70mm/2.8 then that might be a better option.

edit:
for me the decision is actually between 135GM and a zoom 70-180/200mm zoom.
 
Last edited:
nandbytes said:
exactly time is on your/our side atm.
No need to jump into making a decision. For all you know there may be even a sigma 70-200mm before you are able get out and do some serious shooting. And if sigma are going to price it as aggressively as their 24-70mm/2.8 then that might be a better option.

edit:
for me the decision is actually between 135GM and a zoom 70-180/200mm zoom.
Click to expand...
Knowing Sigma the weight of their 70-200mm will be right up there ;)
 
addicknchips said:
I'm not sure why they havent just released their sport lens that they have for canon and nikon. Meant to be very good.
Click to expand...

I think they are trying to move away from just slapping an adaptor on their DSLR lenses. There was a lot of talk on the rumour site about a 70-200 coming soon after the 24-70 dare say the current situation has put the brakes on that for now.

Am sure they probably have one on the works as they need it out for L mount too.
 
Last edited:
There another review of tamron 70-180mm by Manny Ortiz posted on SAR. Not sure if he is any good with reviews but that's another one if folks want to watch
 
JJ! said:
So with a max budget of £180 or so I’m looking for a small lens for a photography project involving the yard and horses and the surrounding woods.

Preference in small and light and ok in low ish light. Samyang 35mm, Sony 50mm, what else....?
Click to expand...

I have the 35 f2.8 Sammy too, and it's a nice little lens for walking about, plus weighs very very little.

I may also be moving on my Sammy 45 f1.8 - It got between me and the ground in a zipwire and is *slightly* decentred. If you're at all interested let me know and I'll pop an advert and some pictures up - it won't be expensive. The lens is fully functional, UK sourced, but I take a lot of pictures at minimum depth of field, and it's not perfect for that.
 
pmac said:
watched it earlier and was surprised that the focus was better than his Sony:oops: :$ fanboys incoming with excuses :p
Click to expand...

I doubt it. There's few fanboys here. Here we're simply people who buy the best tool for the job at the price point. We leave fanboy silliness to others.
 
pmac said:
watched it earlier and was surprised that the focus was better than his Sony:oops: :$ fanboys incoming with excuses :p
Click to expand...

fair play if it is. I can’t really see how to my eyes something can be much quicker and accurate than the GM, it’s probably one of the fastest lenses I have used and it’s never missed focus apart, BUT as with all reviews I am only a part time user and probably wouldn’t be able to tell these differences in day to day use where as these reviews do more fine testing etc which I do not!

Once the price drops I think it will be very popular for those wanting to go lighter.
 
Last edited:
pmac said:
watched it earlier and was surprised that the focus was better than his Sony:oops: :$ fanboys incoming with excuses :p
Click to expand...

Good review and in summary for those who don’t like watching through vids:

According to Manny the Tamron has better focus accuracy, although both focus speed and low light performance are tied. He gives the edge to the Sony when it comes to image quality and bokeh, but the Tamron wins when it comes to portability and convenience.

The Sony does have one trick up its sleeve as it features built-in stabilization that the Tamron lacks, the Sony also feels like the better built lens, has a tripod collar and uses an internal zoom design that improves handling.
 
f/2.8 said:
It really isn't though. Tamron lenses are a bit of a dust magnet as it is, this one is gonna suck in more dust than your average Dyson.
Click to expand...

I don’t know why, but I just don’t like extending lenses. I think ever since some of my Nikon lenses used to just fall back in to themselves I just prefer internal zooms and primes. But that’s just my strange habits!
 
addicknchips said:
Does the tamron have anything to mitigate dust sucking from the zoom?
Click to expand...
f/2.8 said:
It really isn't though. Tamron lenses are a bit of a dust magnet as it is, this one is gonna suck in more dust than your average Dyson.
Click to expand...

its sealed. I don't think it will suck any dust.
that's a myth

from lensrentals blog:
"Before we start, though, let’s get the extending barrel discussion out of the way. Some of you HATE extending barrel lenses. That’s cool; don’t get one. Some of you like to call them dust pumps. That’s cool, too, although it’s incorrect. (We take care of over 20,000 lenses. The most common ‘dusters’ among current lenses all happen to be primes that don’t zoom at all.)"

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/20...ed-teardown-of-the-canon-rf-70-200mm-f2-8-is/
 
Last edited:
nandbytes said:
Internal zooming is overrated IMO.
Click to expand...
They're not imo, zoom lenses change the balance and I can imagine as the Tamron doesn't have a trip collar, or any means as to fit one, that it will feel quite unbalanced on a monopod, and the extending zoom will only magnify this. Also as pointed out above, previous Tamrons have been dust pumps so unless Tamron have sorted this with better design then it could be an issue. My 150-600mm was horrendous for this.
 
JJ! said:
I don’t know why, but I just don’t like extending lenses. I think ever since some of my Nikon lenses used to just fall back in to themselves I just prefer internal zooms and primes. But that’s just my strange habits!
Click to expand...

Internal zoom is definitely better in terms of reducing the chances of getting dust inside the lens elements, personally I have never liked extending zoom's either. I dislike the suction noise they sometimes have and pretty much everyone I have had eventually had a bit of lens creep even if they didn't when new.

Although I do have a Tamron 28-75 which is an extending zoom. That's the only one I have at the moment though and it is only a back up lens.
 
snerkler said:
They're not imo, zoom lenses change the balance and I can imagine as the Tamron doesn't have a trip collar, or any means as to fit one, that it will feel quite unbalanced on a monopod, and the extending zoom will only magnify this. Also as pointed out above, previous Tamrons have been dust pumps so unless Tamron have sorted this with better design then it could be an issue. My 150-600mm was horrendous for this.
Click to expand...

The Tamron f/2.8 70-200's for Nikon were also particularly bad both the G1 and G2 versions and they were an internal zoom.
 
snerkler said:
They're not imo, zoom lenses change the balance and I can imagine as the Tamron doesn't have a trip collar, or any means as to fit one, that it will feel quite unbalanced on a monopod, and the extending zoom will only magnify this. Also as pointed out above, previous Tamrons have been dust pumps so unless Tamron have sorted this with better design then it could be an issue. My 150-600mm was horrendous for this.
Click to expand...

as per above quote lens rental guys "The most common ‘dusters’ among current lenses all happen to be primes that don’t zoom at all"
The recent tamron lenses are sealed at least ones for mirrorless. I don't think zooming will be cause it to be a dust pump.
been using lenses like 100-400mm and 24-105mm for a while now. No issues with dust.
 
Last edited:
f/2.8 said:
Internal zoom is definitely better in terms of reducing the chances of getting dust inside the lens elements, personally I have never liked extending zoom's either. I dislike the suction noise they sometimes have and pretty much everyone I have had eventually had a bit of lens creep even if they didn't when new.

Although I do have a Tamron 28-75 which is an extending zoom. That's the only one I have at the moment though and it is only a back up lens.
Click to expand...
TBH I've never had an issue with other extending zooms, but with the 150-600mm you could actually hear and feel the suction it created :eek: I was going to send it back to Tamron for a free clean (I think it was almost an admission of the problem) but I got a decent trade in price so never bothered. It was especially odd as I thought that lens was supposed to be weather sealed, but if you saw how much dust it pulled in it didn't fill you with confidence. For what it's worth though it never affected image quality.
 
nandbytes said:
as per above quote lens rental guys "The most common ‘dusters’ among current lenses all happen to be primes that don’t zoom at all"
The recent tamron lenses are sealed at least ones for mirrorless. I don't think zooming will be cause it to be a dust pump.
been using lenses like 100-400mm and 24-105mm for a while now. No issues with dust.
Click to expand...
That may be true, but all I can speak from is experience. And when I started to suffer with mine and looked around it was quite clear it was a common problem (y).

As for primes being worse on the whole, my guess would be that up until recently a lot of primes have not been weather sealed and so that's probably why they're more prone to letting dust in.
 
snerkler said:
That may be true, but all I can speak from is experience. And when I started to suffer with mine and looked around it was quite clear it was a common problem (y).

As for primes being worse on the whole, my guess would be that up until recently a lot of primes have not been weather sealed and so that's probably why they're more prone to letting dust in.
Click to expand...
He says current lenses. So I take it he isn't talking primes from long back :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top