With my a7c the weight would be only 949g. With my tamron 17-28 (420g) it is even less at 929g. I think these two lenses complement together very well and these share the same 67mm filter size. The 17-28 is very good on gimbal with its internal zoom that don’t change the balance. Th 24-50 would be nice to get the standard zoom 40/50 and the 35 for minimum distortion in wide lens. It provides the 24/28 for wide shot group and landscape. The 17-28 provides 17/20 good for vlogging and those that use active stabilization. I don’t care about AS, i use a gimbal for better result and no crop. My a7c has no AS anyway. It has gyro stabilization though. However i don’t need it with the superb weebill 3s gimbal.
@@TheVideoDarkroom yes f2.8. i think a nice trio would be Tamron 17-28 f2.8 with Sony 24-50 f2.8 and Tamron 50-300 f4.5-6.3 (which have half macro capabilities). with that , we can do everything. And it is the most lightweight package full frame ever (420g + 440g + 545g = 1405g for 17-300mm fullframe lenses).
With my a7c the weight would be only 949g. With my tamron 17-28 (420g) it is even less at 929g. I think these two lenses complement together very well and these share the same 67mm filter size. The 17-28 is very good on gimbal with its internal zoom that don’t change the balance. Th 24-50 would be nice to get the standard zoom 40/50 and the 35 for minimum distortion in wide lens. It provides the 24/28 for wide shot group and landscape. The 17-28 provides 17/20 good for vlogging and those that use active stabilization. I don’t care about AS, i use a gimbal for better result and no crop. My a7c has no AS anyway. It has gyro stabilization though. However i don’t need it with the superb weebill 3s gimbal.
That's a good option, and it's an f2.8 isn't it?
@@TheVideoDarkroom yes f2.8. i think a nice trio would be Tamron 17-28 f2.8 with Sony 24-50 f2.8 and Tamron 50-300 f4.5-6.3 (which have half macro capabilities). with that , we can do everything. And it is the most lightweight package full frame ever (420g + 440g + 545g = 1405g for 17-300mm fullframe lenses).
I would have bought this lens if it was 20-50/2.8, but as it is, Tamron 20-40/2.8 is just better.
I suppose it would have been hard to make it as small and light if it was 20-50. The Tamron 20-40 is a good range though.