This length make so much sense. For my style of shooting, everything below 21mm looks unnatural. The Panasonic 20-60 is even more versatile with less light.
As a L-Mount user (Lumix), I sometimes feel jealous looking at the superb innovations Tamron has been doing. I think this 20-40 lens paired with their monster 35-150 would be all I need for 95% of my work (although I'd still pack in a 50 1.4 for safety). This focal length is perfect for my documentary filmmaking work, especially if I have a second body with a 35-150 kind of lens on it. In the L-mount, we have a lovely 20-60 kit lens which sacrifices the f/2.8 for a variable 3.5-5.6 aperture, but it is a fantastic lens that does offer the reach that I would need for all my work, but without the 2.8 goodness of the Tammy 20-40 :) Thanks for this review, Kyle! This does make the Sony a7IV seem even more appealing
Agreed, Tamron has been doing great work innovating and providing awesome and versatile options at a super affordable price. Thanks for stopping by and dropping your thoughts in the comments! Appreciate it!
Thank you for a thoughtful review of this lens. Yes, I am up for it as a 'replacement' for my 17-28 which I wish was longer on the tele end. I see this as a great companion to the 28-200 for traveling.
It may sound redundant but I carry both Tamron 20-40mm F2.8 and Sony 20-70mm F4 when going in a long trip. I use Sony 20-70 during the most day time and switch to 20-40 at night. I will carry one additional lens, either Tamron 35-150 or Tamron 50-400 depending on the type of trips. These combo pretty much takes care of everything for me without needing to switch lenses too often.
20mm is my preferred reveal/ interior lens - it doesn't distort like a 16mm. Ive been using a 20mm for my interior work for 9 years now, with no complaints from my customers. As for the 40mm, well if you have the new A7R5 (I expect to buy one soon) you've got 60mm at 30mp 🔥 ... this lens cover my 4 most used primes 20 24 35 and 50mm. F2.8 is Ideal for me as well as very often im around F3.5 - so Im covered 👍
Hi, I’m more into photography. So, for travelling I use the 24-105 and in addition the 20mm 1.8. The 24-105 replaces mostly my 24-70 GM and the 20-40mm could replace the 20mm. I was for many years a fan of prime lenses, but the flexibiliity of the zoom lenses especially while travelling, attracts me more and more. And I love both focal lenghts of the zoom. 20mm is a great wide angle for landscape and I agree with you, less than 20mm is often to „distorty“. 40mm is great for environmental portraits, so this seems to a very good lens for many situations.
Precisely my travel kit all over the UK and South America. I added the Sony 11mm f1.8 APSC to the kit for interior and night shots. Yes, APSC on full frame. Thank you Mark Galer! Excellent results. Thinking I might sell some G Master glass that is too heavy and so much money sitting idle.
I just got the 17~28mm 2.8 and I'm thinking in returning it for this one. I took some photos with mine and after culling and checking I only liked two photos that were on 17mm and both I've cropped, so... no need for something that wide.
I love it, finally a small bright full frame zoom with an interesting focal length. Would make a perfect combo with the Samyang 75 f1.8 for travel. Even together they are lighter than most zooms.
Great review. Totally agree about anything wider than 20mm being too distorted. I'm really excited about this lens. I was debating getting the 20mm G lens and the PZ 16-35, but this lens is the easy winner for me.
Yeah I think this will be absolutely perfect if those are the ones you're considering. Maybe the only drawback is that the 20G is much better for Astrophotography if that's a requirement. I do own the 20G as well and I do love that lens
@@kylemeshna thanks for the response. I might do Astro a few times a year just for fun so not a major worry. I’m also excited for this lens for family gatherings, parties, and indoor stuff.
@@1000mattyr the 20G is my all time favorite Astro lens. But that’s also basically all I use it for. If Astro is the primary use case, go with that. But if you need something more versatile then this is the pick
I already have 50 gm and 70-200gm2 and looking for a wide zoom which is not heavy for a gimbal. Thinking about he 16-35 PZ but I feel like I just dont need that wide ultra wide on events! I think this 20-40 tamron is the perfect choice for me right now.
For travel/vacation photography this lens is dam near perfect. If I could make my own lens, it would be 20-50 but 20-40 is the closest thing out there so far. If everyone was honest with themselves for travel, we all live 90% of the time in that 20 to 50mm range. Keeping in mind that size and weight play a huge factor as well. The so-called king 24-70 2.8 is an expensive brick and the f4 is just not bright enough in many cases.
Great vid. Wish I could get my hands on one. Another fantastic function of this lens: you can make the focus ring LINEAR - AND adjust the range by degrees!!! The USB functionality that this lens includes makes it over the top IMHO.
Yeah the Tamron lens utility is great. Unfortunately I wasn't able to get it to work with this sample lens on my M1 Max MBP, but I've used it on other tamron lenses with great effect!
Thank you. That was a superb wrap on all the questions. I guess it’s the 2.8. That’s the standard for pro zooms but I fear not having a fast lens for those instances I’ll really want to separate the subject will nag at me. But a compact, light, wide(not 24 but 20 wide!) to normal (40 is my new 50)is hard to deny the choice. So why not just throw an 85 1.8 in too? They’re smallish and light-ish. ???
As another poster suggested, Samyang’s 75/1.8 fills the shallow-DoF portrait and low-light roles nicely while keeping the kit small and light. I have one for this exact reason despite also using Samyang’s 85/1.4 for event work.
Sigma 16-28 is also there... and of course just a 20mm 1.8 G prime and take two steps forward for zoom. =) You can always zoom in, and not out. The 16-35 PZ is obviously wider, and going wider costs money. You also have declickable aperture, and a programable ring. Purely for video, that lens is far worth it and will keep its value more. And of course, $699 x 2 is $1400... not twice the price. Right now Sony is also running a $100 instant discount on that lens and others if you trade in ANY lens/dslr and get that trade value too. You can also find it at Best buy open box for around $900. I REALLY wanted to love this Tamron but seems like no one actually gives a compelling reason as to why it actually is a game changer or a must have. It doesn't actually do anything better than it's competition besides... "It's not a sony and it is a bit cheaper." If this was a 16-40 or something like that, now we're talking. Good video otherwise...
Agreed. I have the 16-35 PZ and love it. I shoot 60% photos and 40% videos and found that this lens excels doing both. Only downside is that its not for Astro. Otherwise, it performs nicely even during evenings with A7IV
You make a great argument for the PZ. I am still considering swapping my 17-28 for the 20-40. It is a better "if you have to bring one lens" solution for general shooting. I do landscapes and anything wider than 20 or 21mm seems to me to have too much distortion to look natural, especially in the corners and the sides!
I never used anything wider than 20mm on the 16-35mm lenses I've owned, this is perfect for me to pair with the 85mm 1.8 G. Received my copy the other day and I'm considering selling my Tamron 28-75mm, because it feels somewhat redundant.
I am in the same boat with the 28-75 G2. It is the least used lens I have. I try not to go wider than 20 on my 17-28 Tamron. That is why I am looking to replace it with the 20-40. I gain on the long end and in APSc mode I have a very short telephoto almost replacing the 28-75! The 20-40 might be the best one-lens solution if you had to bring only one lens.
This is a lens that makes me so mad that canon is being lame about 3rd party lenses. I would LOVE this over something like the RF15-35. It would be awesome for so many scenarios. Walk around, street, landscapes, etc. and it’s small and weather sealed!!!! I hate that to get weather sealed stuff from canon, you need their L stuff that’s crazy expensive and HUGE. Great video!
Also, I’ve been using an EF mount Tamron 24-70 F2.8 G2, and love what I get from it. So I’m sure this little lens would be a great add. Only thing that keeps me from using it more lately is the size/weight, and needing the adapter.
Honestly Canon’s decision to ban 3rd party lenses completely baffles me given how behind they are on lens options for RF. I gotta think that’s swayed so many people away from going Canon
@@kylemeshna when I got my R, I was still hopeful that Sigma and Tamron would be dropping stuff soon after. It’s been two years. Had I known then, what I know now, I would’ve gone Sony or Fuji. I didn’t go Sony initially cause of how they felt in my hands, but I think I would’ve adapted after while. Here’s to hoping canon smartens up.
Yeah I think the past Sony cameras felt really weird in the hand, but the newer models have remedied it nicely. Definitely agree it’s best for everyone if they open up RF to everyone tho
Thanks for the review - very helpful. Is it as sharp as the 16-35, especially in the f8-f11 range (I find the Sony sharpness falls off quickly beginning around f8)? What is coma and astigmatism like for stars? If those are good I’d strongly consider “downgrading” my 16-35. On the plus side, 1/2 the weight, a more useful focal length range, and 67mm ND filters. On the minus side, MF/AF switch, sun stars not quite as well defined. I’ll just choose MF from the C3 menu.-I’m also considering replacing my 24-105 with the Tamron 35-150; just trying to figure out if the weight is worth it (yes, if I’m not carrying around a 100-400 any more). FYI, I also use a PRVKE like I saw in your vid.
Great video Kyle. Definitely would consider the 20-70mm f4 since this video was posted as it has the longer reach and is native. Would be a good comparison follow up video. Cheers bud
distortion is crazy on 20-70 and it's just f/4 ... I have to choose one Sony or Tamron and decision was 20-40. The only problem is worst stabilization in video, but DaVinci can handle it.
20mm is indeed very good for vlogging, but once you add dynamic active stabe, it's more like a 26mm. What do you think of the Viltrox 16mm F1.8 as a replacement for the 20mm focal length with vlogging? - this gives you effectively 20mm once you turn on dynamic stabe on and buttery smooth footage. That's the lens I'm considering, or the Tamron 17-28mm F2.8. With dynamic stabe that 20-40 is a bit tight.
I'm torn between this lens and the sigma 24-70 2.8 for an every day carry lens. This is a really tough decision, but I'm leaning towards the sigma, so I don't have to carry my 85mm and think about swapping. Also, the good ol' 50mm missing would grind my gears I think.
I own and love the Sigma 24-70 2.8. Easily the best do it all every day carry lens ever. Having to change lenses might make you miss the shot, and also expose your sensor to dust, etc. Overall the 24-70 is a far better bet for the purpose you have.
I have aigma 23-70 2.8 and i find it too heavy for travel/hiking/street and i will be buying 20-40 for sure. Also Have 85mm 1.8 feom Sony and i think qith 20-40 it's great combo
The Sigma is a great lens but extremely heavy for an everyday carry IMO. To me an everyday lens is something light and compact, there when you need it but not in the way when you don’t do this 20-40 from Tamron makes a lot of sense.
I was considering the Sony 16-35 PZ, but your video convinced me to purchase this Tamron instead. Will be mainly shooting real estate and architecture.
It was already past Astro season when I was testing, so didn’t go thru the full paces with it, but I liked the night shots I took. I do think the 20mm f/1.8 remains me Astro recommendation though
Kyle, great video and demonstration of the 20-40's capabilities. The 20-40 and 50-400 are coming in on Monday for a two week evaluation. I am likely to let go of my 17-28 and my 150-500 in favor of these two. The sharpness I see in your 20-40 does not seem to be in my 17-28. It seems to me the 20-40 is sharper. I do not do much in 17mm because of distortion. The 20mm seems to be the perfect focal length for my landscape work. The extra 12mm on the long end, makes this lens a possible perfect solution for a one-lens outing!
@@numistika I had the the 20-40 and the 50-400 for about three weeks for testing. The 20-40 , as expected was great. I like it a lot. The 50-400 was the nice surprise. I have had a tough time getting sharp results out of my 150-500. No such problems with the 50-400. It is a much smaller lens and weighs about 1.5 lbs. less than my 150-500. I shot it at all focal lengths and the results are good enough for pro work. Images are sharp at all apertures and the lens is easy to handhold. For my landscape work and the need for long focal lengths, it is the ideal lens. If I wanted to shoot wildlife, I don't think 400mm is long enough. For that I would go to the Sony 200-600 or the new Sigma 60-600. I have the 17-28 and the 70-180 and use them almost all the time for my landscape work. I am tempted to go the 20-40 and the 35-150 route too to close the 28 to 70 gap but I am in no hurry. I think for landscape work with two lenses only I have the following two scenarios: 1. 20mm-400mm range wide aperture not an issue, , I would go with 20-40 and the 50-400 as the ideal combo. 2. By the same token, if I wanted max focal range and the fastest apertures, the 20-40 and the 35-150 would be the choices. Also remember, we have a new contender in the Sony 20-70 f4. So many choices!!! I am going to hold off making any changes until the end of 2023 as I hear more Tamron lenses are coming out this year. I'll let the dust settle and then decide on my lens changes and move.
@@boristahmasian9604 Much appreciate your detailed description! Interesting to learn you had an issue with 150-500 focus. That's the one I also considered for a wild life. What stops me with 35-150 is a longer focus distance. 28-70 looks like an accomplished and very tempting lens for all around work in this focal range that can also be good for close ups with minimal image distortion. And that is very tempting with the updated G2 version. I am at a start of building my lens set for a full frame. Too many options to choose from ))) If I'll go for 28-70 G2, I'll hold of for a VXD updated G2 version of 17-28, that I also have a feeling might be in a pipeline. Just add a good 85 portrait lens and a telephoto (have doubts about 150-500 now) and it's a complete sound set. 20-40 is a great companion for 35-150 or 50-400 if the close range isn't required much. 20-40 can do close ups, but their images would require a bit of work in post, plus weight of 35-150 also needs to be considered. Getting a dedicated macro lens is the need that I'd like to eliminate in my set. If I was a wedding photographer, 35-150 would be a holly grail though. Thank you for additional food for thought!
@@numistika Eugene, it all depends on what type of photography you do the most. For everyday, pay the bills kind of work, I shoot business portraits. For that work, the 28-75 f2.8 with my A7RIV in APSc mode is the ideal lens. For my landscape work, so far I have used my 17-28 and the 70-180 the most with great results. On a trip to the national parks last year, I used my 70-300 and the 17-28 the most with occasional 70-180. I did not use the 28-75 at all and I did not have the 150-500 at the time. I think for the idea landscape lens set up, I might go with the Sony 20-70 f4 and the Tamron 50-400. The two of them cover quite a range. There are rumors of a Tamron 20-50 f2.8. If that lens comes to market, I will get it instead of the Sony 20-70. If you are in the market for primes, I have seen a lot of positive reviews for the 85 f1.8. I also borrowed my cousins Sigma 85 f1.4 and shot with it for a few weeks. Talk about an insanely sharp lens at f1.4. It is well balanced on the camera and it is very fast focusing too. You are right, we have way too many choices. I think the best thing is to analyze what you shoot the most and get the lenses that will help you get the shots. Good luck.
@@boristahmasian9604 You are absolutely right. It all depends on shooting style and interests. I lived with a camera since I was bourn and started shooting by myself when I turned 7, spending days in a red light lit dark room. I love different styles, from nature to street. I am not a professional and do it as a hobby, so trying to cover the range on a budget from wide to tele. You sharing your experience with me has beed very helpful. Much appreciated! If I can see any of your work anywhere on line, please share a link. Best of luck!
I've got the 24 1.4 GM, but now I am so torn between getting the 16-35 F4 PZ, or this new Tamron 20-40 to pair with....argh! Good problems to have though, glad to see Tamron pushing the creativity
You say 699$… however, in Europe is 999 euros… a big difference that sets me back. If the price would be the 699 I would buy it in a heartbeat… 999 euros… I start looking some other lens and brands
Waiting for this lens to hit my countries local market ! Weirdly enough im gonna use it for wedding and events photography Paired up with sony a7iii and sigma 85 1.4 dg dn !😅
i just found it in a odd postion of jack of all trade，if landscape its not wide enough，if travel its not tele enough， but at the price it could be a replace of fe 35 2.8
It’s pretty close. I think the stabilization is maybe a little less smooth in active stabilization compared to the GM. And the lack of MF switch is definitely more annoying for video imo. But other than that it feels like a good trade off for the price.
I'd keep the 16-35 for times I absolutely need to shoot wider at those 16mm focal length shots. The tamron is an uber lightweight choice if I'm travelling light and can only bring one lens.
Hi! I have this lens, and I have heard that there is vignetting at 20mm with a 67mm nd filter. I'm also worried about there being vignetting if I use a step up ring. What nd filter and/or step up ring do you use with this lens? I was looking at getting the Polar Pro Peter McKinnon filter with mist. Should I get that (if so what size), or should I get a different filter? Thanks!
I use the polar pro Peter McKinnon filters exclusively yes. I always recommend buying the largest thread size you have and using a step up ring for any lenses that are smaller
@@kylemeshnaCan you recall which size filter you used with it in this video? I only have 67mm lenses but it might not hurt to go with a 77mm or 82mm paired with a step up ring (as long as there’s no vignetting) to ensure that lenses I buy in the future can work with it.
This lens is definitely superior to that, but they would cover a lot of the same focal range so having both would be less necessary. I’d try to sell the 11-20 and get this instead
hello, i've tried it but only for 5 minutes. I found it not so sharp as you say at 40mm f/2.8. Especially in the midframe, approximate area of the rule of thirds line intersections, for portrait. As owner of tamron 17-28 and samyang 45 1.8 I hoped this could replace both, but I'm not so sure. The samy at f/2.8 is a razor sharp... and 17-28 works very well. i'm thinking if do or not.
@@lorenzo4262 It is better than my previous 17-28 and better focus hit rate as well. I only use 35 gm and 20-40 when going out with kids. To me, I accept its sharpness and its colour as my 2nd walk-around lens
Hi, can you tell me if the 20-40 f/2.8 is as good as the 28-75 f/2.8 for the sharpness ? I would like to use this lens for landscape photography because 28-75 is not wide enough
which 28-75 and which 24-70 are you asking about? there are many lenses that fit this description for Sony E mount. The 24-70GM is great and the 24-70GM II is even better
Man... All these Sigma, Samyang and Tamron lens releases have made me wish for a new Zeiss release. I'm getting tired of wasting my hard earned money on lenses that can't render light properly. I do only portraits because that's what I love but that doesn't pay very well in my country, so I have to do a trillion shoots just to be able to comfortably afford buying a new lens and all these flat lenses don't really produce images that would make me go ''MAN! I am really glad I spend 1,500 EUR on this lens!!'' Come on Zeiss... We need you to release something... It's been 4 years or more since the last lens release...
My understanding is that Zeiss were never actually making those older Sony consumer lenses in house. They licensed the name and gave some input to another manufacturer. It was a stop gap in the early Sony years before they had a good lens lineup and now Zeiss isn’t doing any consumer level stuff for Sony anymore since the G and GM lines have ramped up
@@kylemeshna Oh man, this is one hell of a story. I'm surprised a lot of people don't know about this, especially since there was a whole fiesta about it going on online and real life, all over Japan. So, Sony made some kind of a 2-5 year or however long, manufacturing partnership contract (or whatever it's called) with the Zeiss's camera optics subsidiary, under Zeiss's ''Consumer Products'' classification, back in 2009 or 2010, where Sony was given partial access to all of the patented Zeiss manufacturing ''secrets'' and other good stuff, which in return, Sony gave Zeiss legal pass to make glass for their E mount and they also had to clearly label the Zeiss approved glass with a Zeiss logo for every Sony lens they did on their own using Zeiss manufacturing standards - and Sony being as ''creative'' as they are, just simply called the lenses ''Zeiss Approved'' lenses and slapped a Zeiss logo on them. This went on until about 2015 or 2016, so with Sony now having all this manufacturing knowledge passed on from the Zeiss partnership contract and making ZA and other lenses, somewhere along the time line, something happened between Zeiss and Sony - and for whatever reason, Sony was now allowed to manufacture their own lenses using what they learned from Zeiss. So, Sony being Sony, they decided to come up with and announce their own premium lens lineup and so they did, with their ''GM'' lens lineup. All of the GM labeled lenses were and still are made by Zeiss manufacturing standards, which Sony was using not only for their GM lenses but also a lot of the lower tier glass before they even released their first GM lenses, such as the 2015 90mm f2.8 Macro lens or the 2016 iteration of the 50mm f1.8 lens, for example. Now this went on for a couple years and somewhere along the line, somehow and for whatever reason, Tamron got involved into the whole Sony-Zeiss partnership for the new releases of Zeiss's Batis lineup of lenses for the Sony E mount - where Tamron was making lens stabilization hardware for the Batis lenses that Zeiss made for Sony... I don't know much about what happened after but for whatever reason, Sony-Zeiss partnership contract seems to have either legally ended or got terminated before it's due date, since there was a rumor about the new Zeiss lens lineup for Sonys E mount after the Batis lenses but that never happened and we haven't seen a new Zeiss lens for Sony E mount in like 3or 4 years now.
I've owned multiple Sony/Zeiss, Zeiss, Sony, and Tamron lenses, and I definitely don't agree with that sentiment. The current lineup of E-mount lenses is absolutely fantastic. The Tamron 28-75 G2 is an absolutely incredible lens (I don't even want to mention the horrible Sony Zeiss 24-70 F4), and Sony's new GM lenses are without question some of the best, regardless of system. Why wish for Zeiss to come back? The Batis line was nice, sure, but horribly overpriced. The Sony 85 1.8 is 98% of the lens for less than half the price. It's clearly the lens to recommend. Same with Sony's 35 1.8 or their small F2.5 primes. And the GM prime lineup right now is so much better than whatever Zeiss ever did. Better quality than the Batis lenses and some of them even comparable to the Otus line (which is extremely expensive, lacks AF, and is not attractive to 99% of people). Would not trade the 14, 24, 35, 50 or 135 of the GM primes for any Zeiss lens.
@@absolutrumo I mean, there is nothing really to agree or disagree with here. We are not talking about corner sharpness, colors, Eye AF or any of the other trivial aspects of a lens, we’re talking about how a lens renders the image onto the cameras sensor. It’s just a matter of how a lens was manufactured and designed that plays into the rendering. Neither Tamron nor any of the other 3rd party manufacturers have a reputation of creating lenses with physically accurate, natural 3D rendering. That reputation goes to Zeiss, Voigtlnder, Hasselblad and Leica exclusively and they have been known for that for over 100 years, Voigtlander in specific is the oldest lens manufacturer in the world and they have been making lenses that render physically accurate for over 250 years now, maybe even 300 years I forgot when the company was founded. Talking about Tamron specifically, in the entire lens manufacturing history of Tamron as a company, they have made only 4 lenses that render to the standards of Zeiss, Hasselblad or Voigtlander… Only 4. Most people in my line of work (portraiture, fashion/editorial/glam and boudoir) don’t need or use Eye AF, don’t need pixel peeping corner sharpness and don’t need fast apertures, that’s why most of us care more about image quality and that physically accurate 3D rendering, than anything else. In fact, most of my lenses are manual focus only lenses - and most of photographers in my line of work, in the higher levels of “the pyramid,” shoot exclusively on PhaseOne or Hasselblad cameras, both of which make lenses that have that physically accurate 3D rendering that you can usually only see in Voigtlander, Zeiss, Leica and Nikon lenses. The reason I said I want Zeiss specifically to make more lenses is because I shoot primarily on E mount. That 85mm 1.8 from Sony was manufactured by Zeiss manufacturing standards, which Sony acquired from over a decade worth of experience working alongside Zeiss during their partnership contract. Same applies to the 2016 version of the Sony 50mm 1.8, the Sony 90mm 2.8 macro and a number of other ‘Sony’ lenses, including most GM glass and the ZA labeled lenses. And I don’t know what your reasoning is for saying that the 24-70 f4 from Zeiss is “horrible,” because that lens has near perfectly accurate 3D rendering that you won’t find in any Sigma, Tamron, Samyang, Canon and just about any other lens. Anyhow, if you judge a lens solely by trivial things such as fast aperture, autofocus and whatnot then I guess to you even cheap Chinese lenses from 7Artisans would suffice. I guess from an average consumer perspective, Tamron lenses are more attractive considering the price?
@@nogerboher5266 I did not know about the Zeiss arrangement. So, I learned something new. As far as Tamron goes, I believe, Sony bought a portion of Tamron, I heard 15% or so. Now that they "own" part of the company, they have some say and get to tell Tamron what they can and cannot do in regards to Sony e-mount lens. Sony to Tamron "make me some nice lenses but do not step on my toes or else." That is why we have Tamron 28-75 and not 24-70 or 17-28 and not 16-35 and the list goes on. Tamron gets smart and creative and comes up with 35-150 in an effort to not to step on Sony's toes. Guess what, people like the lens and it solves a real problem and becomes widely popular. Then they come up with the 50-400 and 20-40 (still no 16-35) and so forth. I think this is a match made in heaven. Tamron wins and Sony wins. I would not have switched to Sony if I had to pay G and GM prices. I get to shoot with a 60MP camera and perfectly fine Tamron lenses for fraction of the cost of an all Sony solution.
Would you add this lens to your kit?
Already bought the pre-order here in Indonesia 🎉🤣 been waiting for this perfect compact lens, sold my 17-28 & this 20-40 will be paired with my A7IV.
100%
Yes. Letting go of my 17-28.
This length make so much sense. For my style of shooting, everything below 21mm looks unnatural. The Panasonic 20-60 is even more versatile with less light.
if it was F2.0 yes...
As a L-Mount user (Lumix), I sometimes feel jealous looking at the superb innovations Tamron has been doing. I think this 20-40 lens paired with their monster 35-150 would be all I need for 95% of my work (although I'd still pack in a 50 1.4 for safety). This focal length is perfect for my documentary filmmaking work, especially if I have a second body with a 35-150 kind of lens on it. In the L-mount, we have a lovely 20-60 kit lens which sacrifices the f/2.8 for a variable 3.5-5.6 aperture, but it is a fantastic lens that does offer the reach that I would need for all my work, but without the 2.8 goodness of the Tammy 20-40 :)
Thanks for this review, Kyle! This does make the Sony a7IV seem even more appealing
Agreed, Tamron has been doing great work innovating and providing awesome and versatile options at a super affordable price.
Thanks for stopping by and dropping your thoughts in the comments! Appreciate it!
Thank you for a thoughtful review of this lens. Yes, I am up for it as a 'replacement' for my 17-28 which I wish was longer on the tele end. I see this as a great companion to the 28-200 for traveling.
I think this one over the 17-28 is a no brainer. Will definitely pair nicely in your kit
@@kylemeshna why is that can you please explain?
It may sound redundant but I carry both Tamron 20-40mm F2.8 and Sony 20-70mm F4 when going in a long trip. I use Sony 20-70 during the most day time and switch to 20-40 at night. I will carry one additional lens, either Tamron 35-150 or Tamron 50-400 depending on the type of trips. These combo pretty much takes care of everything for me without needing to switch lenses too often.
20mm is my preferred reveal/ interior lens - it doesn't distort like a 16mm. Ive been using a 20mm for my interior work for 9 years now, with no complaints from my customers. As for the 40mm, well if you have the new A7R5 (I expect to buy one soon) you've got 60mm at 30mp 🔥 ... this lens cover my 4 most used primes 20 24 35 and 50mm. F2.8 is Ideal for me as well as very often im around F3.5 - so Im covered 👍
Hi, I’m more into photography. So, for travelling I use the 24-105 and in addition the 20mm 1.8. The 24-105 replaces mostly my 24-70 GM and the 20-40mm could replace the 20mm. I was for many years a fan of prime lenses, but the flexibiliity of the zoom lenses especially while travelling, attracts me more and more. And I love both focal lenghts of the zoom. 20mm is a great wide angle for landscape and I agree with you, less than 20mm is often to „distorty“. 40mm is great for environmental portraits, so this seems to a very good lens for many situations.
Thanks for this! Super stunning footage! I’ve got the lens on preorder and am super excited for it.
Thanks Tom! I think you’ll be excited when it arrives
So I just got the 20mm 1.8 and I’m returning now and getting this . Gives me versatility and saves me $100! 😎 and I’m all about those smaller lenses.
Did you made it? How does it goes?
This might be an interesting 2 lens kit for landscape, paired with the new Tamron 50-300. Hmmm
Strongly considering selling all my primes and just rocking the 20-40 with the 28-200 as my full kit. Light, minimal and great value!!
I have 28-200 also and am considering buying this 20-40 or 17-28...
@@MySelf-rs9jcwhich one did you end up getting?
Precisely my travel kit all over the UK and South America. I added the Sony 11mm f1.8 APSC to the kit for interior and night shots. Yes, APSC on full frame. Thank you Mark Galer! Excellent results. Thinking I might sell some G Master glass that is too heavy and so much money sitting idle.
17-28 makes more sense to me as a complement to 28-200. I’m going with the 20-40 and new 50-300.
Just put up my 16-35 GM for sale because its old and a newer coming soon. And im getting this Tamron 20-40. My friend has it and loves it.
I just got the 17~28mm 2.8 and I'm thinking in returning it for this one. I took some photos with mine and after culling and checking I only liked two photos that were on 17mm and both I've cropped, so... no need for something that wide.
I’d also consider giving the Sony 20-70G a look. It’s f4, but honestly so versatile. I have a video about it on my channel as well
Thanks alot for the review. I think I'm going to end up pairing this with the Tamron 50-400mm.
Nice! Two lenses do it all!
@@kylemeshna That's the goal. Trying to make it as travel light/convenient as possible and still have everything I need versatility wise.
I love it, finally a small bright full frame zoom with an interesting focal length. Would make a perfect combo with the Samyang 75 f1.8 for travel. Even together they are lighter than most zooms.
I really like the idea of that pairing
why dont you choose sony 85.8. they got the same filter size which filters can be shared
You are so right about that combo!
Great review. Totally agree about anything wider than 20mm being too distorted. I'm really excited about this lens. I was debating getting the 20mm G lens and the PZ 16-35, but this lens is the easy winner for me.
Yeah I think this will be absolutely perfect if those are the ones you're considering. Maybe the only drawback is that the 20G is much better for Astrophotography if that's a requirement. I do own the 20G as well and I do love that lens
@@kylemeshna thanks for the response. I might do Astro a few times a year just for fun so not a major worry. I’m also excited for this lens for family gatherings, parties, and indoor stuff.
Is the 20G dramatically better for Astro then this lens ? I was considering the 20G till this lens came out … it seems like its a well balanced lens
@@1000mattyr the 20G is my all time favorite Astro lens. But that’s also basically all I use it for. If Astro is the primary use case, go with that. But if you need something more versatile then this is the pick
Perfect zoom range for dance floor photos at events. Can’t wait to put mine to work when it arrives to replace my too-wide 17-28.
Great review. Thinking this would pair really well with the Tamron 35-150…
It definitely would! The 35-150 is a big ol lens, but I love the versatility
I already have 50 gm and 70-200gm2 and looking for a wide zoom which is not heavy for a gimbal.
Thinking about he 16-35 PZ but I feel like I just dont need that wide ultra wide on events!
I think this 20-40 tamron is the perfect choice for me right now.
For travel/vacation photography this lens is dam near perfect. If I could make my own lens, it would be 20-50 but 20-40 is the closest thing out there so far. If everyone was honest with themselves for travel, we all live 90% of the time in that 20 to 50mm range. Keeping in mind that size and weight play a huge factor as well. The so-called king 24-70 2.8 is an expensive brick and the f4 is just not bright enough in many cases.
Great vid. Wish I could get my hands on one. Another fantastic function of this lens: you can make the focus ring LINEAR - AND adjust the range by degrees!!! The USB functionality that this lens includes makes it over the top IMHO.
Yeah the Tamron lens utility is great. Unfortunately I wasn't able to get it to work with this sample lens on my M1 Max MBP, but I've used it on other tamron lenses with great effect!
@@kylemeshna focus by wire is just sooooo useless to me. One of the things I love the most about the 90mm 2.8 is that linear focus. Have a good one!
Thank you. That was a superb wrap on all the questions. I guess it’s the 2.8. That’s the standard for pro zooms but I fear not having a fast lens for those instances I’ll really want to separate the subject will nag at me. But a compact, light, wide(not 24 but 20 wide!) to normal (40 is my new 50)is hard to deny the choice. So why not just throw an 85 1.8 in too? They’re smallish and light-ish. ???
As another poster suggested, Samyang’s 75/1.8 fills the shallow-DoF portrait and low-light roles nicely while keeping the kit small and light. I have one for this exact reason despite also using Samyang’s 85/1.4 for event work.
Sigma 16-28 is also there... and of course just a 20mm 1.8 G prime and take two steps forward for zoom. =) You can always zoom in, and not out. The 16-35 PZ is obviously wider, and going wider costs money. You also have declickable aperture, and a programable ring. Purely for video, that lens is far worth it and will keep its value more. And of course, $699 x 2 is $1400... not twice the price. Right now Sony is also running a $100 instant discount on that lens and others if you trade in ANY lens/dslr and get that trade value too. You can also find it at Best buy open box for around $900. I REALLY wanted to love this Tamron but seems like no one actually gives a compelling reason as to why it actually is a game changer or a must have. It doesn't actually do anything better than it's competition besides... "It's not a sony and it is a bit cheaper." If this was a 16-40 or something like that, now we're talking. Good video otherwise...
Agreed. I have the 16-35 PZ and love it. I shoot 60% photos and 40% videos and found that this lens excels doing both. Only downside is that its not for Astro. Otherwise, it performs nicely even during evenings with A7IV
You make a great argument for the PZ. I am still considering swapping my 17-28 for the 20-40. It is a better "if you have to bring one lens" solution for general shooting. I do landscapes and anything wider than 20 or 21mm seems to me to have too much distortion to look natural, especially in the corners and the sides!
@@boristahmasian9604 Sony launching 20-70 next month
@@SlavGuns I heard. Perfect all-in-one lens for my landscape work!
I never used anything wider than 20mm on the 16-35mm lenses I've owned, this is perfect for me to pair with the 85mm 1.8 G. Received my copy the other day and I'm considering selling my Tamron 28-75mm, because it feels somewhat redundant.
I am in the same boat with the 28-75 G2. It is the least used lens I have. I try not to go wider than 20 on my 17-28 Tamron. That is why I am looking to replace it with the 20-40. I gain on the long end and in APSc mode I have a very short telephoto almost replacing the 28-75! The 20-40 might be the best one-lens solution if you had to bring only one lens.
I bought it to pair with my A7C and it’s doing real well!
This is a lens that makes me so mad that canon is being lame about 3rd party lenses. I would LOVE this over something like the RF15-35. It would be awesome for so many scenarios. Walk around, street, landscapes, etc. and it’s small and weather sealed!!!! I hate that to get weather sealed stuff from canon, you need their L stuff that’s crazy expensive and HUGE.
Great video!
Also, I’ve been using an EF mount Tamron 24-70 F2.8 G2, and love what I get from it. So I’m sure this little lens would be a great add. Only thing that keeps me from using it more lately is the size/weight, and needing the adapter.
Honestly Canon’s decision to ban 3rd party lenses completely baffles me given how behind they are on lens options for RF. I gotta think that’s swayed so many people away from going Canon
@@kylemeshna when I got my R, I was still hopeful that Sigma and Tamron would be dropping stuff soon after. It’s been two years. Had I known then, what I know now, I would’ve gone Sony or Fuji. I didn’t go Sony initially cause of how they felt in my hands, but I think I would’ve adapted after while. Here’s to hoping canon smartens up.
Yeah I think the past Sony cameras felt really weird in the hand, but the newer models have remedied it nicely. Definitely agree it’s best for everyone if they open up RF to everyone tho
Thanks for the review - very helpful. Is it as sharp as the 16-35, especially in the f8-f11 range (I find the Sony sharpness falls off quickly beginning around f8)? What is coma and astigmatism like for stars? If those are good I’d strongly consider “downgrading” my 16-35. On the plus side, 1/2 the weight, a more useful focal length range, and 67mm ND filters. On the minus side, MF/AF switch, sun stars not quite as well defined. I’ll just choose MF from the C3 menu.-I’m also considering replacing my 24-105 with the Tamron 35-150; just trying to figure out if the weight is worth it (yes, if I’m not carrying around a 100-400 any more). FYI, I also use a PRVKE like I saw in your vid.
So the perfect lens for you is like the kit lens 18-55mm but just in an f2.8
I’m planning on this paired with an 85 prime for my travel kit
I like that pairing
Great video Kyle. Definitely would consider the 20-70mm f4 since this video was posted as it has the longer reach and is native. Would be a good comparison follow up video. Cheers bud
Working on getting some loaners from Sony!
distortion is crazy on 20-70 and it's just f/4 ... I have to choose one Sony or Tamron and decision was 20-40. The only problem is worst stabilization in video, but DaVinci can handle it.
20mm is indeed very good for vlogging, but once you add dynamic active stabe, it's more like a 26mm. What do you think of the Viltrox 16mm F1.8 as a replacement for the 20mm focal length with vlogging? - this gives you effectively 20mm once you turn on dynamic stabe on and buttery smooth footage. That's the lens I'm considering, or the Tamron 17-28mm F2.8. With dynamic stabe that 20-40 is a bit tight.
I'm torn between this lens and the sigma 24-70 2.8 for an every day carry lens. This is a really tough decision, but I'm leaning towards the sigma, so I don't have to carry my 85mm and think about swapping. Also, the good ol' 50mm missing would grind my gears I think.
You might be able to get by nicely with this 20-40 and the 85 as your two lens combo.
I own and love the Sigma 24-70 2.8. Easily the best do it all every day carry lens ever. Having to change lenses might make you miss the shot, and also expose your sensor to dust, etc. Overall the 24-70 is a far better bet for the purpose you have.
I have aigma 23-70 2.8 and i find it too heavy for travel/hiking/street and i will be buying 20-40 for sure. Also Have 85mm 1.8 feom Sony and i think qith 20-40 it's great combo
It all comes down to size.
The Sigma is a great lens but extremely heavy for an everyday carry IMO. To me an everyday lens is something light and compact, there when you need it but not in the way when you don’t do this 20-40 from Tamron makes a lot of sense.
I was considering the Sony 16-35 PZ, but your video convinced me to purchase this Tamron instead. Will be mainly shooting real estate and architecture.
One forgets that you can make this lens a 90 2.8 on the long end by using super 35 combined with clear image zoom for video isolation of a subject
That’ll crop in yes, but it’s not the same as a true 90m for subject isolation. It’s just cropping in on the image
How is it on Astro??? I have the 28-200 and love it but kinda looking for an wider all rounder
It was already past Astro season when I was testing, so didn’t go thru the full paces with it, but I liked the night shots I took. I do think the 20mm f/1.8 remains me Astro recommendation though
I’m typically kind of a Gmaster guy but this looks cool and interesting. Really great content, thank you!
Same here. But this one is suuuuuper intriguing indeed. Thanks for stopping by!
I'm super excited as this will replace 3 of my lenses...
Amazing
Its my favorite lens of all time. It only leaves my camera when i throw the 70-180 on!
Definitely copping nice in-depth video & comparisons
Happy to help
Kyle, great video and demonstration of the 20-40's capabilities. The 20-40 and 50-400 are coming in on Monday for a two week evaluation. I am likely to let go of my 17-28 and my 150-500 in favor of these two. The sharpness I see in your 20-40 does not seem to be in my 17-28. It seems to me the 20-40 is sharper. I do not do much in 17mm because of distortion. The 20mm seems to be the perfect focal length for my landscape work. The extra 12mm on the long end, makes this lens a possible perfect solution for a one-lens outing!
I am considering this lens with 35-150 or with 50-400. Can you please share your thoughts on 50-400?
@@numistika I had the the 20-40 and the 50-400 for about three weeks for testing. The 20-40 , as expected was great. I like it a lot. The 50-400 was the nice surprise. I have had a tough time getting sharp results out of my 150-500. No such problems with the 50-400. It is a much smaller lens and weighs about 1.5 lbs. less than my 150-500. I shot it at all focal lengths and the results are good enough for pro work. Images are sharp at all apertures and the lens is easy to handhold. For my landscape work and the need for long focal lengths, it is the ideal lens. If I wanted to shoot wildlife, I don't think 400mm is long enough. For that I would go to the Sony 200-600 or the new Sigma 60-600.
I have the 17-28 and the 70-180 and use them almost all the time for my landscape work. I am tempted to go the 20-40 and the 35-150 route too to close the 28 to 70 gap but I am in no hurry.
I think for landscape work with two lenses only I have the following two scenarios:
1. 20mm-400mm range wide aperture not an issue, , I would go with 20-40 and the 50-400 as the ideal combo.
2. By the same token, if I wanted max focal range and the fastest apertures, the 20-40 and the 35-150 would be the choices.
Also remember, we have a new contender in the Sony 20-70 f4. So many choices!!!
I am going to hold off making any changes until the end of 2023 as I hear more Tamron lenses are coming out this year. I'll let the dust settle and then decide on my lens changes and move.
@@boristahmasian9604 Much appreciate your detailed description!
Interesting to learn you had an issue with 150-500 focus. That's the one I also considered for a wild life.
What stops me with 35-150 is a longer focus distance. 28-70 looks like an accomplished and very tempting lens for all around work in this focal range that can also be good for close ups with minimal image distortion. And that is very tempting with the updated G2 version.
I am at a start of building my lens set for a full frame. Too many options to choose from )))
If I'll go for 28-70 G2, I'll hold of for a VXD updated G2 version of 17-28, that I also have a feeling might be in a pipeline. Just add a good 85 portrait lens and a telephoto (have doubts about 150-500 now) and it's a complete sound set.
20-40 is a great companion for 35-150 or 50-400 if the close range isn't required much. 20-40 can do close ups, but their images would require a bit of work in post, plus weight of 35-150 also needs to be considered. Getting a dedicated macro lens is the need that I'd like to eliminate in my set. If I was a wedding photographer, 35-150 would be a holly grail though.
Thank you for additional food for thought!
@@numistika Eugene, it all depends on what type of photography you do the most. For everyday, pay the bills kind of work, I shoot business portraits. For that work, the 28-75 f2.8 with my A7RIV in APSc mode is the ideal lens.
For my landscape work, so far I have used my 17-28 and the 70-180 the most with great results. On a trip to the national parks last year, I used my 70-300 and the 17-28 the most with occasional 70-180. I did not use the 28-75 at all and I did not have the 150-500 at the time.
I think for the idea landscape lens set up, I might go with the Sony 20-70 f4 and the Tamron 50-400. The two of them cover quite a range. There are rumors of a Tamron 20-50 f2.8. If that lens comes to market, I will get it instead of the Sony 20-70.
If you are in the market for primes, I have seen a lot of positive reviews for the 85 f1.8. I also borrowed my cousins Sigma 85 f1.4 and shot with it for a few weeks. Talk about an insanely sharp lens at f1.4. It is well balanced on the camera and it is very fast focusing too.
You are right, we have way too many choices. I think the best thing is to analyze what you shoot the most and get the lenses that will help you get the shots.
Good luck.
@@boristahmasian9604 You are absolutely right. It all depends on shooting style and interests. I lived with a camera since I was bourn and started shooting by myself when I turned 7, spending days in a red light lit dark room. I love different styles, from nature to street. I am not a professional and do it as a hobby, so trying to cover the range on a budget from wide to tele. You sharing your experience with me has beed very helpful. Much appreciated! If I can see any of your work anywhere on line, please share a link. Best of luck!
I just bought the lens, waiting on delivery
Perfect event photography lens
I've got the 24 1.4 GM, but now I am so torn between getting the 16-35 F4 PZ, or this new Tamron 20-40 to pair with....argh! Good problems to have though, glad to see Tamron pushing the creativity
What did you end up doing? I just ordered a 16-35 f4 Pz
24mm 1.4 any issue for this lens😮
@@wildwoodscreative I went with the 16-35 PZ and haven't regretted it for one second!
@@waverunneradventuregfx no, it's amazing, go look at the reviews
I am excited to add this to my kit!
Epic
For you, you should not switch since the sun star is much better. Else, I believe this lens alone is not enough
I have 28-200 and am considering buying this 20-40 or 17-28...
Which one should i buy!?
I’d go with the 20-40. Or take a look at my video on the 20-70 Sony G. I really enjoy that lens
I was wonderin about this lens. Thanks Mesh!
I don't shoot street photography, but I feel like street photographers would love this focal range.
Agreed
You say 699$… however, in Europe is 999 euros… a big difference that sets me back. If the price would be the 699 I would buy it in a heartbeat… 999 euros… I start looking some other lens and brands
European tech prices are brutal. Used to live in Ireland and it was cheaper to fly back to the US to buy a lot of things.
Thanks for the vid and traveling man haha
Do you think af is better on 20-40mm or 17-28mm?
AF for both is pretty solid. I do prefer the focal range and the image quality of the 20-40 though
Waiting for this lens to hit my countries local market !
Weirdly enough im gonna use it for wedding and events photography Paired up with sony a7iii and sigma 85 1.4 dg dn !😅
Honestly feels like a perfect gimbal lens
@@kylemeshna ikr ! And thanks for the amazing review ❤️
i just found it in a odd postion of jack of all trade，if landscape its not wide enough，if travel its not tele enough， but at the price it could be a replace of fe 35 2.8
i would love to pair this one with a Tamron 35-150 F4 (smaller and cheaper)
Dont know if i should get this to replace the 20G, I see nobody post astro photo of this lens
Personally I think the 20G is the best Astro lens. I don’t think this would replace it for that use case specifically
Dark Knight clip sent me 😂
WHERE IS SHE?!
Bought it. Love it.
Does it produce any noise every time autofocusing in video mode?
Such good content! Hope your channel will get 100k subs, because you are amazing
Ah thanks a bunch
How would you say this compares to the 16-35gm for video? debating on selling mine for this.
It’s pretty close. I think the stabilization is maybe a little less smooth in active stabilization compared to the GM. And the lack of MF switch is definitely more annoying for video imo. But other than that it feels like a good trade off for the price.
I'd keep the 16-35 for times I absolutely need to shoot wider at those 16mm focal length shots. The tamron is an uber lightweight choice if I'm travelling light and can only bring one lens.
For wider shots, I picked up a used Samyang AF 14mm/2.8 in great condition for around $250.
I choose the Sony 16-35 , below 20 4mm is much more important than above 35 4mm
Great review but timestamps woulda been nice.
Thanks, great callout. I mistakenly forgot to input them! They're in there now
Does this lens work well with active steadyshot like a native Sony lens?
It is a very good lens for the sony a7c
Hi! I have this lens, and I have heard that there is vignetting at 20mm with a 67mm nd filter. I'm also worried about there being vignetting if I use a step up ring. What nd filter and/or step up ring do you use with this lens? I was looking at getting the Polar Pro Peter McKinnon filter with mist. Should I get that (if so what size), or should I get a different filter? Thanks!
I use the polar pro Peter McKinnon filters exclusively yes. I always recommend buying the largest thread size you have and using a step up ring for any lenses that are smaller
@@kylemeshnaCan you recall which size filter you used with it in this video? I only have 67mm lenses but it might not hurt to go with a 77mm or 82mm paired with a step up ring (as long as there’s no vignetting) to ensure that lenses I buy in the future can work with it.
I use 82mm filters
how do you think about 20-70 f4 compare to this lens?
I need to test the 20-70 still!
Thanks for sharing! Would you trade 16-35 f4 to this lens? I’m thinking to trade. Thanks!
Definitely would prefer this over the 16-35f4
Is this lens needed if I already have the Tamron 11-20 f2.8 aps-c lens that I use on the ff Sony A7C? Talking about video work only!!
This lens is definitely superior to that, but they would cover a lot of the same focal range so having both would be less necessary. I’d try to sell the 11-20 and get this instead
@@kylemeshna Thank you for your reply! I'am looking for an answer why is 20-40 lens superior to 11-20?
hello, i've tried it but only for 5 minutes. I found it not so sharp as you say at 40mm f/2.8. Especially in the midframe, approximate area of the rule of thirds line intersections, for portrait. As owner of tamron 17-28 and samyang 45 1.8 I hoped this could replace both, but I'm not so sure.
The samy at f/2.8 is a razor sharp... and 17-28 works very well.
i'm thinking if do or not.
I sold my 17-28 to get this 20-40. I believe it is still sharper than 17-28. To my suprise, the colour(tone) is slightly better than 17-28 as well.
@@chanbob7869 thanks for your replay, and regarding of sharpness at 40 F/2.8? For portrait and environmental portrait?
@@lorenzo4262
It is better than my previous 17-28 and better focus hit rate as well. I only use 35 gm and 20-40 when going out with kids. To me, I accept its sharpness and its colour as my 2nd walk-around lens
@@chanbob7869 which Is your First?
Hi, can you tell me if the 20-40 f/2.8 is as good as the 28-75 f/2.8 for the sharpness ? I would like to use this lens for landscape photography because 28-75 is not wide enough
which 28-75 and which 24-70 are you asking about? there are many lenses that fit this description for Sony E mount.
The 24-70GM is great and the 24-70GM II is even better
@@kylemeshna I'm talking about 28-75 from Tamron compare to the new 20-40
@@alexphilippart6039 The Sony 24-70GM II is definitely the superior lens, but its also more than double the price.
This is the One Lens
why can't i get this on my canon?
Man... All these Sigma, Samyang and Tamron lens releases have made me wish for a new Zeiss release. I'm getting tired of wasting my hard earned money on lenses that can't render light properly. I do only portraits because that's what I love but that doesn't pay very well in my country, so I have to do a trillion shoots just to be able to comfortably afford buying a new lens and all these flat lenses don't really produce images that would make me go ''MAN! I am really glad I spend 1,500 EUR on this lens!!'' Come on Zeiss... We need you to release something... It's been 4 years or more since the last lens release...
My understanding is that Zeiss were never actually making those older Sony consumer lenses in house. They licensed the name and gave some input to another manufacturer. It was a stop gap in the early Sony years before they had a good lens lineup and now Zeiss isn’t doing any consumer level stuff for Sony anymore since the G and GM lines have ramped up
@@kylemeshna Oh man, this is one hell of a story. I'm surprised a lot of people don't know about this, especially since there was a whole fiesta about it going on online and real life, all over Japan.
So, Sony made some kind of a 2-5 year or however long, manufacturing partnership contract (or whatever it's called) with the Zeiss's camera optics subsidiary, under Zeiss's ''Consumer Products'' classification, back in 2009 or 2010, where Sony was given partial access to all of the patented Zeiss manufacturing ''secrets'' and other good stuff, which in return, Sony gave Zeiss legal pass to make glass for their E mount and they also had to clearly label the Zeiss approved glass with a Zeiss logo for every Sony lens they did on their own using Zeiss manufacturing standards - and Sony being as ''creative'' as they are, just simply called the lenses ''Zeiss Approved'' lenses and slapped a Zeiss logo on them.
This went on until about 2015 or 2016, so with Sony now having all this manufacturing knowledge passed on from the Zeiss partnership contract and making ZA and other lenses, somewhere along the time line, something happened between Zeiss and Sony - and for whatever reason, Sony was now allowed to manufacture their own lenses using what they learned from Zeiss. So, Sony being Sony, they decided to come up with and announce their own premium lens lineup and so they did, with their ''GM'' lens lineup.
All of the GM labeled lenses were and still are made by Zeiss manufacturing standards, which Sony was using not only for their GM lenses but also a lot of the lower tier glass before they even released their first GM lenses, such as the 2015 90mm f2.8 Macro lens or the 2016 iteration of the 50mm f1.8 lens, for example.
Now this went on for a couple years and somewhere along the line, somehow and for whatever reason, Tamron got involved into the whole Sony-Zeiss partnership for the new releases of Zeiss's Batis lineup of lenses for the Sony E mount - where Tamron was making lens stabilization hardware for the Batis lenses that Zeiss made for Sony... I don't know much about what happened after but for whatever reason, Sony-Zeiss partnership contract seems to have either legally ended or got terminated before it's due date, since there was a rumor about the new Zeiss lens lineup for Sonys E mount after the Batis lenses but that never happened and we haven't seen a new Zeiss lens for Sony E mount in like 3or 4 years now.
I've owned multiple Sony/Zeiss, Zeiss, Sony, and Tamron lenses, and I definitely don't agree with that sentiment.
The current lineup of E-mount lenses is absolutely fantastic. The Tamron 28-75 G2 is an absolutely incredible lens (I don't even want to mention the horrible Sony Zeiss 24-70 F4), and Sony's new GM lenses are without question some of the best, regardless of system. Why wish for Zeiss to come back?
The Batis line was nice, sure, but horribly overpriced. The Sony 85 1.8 is 98% of the lens for less than half the price. It's clearly the lens to recommend. Same with Sony's 35 1.8 or their small F2.5 primes. And the GM prime lineup right now is so much better than whatever Zeiss ever did. Better quality than the Batis lenses and some of them even comparable to the Otus line (which is extremely expensive, lacks AF, and is not attractive to 99% of people). Would not trade the 14, 24, 35, 50 or 135 of the GM primes for any Zeiss lens.
@@absolutrumo I mean, there is nothing really to agree or disagree with here. We are not talking about corner sharpness, colors, Eye AF or any of the other trivial aspects of a lens, we’re talking about how a lens renders the image onto the cameras sensor. It’s just a matter of how a lens was manufactured and designed that plays into the rendering. Neither Tamron nor any of the other 3rd party manufacturers have a reputation of creating lenses with physically accurate, natural 3D rendering. That reputation goes to Zeiss, Voigtlnder, Hasselblad and Leica exclusively and they have been known for that for over 100 years, Voigtlander in specific is the oldest lens manufacturer in the world and they have been making lenses that render physically accurate for over 250 years now, maybe even 300 years I forgot when the company was founded.
Talking about Tamron specifically, in the entire lens manufacturing history of Tamron as a company, they have made only 4 lenses that render to the standards of Zeiss, Hasselblad or Voigtlander… Only 4.
Most people in my line of work (portraiture, fashion/editorial/glam and boudoir) don’t need or use Eye AF, don’t need pixel peeping corner sharpness and don’t need fast apertures, that’s why most of us care more about image quality and that physically accurate 3D rendering, than anything else. In fact, most of my lenses are manual focus only lenses - and most of photographers in my line of work, in the higher levels of “the pyramid,” shoot exclusively on PhaseOne or Hasselblad cameras, both of which make lenses that have that physically accurate 3D rendering that you can usually only see in Voigtlander, Zeiss, Leica and Nikon lenses.
The reason I said I want Zeiss specifically to make more lenses is because I shoot primarily on E mount.
That 85mm 1.8 from Sony was manufactured by Zeiss manufacturing standards, which Sony acquired from over a decade worth of experience working alongside Zeiss during their partnership contract. Same applies to the 2016 version of the Sony 50mm 1.8, the Sony 90mm 2.8 macro and a number of other ‘Sony’ lenses, including most GM glass and the ZA labeled lenses.
And I don’t know what your reasoning is for saying that the 24-70 f4 from Zeiss is “horrible,” because that lens has near perfectly accurate 3D rendering that you won’t find in any Sigma, Tamron, Samyang, Canon and just about any other lens.
Anyhow, if you judge a lens solely by trivial things such as fast aperture, autofocus and whatnot then I guess to you even cheap Chinese lenses from 7Artisans would suffice.
I guess from an average consumer perspective, Tamron lenses are more attractive considering the price?
@@nogerboher5266 I did not know about the Zeiss arrangement. So, I learned something new.
As far as Tamron goes, I believe, Sony bought a portion of Tamron, I heard 15% or so. Now that they "own" part of the company, they have some say and get to tell Tamron what they can and cannot do in regards to Sony e-mount lens. Sony to Tamron "make me some nice lenses but do not step on my toes or else." That is why we have Tamron 28-75 and not 24-70 or 17-28 and not 16-35 and the list goes on. Tamron gets smart and creative and comes up with 35-150 in an effort to not to step on Sony's toes. Guess what, people like the lens and it solves a real problem and becomes widely popular. Then they come up with the 50-400 and 20-40 (still no 16-35) and so forth. I think this is a match made in heaven. Tamron wins and Sony wins. I would not have switched to Sony if I had to pay G and GM prices. I get to shoot with a 60MP camera and perfectly fine Tamron lenses for fraction of the cost of an all Sony solution.
Sony 20-70mm f4?
That wasn’t out when this video was released. But that review comes out this week 👀
Sigma 18-35?
This should have been an F 2 lens! than worth the money...range is too small
🔪🔪🔪
Mhmmm 16-35 I think is nicer for me
FIRST xoxox
👁️ ♥️ 🫵🏻
Tamron...Average. and always will be - GM wins hands down
GM is definitely superior quality. But the size and price difference makes this a great option for a whole lot of people
Who the hell cares about sun stars lol