There is this welcome news of Tamron announcing their new 35-100 mm F2.8 FE lens. At 590 g weight, it is likely to prove a good travel lens, perhaps more useful relative to 24-70mm for some, depending on the optical quality. Any comments?
I’m assuming this is more of a travel lens in the size class of the 28-75/2.8 or 25-200. At 100mm, the latter is already f5.6 (though the old 28-200 achieves f4.5 at 100mm). Seems like an interesting alternative paired with a single ultrawide lens. Though for hiking/travel having the 200mm range is very compelling too.
If the optical quality was as good as the 28-75, I would definitely be interested in buying it. It would pair better with the 16-35 GM II to eliminate the overlap at 28-35 and extend the range to 100mm. The 60-75 portion of the 28-75 is its weakest area anyway so this could be a great upgrade for landscape and general work.
What I’m looking for is a stellar 24-120/4 like Nikon has had for years. I’m not a fan of f4 zooms, but this is one I would probably buy if it were really good.
It's a bit of an awkward combination of range and aperture, but can certainly be worked with! We have a Canon FD 35-105 here at home that's fun to take out occasionally.
That lens already exists from Sigma. I'm guessing Tamron was looking for differentiation in the market and did so with size and portability. This is a very interesting lens in terms of size, weight and cost -- curious to see how it performs.
mudlake wrote:
What I’m looking for is a stellar 24-120/4 like Nikon has had for years. I’m not a fan of f4 zooms, but this is one I would probably buy if it were really good.
Me too - I shoot a lot of telephoto, so the extra 50mm vs. your standard 24-70mm is worth it for the the loss of a stop. I've been very impressed with the photos over on the Nikon forum. Maybe we'll get a II version of the 24-105 G one day...
Well, maybe not everyone, but I'd love to see what modern lens design could do in terms of size for a lens spec'd like that. I think we're just being greedy now with lens choice, but Sony showed what was possible with 50-150/2 in terms of not putting limits on cost, size or weight, so it would be interesting what a shorter focal range would look like.
Dave Sanders wrote:
That lens already exists from Sigma. I'm guessing Tamron was looking for differentiation in the market and did so with size and portability. This is a very interesting lens in terms of size, weight and cost -- curious to see how it performs.
You mean the 28-105/2.8? Cause that’s appreciably bigger, heavier, spendier and also has no OS…
nehemiahphoto wrote:
You mean the 28-105/2.8? Cause that’s appreciably bigger, heavier, spendier and also has no OS…
Yes - that was my point
Tamron likely didn't go wider because they didn't want something appreciably bigger, heavier and spendier. My guess is that they looked at what was currently available in the market and then prioritized size and weight, so it won't be f2, won't go to 24 or 28, won't go to 135, etc.
