New tamron 28-200mm aperture ratings:
"Additionally, maximum apertures at intermediate zoom ranges are F3.5 at 50mm, F4.5 at 100mm, and F5.6 at 150mm through 200mm."
That caught my attention. If it matches the sharpness of my 24-105 or close to it within the overlapping ranges I might be interested!
One thing I don’t like about those lenses is how they drop value. In 10 years your 24-105 will probably still be worth £400. In 10 years that lens will be worth £100.
..maybe not but it represents the point.
Nice, great lightFew pics of london
LockdownLondon-108.jpg by Jon Richy, on Flickr
LockdownLondon-93.jpg by Jon Richy, on Flickr
LockdownLondon-74.jpg by Jon Richy, on Flickr
LockdownLondon-70.jpg by Jon Richy, on Flickr
LockdownLondon-103.jpg by Jon Richy, on Flickr
The 70-180mm is a winner in a lot of ways, but I'm still pretty gutted (and frustrated) there's no option for a collar In an ideal world it would have an internal zoom as well, but at 815g vs 1480g of the Sony 70-200mm f2.8 and a £700 price difference (currently with the Sony CB) it's hard to see past the Tamron.I've had sigma 18-250mm HSM (was my first non-kit lens) and the Sony 24-240mm.
Sigma wasn't very good tbh and Sony was bad at 24mm and 240mm lol. It was ok 28-100mm.
Got rid of both very quickly since I didn't really get along very well with them.
For me tamron 70-180mm is a real winner because it means I can get up to 180mm reach without cropping and with f2.8 aperture. I'd almost never carry other options with me. I have considered getting Voigtlander 180mm f4 so many times but that things costs an arm and a leg.
The 70-180mm is a winner in a lot of ways, but I'm still pretty gutted (and frustrated) there's no option for a collar In an ideal world it would have an internal zoom as well, but at 815g vs 1480g and a £700 price difference (currently with the Sony CB) it's hard to see past the Tamron.
I did say "in an ideal world" Obviously I prefer the size and weight savings, but the main reasons that I prefer internal zoom are that it doesn't alter the balance of the lens, and in my mind there's less chance if it pumping dust into the lens.I don't really understand the fascination with having large internal zooms. It'd take compactness over internal zoom. Imagine how big your 100-400mm will be with internal zoom. Would you be so happy with if that were the case
Beside tamron 70-180mm doesn't extend all that much.
I did say "in an ideal world" Obviously I prefer the size and weight savings, but the main reasons that I prefer internal zoom are that it doesn't alter the balance of the lens, and in my mind there's less chance if it pumping dust into the lens.
but both the sony 16-35mm lenses irks me because they extend when you zoom out to 16mm i.e. not only do they zoom the "wrong way" their resting position is at 35mm instead of 16mm. Who ever thought of this design.
I don't know if dust is a much of a problem these days, I have dust in my prime lenses and they don't zoom lol. Actually my 24-105mm which zooms and my most used lens outdoors has less dust in it than my some of my primes.
Well you'll like the 200-600mm then, huge internal zoom lens
I have a couple of lenses that have that behaviour - not a problem.but both the sony 16-35mm lenses irks me because they extend when you zoom out to 16mm i.e. not only do they zoom the "wrong way" their resting position is at 35mm instead of 16mm. Who ever thought of this design.
Yep also annoying lolSame as the Canon 24-70mk1 isn't it?
Kinda makes my point in someways. Internal zooming or not zooming i.e. primes can get more dust in them than properly sealed extending zooms.Tamron lenses are especially bad for this, always have been. Would expect the 70-180 to be particularly bad as even their recent 70-200 f/2.8's are quite bad and they are internal zoom.
Kinda makes my point in someways. Internal zooming or not zooming i.e. primes can get more dust in them than properly sealed extending zooms.
That hasn't been my experience at all, and while I have zoom lenses pretty much 95% of the time use prime lenses.
In my experience zoom lenses are absolutely more prone to internal dust, zoom lenses that are not internal zoom for me have definitely been worse and Tamron lenses in particular I have found to be particularly likely to get dust after short term use.
Not that is a huge issue usually as it's not that often that it has any impact on images and to be fair I haven't had any issues with that on the more recent e-mount Tamron lenses although they haven't had a huge amount of use.
I actually can't think of any prime lens I have owned that has had any issues but I am very anal about keeping my gear clean, so am sure that helps.
You can keep you gear clean but can't keep your environment dust free
All my lenses especially ones that go outdoor has some dust in them.
In fact ALL lens will have dust in them, if you can't see it you just need a more powerful torch
Keeping equipment clean means less chance of dust. I didn't say that it couldn't happen, also because I have a few bodies as well I probably change lenses less often than you would. Just an example my 24mm hasn't come off the camera I connected it to since I bought it.
Yes, of course all lenses have internal dust but we are talking here about larger clumps that are visible with the naked eye. I haven't yet owned a prime lens were this has been an issue, and I have had quite a few over the last 20 years or so. I can only think of hand of 2 prime lenses I have owned that has had visible dust a Sigma 85 f/1.4 which had one speck when I bought it used and a Samyang 45mm which I returned.
As I said before in me experience zoom lenses are absolutely more prone to internal dust, zoom lenses that are not internal zoom for me have definitely been worse and Tamron lenses in particular I have found to be particularly likely to get dust after short term use. The Tamron 24-70vc, 70-200vc and 70-200 G2 I owned had obvious dust you could see with the naked eye within a few months of owning them.
For me changing lenses is inevitable with only one body. I haven't got any lenses where huge amounts is visible but with a torch light I can definitely see the odd specs in some of them.
At the start it used annoy me a little when I found them but I have kind of given in to the fact that it's inevitable at least for me for lenses I use a lot.
For me personally primes have been more annoying for dust. Baffles me but that's how it's been.
Maybe you need to be a bit more careful when changing lenses, I give all my stuff a good clean after every use.
If you are going to go looking with a torch though every lens even brand new will show some dust.
Way back in the day if I was going to look at a used lens I would bring a little torch with me so I could use internal dust as a bargaining tool.
Once bitten twice shy and all that, the 150-600mm was a major dust pump, you could actually hear it 'ferociously' sucking air in It was such an issue you could send it back to Tamron to be cleaned free of chargeI don't know if dust is a much of a problem these days, I have dust in my prime lenses and they don't zoom lol. Actually my 24-105mm which zooms and my most used lens outdoors has less dust in it than my some of my primes.
Well you'll like the 200-600mm then, huge internal zoom lens
Once bitten twice shy and all that, the 150-600mm was a major dust pump, you could actually hear it 'ferociously' sucking air in It was such an issue you could send it back to Tamron to be cleaned free of charge
Assuming you mean portable HDD's I always find seagate good for the money. Currently £85 for 4TB ones, I'm not sure if you call that a great deal but I used to pay that for 1TB some years agoAnyone seen any good deals on USB hard drives? I need another (someone recommended me a great deal last time asked in here, can't remember who it was but thanks again). 2/4TB required, sorry for going off topic, but you know how this thread rolls
Assuming you mean portable HDD's I always find seagate good for the money. Currently £85 for 4TB ones, I'm not sure if you call that a great deal but I used to pay that for 1TB some years ago
Good old amazonYes sorry, USB powered portable variety.
I paid £45 for my recent WD 2TB so £85 seems ok. Is that direct from Seagate?
Good old amazon
Wow that’s good value, where from?I'm sorted, got another WD Passport 3GB for £58inc (in nasty yellow again too)
Quality thanksNice, great light
3gb? You could fit around 10 raw images taken from a Sony camera on that!I'm sorted, got another WD Passport 3GB for £58inc (in nasty yellow again too)
Wow that’s good value, where from?