Tamrons anouncement from 22nd this month to release an RF Version of the 18-300
- Thread starter axtstern
- Start date
From recent comparisons seems like this is sharper than the new Sigma 16-300mm at least, but I still wonder why Tamron didn’t start with the 17-70 f/2.8 as their first foray into RF-S, since it’d be offering something not otherwise available (a stabilized bright constant aperture general purpose APS-C zoom).
Upvote
0
As mentioned here, most R10 and R7 shooters wait for the the 17-70mm f2.8 to come out - It would perfectly fit a gap that is only halfway filled with the Sigma 18-50mm f2.8. And to me personally it would fit great together with my 70-200mm f2.8. That combined with the Sigma 10-18mm f2.8 and you would have a holy trinity reaching from 10-200mm at f2.8, that would really be great.
Upvote
0
Just to be petty, the zoom ring on the Tamron rotates in the wrong direction. I'm not interested in the 16-300 Sigma either, mostly because I own a Canon 24-240 Canon for my R6-2. If I need more reach, I put the Canon 100-400 (or rarely Sigma 150-600 EF) on my R7 and carry both bodies on a Black Rapid double harness. I also own the Sigma 10-18 and 18-50 but want a 50-135 F/2.8 DC from Sigma. These last three lenses would be used primarily for video.
Upvote
0
I have to agree. The 10-18 and 18-50 lenses are very VERY good - especially for their size it's impressive, really. So we have compact handled by Sigma...now we need more practical ranges. The 17-70 f/2.8 provides an incredibly useful focal range and it comes at the expense of size which gives consumers choice. I'm surprised there hasn't been a follow-up from Sigma/Tamron to round out the "Trinity" for them. Would love a 50-140 f/2.8 that's smaller than the (LOOKS LIKE IT WAS DESIGNED FOR FULL-FRAME) Fufjifilm 50-140 f/2.8. haha I don't think there is a "70-200 f/2.8" equivalent for APS-C from anyone other than Fujifilm.
Upvote
0
Right!
I couldn't care less.
Indeed, a lens like this wouldn't appeal to the L crowd, or most enthusiasts who like to hang out in photo equipment forums.
It's curious though. I don't follow market trends thaat closely, but a few years ago, the conventional wisdom was that the low end of the market was being replaced by phones, and the dedicated camera and lens manufacturers were going upmarket for growth. Is that changing? Have the mythical "phone users who want more" finally materialized in large enough numbers?
Last edited:
Upvote
0
I'd jump on the Tamron 17-70/2.8 in a second, or even the Sigma variable aperture 17-70/2.8-4 from the DSLR days (still one of my favorite adapted lenses).
Other than this Tamron 18-300 and the recently announced Sigma 16-300, none of the Sigma or Tamron RF lenses have had optical stabilization (OS or VC). I don't know about other makers, but I wonder if that's one of Canon's licensing restrictions for the higher quality lenses.
The Tamron 17-70/2.8 has VC, but the Sigma 18-50/2.8 doesn't have OS. And which one is available for RF? Coincidence?
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Certainly the average unit price of ILCs has increased over the past few years. But it's still around $800, meaning most of the cameras being sold are entry-level APS-C. Canon touts sales of the R50 and R100, those are more expensive than entry-level DSLRs. The ratio of APS-C to FF ILCs used to be ~9:1, and now it's closer to ~3:1 so there is definitely an up-market trend for sensor size. However, a big part of that shift is probably the fact that FF MILCs have come down closer to...or lower than...APS-C. Consider that the EOS RP is still part of the lineup, and it's now selling for less than the R10.
Upvote
0
ashmadux
Art Director, Visual Artist, Freelance Photography
Yay.
Sony has a new 50 to 150 and we get this trashy announcement. Might as well bring out a 24 mm f8 pancake.
That'll show em.
Currently Canon is the butt of the jokes on many of the reviews for that amazing Sony lens. Now Canon is rightfully known as the overcharging lack of humility brand, and their version would be as much as $8,000 it's as funny as it is sad.
Just as sad as L lenses that don't cover the image circle and have to be fixed with profiles and charge $1,400 for them. Now that is sad.
Sony has a new 50 to 150 and we get this trashy announcement. Might as well bring out a 24 mm f8 pancake.
That'll show em.
Currently Canon is the butt of the jokes on many of the reviews for that amazing Sony lens. Now Canon is rightfully known as the overcharging lack of humility brand, and their version would be as much as $8,000 it's as funny as it is sad.
Just as sad as L lenses that don't cover the image circle and have to be fixed with profiles and charge $1,400 for them. Now that is sad.
Upvote
0
Oh, you’re still here? Why? All you do is rant about how bad Canon is. So switch. Pretty pathetic that all you do is keep buying Canon gear and whining about it. You’re the butt…of your own jokes.
Right. Because none of Sony’s GM lenses force distortion correction. Lol. I’d tell you to get a clue, but it’s clear that’s beyond your capabilities.
Upvote
0
Can't one change that direction in the menus these days? Or does that only work with Canon lenses?
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
Thanks for pointing that out. Which comparisons do you refer on?
I foully understand your thought here. You and I and many others here at CR prefer brighter lenses with lower zoom factor and prefer the image quality those lenses can offer.
But APS-C is still a mostly mainstream consumer driven market.
Those people see the zoom factor first. And so that is the market where Tamron can earn more money because of higher expected sales numbers.
Let's hope, those numbers are high enough for Tamron to invest more R&D in RF(-S) lenses.[/QUOTE]
Upvote
0
It was the Northrup comparison a few days ago, watching it again it looks like they trade areas of sharpness and the Tamron beats the Sigma at 100m, but it's not an overall win. I have yet to see a proper test of the Sigma at 70mm, which is where it reaches maximum magnification.
Tamron's first RF(S) lens was actually the 11-20mm f/2.8, which directly competes with with the Sigma 10-18mm f/2.8 (that already released months earlier), and the Sigma is smaller, cheaper, and from what I've seen in various comparisons trades blows in IQ. Had they chosen the 17-70 f/2.8mm for their first instead, they'd be offering something appreciably different from the competition that fills a currently empty role in the Canon APS-C ecosystem (a modern stabilized bright general purpose crop zoom). It being stabilized would make it especially attractive for R10/R50/R50V/R100 owners who were looking for a direct upgrade from the RF-S 18-45 kit zoom.
I hope Tamron isn't getting disillusioned with sales and never ports the 17-70 over, BUT if Canon finally drops that patented RF-S 15-60mm f/2.8mm (hopefully alongside the R7II) we won't really need it anymore.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
