Tamron announces 28-300/4-7.1

[Cameratose]

Quote

Tamron Co., Ltd. (President & CEO: Shogo Sakuraba; Headquarters: Saitama City, Japan; “TAMRON”), a leading manufacturer of optics for diverse applications, announces the launch of the 28-300mm F/4-7.1 Di III VC VXD (Model A074), a 10.7x all-in-one zoom lens for Sony E-mount full-frame mirrorless cameras on August 29, 2024.

Thoughts? I've come to the conclusion that 28 isn't wide enough for what I shoot. The 7.1 is kind of rough too. I know Tamron is focusing on making compact lenses, so speed is going to be sacrificed. I don't mind that some, but this may be a bit too much.

I am still hoping Sony releases that 24-200 that was rumored, or maybe someone will announce a 20-something that doesn't cost $3k like the Sony 20-70 is rumored to be. 

Just announced: New Tamron 28-300mm f/4-7.1 VC lens – sonyalpharumors

Edited July 31, 2024 by Cameratose

[Pieter]

There's the Sony 24-240 if superzooms are your thing. The 20-70 is out already and costs €1.3k here. Still not exactly cheap but it has a pretty unique zoom range.

Edited August 1, 2024 by Pieter

[Phormula]

From the technical side, it is easier to make a superzoom pushing on the tele side rather than on the wide side, and this is the reason why almost all superzoom stop around 28 mm on the wide side. I cannot speak specifically for this Tamron, but from the quality point of view, usually these lenses have their gold spot around 35-50 mm, where they are supposed to be used the most, and are quite soft at the tele end. Slowness, especially at the telephoto end, is the other trade off to avoid increasing size, weight and cost. A maximum aperture of 7.1 at 300 mm makes handholding at 300 mm not easy without ramping up with ISO and the situation becomes worse with a polarizer filter installed. Above f/ 5.6 autofocus in low light is also affected. All in all these lenses are "Jacks of all trades" and their main advantage is the possibility of doing a little bit of everything without having to change the lens. This is a value for some sport, where you need to shoot the field and zoom immediately into the single player or viceversa.

For my shooting style I prefer to split the range in two, i.e. a wide to mild telephoto lens that does most of the job and a telephoto zoom for the occasional need, which for me is less than 5% of my shots.

[Cameratose]

3 hours ago, Pieter said:

There's the Sony 24-240 if superzooms are your thing. The 20-70 is out already and costs €1.3k here. Still not exactly cheap but it has a pretty unique zoom range.

Yeah, had one. It wasn't the best lens. It was serviceable, but I need faster than it offered. Right now I use the 24-105/4 for my nearer shots. Earlier this year it was rumored Sony planned an upgrade to the 24-240 in the form of a 24-200/2.8-4.5. I'd jump on that in a heartbeat. 

[Cameratose]

2 hours ago, Phormula said:

From the technical side, it is easier to make a superzoom pushing on the tele side rather than on the wide side, and this is the reason why almost all superzoom stop around 28 mm on the wide side. I cannot speak specifically for this Tamron, but from the quality point of view, usually these lenses have their gold spot around 35-50 mm, where they are supposed to be used the most, and are quite soft at the tele end. Slowness, especially at the telephoto end, is the other trade off to avoid increasing size, weight and cost. A maximum aperture of 7.1 at 300 mm makes handholding at 300 mm not easy without ramping up with ISO and the situation becomes worse with a polarizer filter installed. Above f/ 5.6 autofocus in low light is also affected. All in all these lenses are "Jacks of all trades" and their main advantage is the possibility of doing a little bit of everything without having to change the lens. This is a value for some sport, where you need to shoot the field and zoom immediately into the single player or viceversa.

For my shooting style I prefer to split the range in two, i.e. a wide to mild telephoto lens that does most of the job and a telephoto zoom for the occasional need, which for me is less than 5% of my shots.

Size doesn't bother me much. For something like this I'd prefer a bit more size/weight in exchange for a bit more light. I shoot the Tamron 50-400 for hours on end, and the Sony 200-600 to a lesser extent. Polarizers are a must for my daytime shots as I am usually in bright sun with a lot of glare, and always try to buy those with a filter factor of one stop or so to keep as much light as possible. I would say that 95% of my shots are made with zooms. When it gets dark and I have to depend on lighting I revert to primes, but they're a bit more difficult to deal with in my situation. 

Like you, I depend on two zooms for most of my stuff, the 24-105 and 50-400. When it comes time to switch to primes, I limit them to a 24 and a 135 to try an avoid too many swaps. 

I think too that CAD and other technologies have made the old super zoom issues less of a concern. What used to take months to sort out now takes mere seconds. I was shocked at the IQ that comes out of the Tamron at the extreme ends and everywhere in between. We're going to see more of the wide>tele zooms in the near future, as well as fast zooms like Sigma's 28-45/1.8. Tamron's 35-150/2-2.8 opened a door.  

[Phormula]

18 minutes ago, Cameratose said:

I think too that CAD and other technologies have made the old super zoom issues less of a concern.

Definitely yes, and also new glass types have come to the market, including hybrid plastic-glass lenses. However the limits of physics are still there, a fast lens requires big glass.

IMHO the leap forward in recent year comes also from software correction, which for some lenses cannot be disabled. 

All in all, I believe that there is a market for those lenses if somebody can live with picture quality and appreciates the possibility to move from wide angle to long telephoto within a second and without changing lens. Given the kind of pictures that I take, my current two zoom setups meets my needs.