New Tamron 15x zoom lens

[foghorn67]

Super zoom, plus an IS/VR system.

Article Link

for those who prefer DPReview news

 

[corkyg]

Looks very good for a crop factor camera (APS-C). If it were a f/4 all the way - it would be a good walk-about lens for my 5D.

 

[helpme]

Sounds great, though I don't know about that f/6.3 at the long end. Canon non 1D series won't AF over f/5.6... I wonder if it will tell the camera otherwise?

 

[foghorn67]

Originally posted by: helpme
Sounds great, though I don't know about that f/6.3 at the long end. Canon non 1D series won't AF over f/5.6... I wonder if it will tell the camera otherwise?

yes, a la Sigma style. Reports 5.6.

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

The first link is dead btw.

And yeah, it'll autofocus like foghorn67 said. My XT and 30D do fine with my Sigma 50-500mm f4-6.3.

 

[OdiN]

If it was F/2.8 the whole range then I'd be interested.

Would make a good walk around though.

 

[foghorn67]

Originally posted by: OdiN
If it was F/2.8 the whole range then I'd be interested.

Would make a good walk around though.

2.8? That would make it one of the biggest lenses ever.

 

[Jawo]

looks like it would be a great single lens solution for hiking/backpacking. It would be interesting to see the reviews of this lens and how it performs under regular shooting situations.

 

[QuixoticOne]

Sounds nice; I wonder what the price will be, and how sharp and reliable / rugged it will be.

It is a wonder to me that there isn't a better selection of spotting scopes especially refractors or long focal length
but good sized aperture reflectors with a better camera interface than a non-AF T-Mount.

Much of the nature and astro photography I'd like to do is in the 10x to 40x zoom range, but the horrible
compatibility of most SLRs with non AF T-mount scopes really limits things; i.e. the lack of a viewfinder or
manual focusing split ring or good electronic focus indicator, inability to do mirror lock up or easy preview images,
et. al.

As nice as some of the $4000 "fast" ultra telephoto lenses are out there in the 500-1000+ mm range are, they
don't always compete well with what's attainable with a good $500 telescope, and in many cases the
need for a tripod and bulk aren't problems, but the mounting and imaging interface bits cause frustrations.

 

[Heidfirst]

Originally posted by: Jawo
looks like it would be a great single lens solution for hiking/backpacking. It would be interesting to see the reviews of this lens and how it performs under regular shooting situations.

assuming that it's similar to the existing 18-250mm ( & I'm guessing that it's probably related to that design) it should actually be pretty good.
Not the fastest at focussing though & of course needing good light with that max. aperture.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: OdiN
If it was F/2.8 the whole range then I'd be interested.

Would make a good walk around though.

why stop there? why not f/1? or f/0.95?

 

[OdiN]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: OdiN
If it was F/2.8 the whole range then I'd be interested.

Would make a good walk around though.

why stop there? why not f/1? or f/0.95?

Because f/2.8 is what I really need for indoor low light stuff.

 

[Anubis]

Originally posted by: OdiN
If it was F/2.8 the whole range then I'd be interested.

Would make a good walk around though.

lol can you imagin how big that would be, it woudl prob be even bigger then this thing
http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lens...sp?id=3349&navigator=3

 

[Triumph]

Why is this called "15X" versus just spec'ing the normal focal lengths?

 

[corkyg]

Originally posted by: Triumph
Why is this called "15X" versus just spec'ing the normal focal lengths?

Good question. "15X" is relative to the start point. Typical marketing talk.

 

[Sid59]

Originally posted by: corkyg

Originally posted by: Triumph
Why is this called "15X" versus just spec'ing the normal focal lengths?

Good question. "15X" is relative to the start point. Typical marketing talk.

and they want to market to the people who are migrating from point and shoot.

 

[soydios]

Originally posted by: Sid59

Originally posted by: corkyg

Originally posted by: Triumph
Why is this called "15X" versus just spec'ing the normal focal lengths?

Good question. "15X" is relative to the start point. Typical marketing talk.

and they want to market to the people who are migrating from point and shoot.

And it emphasizes that it's a lot more than the 3X threshold of lens design where significant compromises have to be made.

 

[angry hampster]

..and it looks like it's got typical Tamron build quality. Should be about on par with Canon's 50mm f/1.8.

 

[Triumph]

Well I'm looking for a new zoom lens to replace my $160 Tamron 70-300mm. I love the range, and the picture quality is acceptable at the middle ranges and higher f stops. But I broke the autofocus so it's as good a time to upgrade as any. So now I need to search the marketplace for a lens somewhere less than ~$750 that offers similar range.

 

[angry hampster]

Originally posted by: Triumph
Well I'm looking for a new zoom lens to replace my $160 Tamron 70-300mm. I love the range, and the picture quality is acceptable at the middle ranges and higher f stops. But I broke the autofocus so it's as good a time to upgrade as any. So now I need to search the marketplace for a lens somewhere less than ~$750 that offers similar range.

I'd get a Sigma 70-200 f/2.8. Add a kenko teleconverter if you need extra reach.

 

[Triumph]

The question is, Canon has a 70-200 F/4 L that's cheaper, and a 70-300 F/4-5.6 ISM that is cheaper as well. Sigma is faster but probably lower build quality from what I'm reading. 70-200 has L glass but slower. 70-300 has more range, no L glass, but ISM. I'll have to try them and see what I like when I get back home.

 

[angry hampster]

Originally posted by: Triumph
The question is, Canon has a 70-200 F/4 L that's cheaper, and a 70-300 F/4-5.6 ISM that is cheaper as well. Sigma is faster but probably lower build quality from what I'm reading. 70-200 has L glass but slower. 70-300 has more range, no L glass, but ISM. I'll have to try them and see what I like when I get back home.

Sigma's EX glass is stellar. You won't notice a lack of quality in build or image quality with one of these. This is coming from a guy who owns red-ringed lenses and Sigma EX lenses.

 

[foghorn67]

Originally posted by: angry hampster

Originally posted by: Triumph
The question is, Canon has a 70-200 F/4 L that's cheaper, and a 70-300 F/4-5.6 ISM that is cheaper as well. Sigma is faster but probably lower build quality from what I'm reading. 70-200 has L glass but slower. 70-300 has more range, no L glass, but ISM. I'll have to try them and see what I like when I get back home.

Sigma's EX glass is stellar. You won't notice a lack of quality in build or image quality with one of these. This is coming from a guy who owns red-ringed lenses and Sigma EX lenses.

Avoid the Sigma 70-200 2.8 EX Macro. There is a huge reason why they hurried the version II of this lens.

 

[angry hampster]

Originally posted by: foghorn67


Avoid the Sigma 70-200 2.8 EX Macro. There is a huge reason why they hurried the version II of this lens.

Really? Why's this? The only negative thing I recall hearing about the macro version is that it tends to hunt a little more because of the added focusing distance on the near end.

 

[Heidfirst]

Originally posted by: angry hampster

Sigma's EX glass is stellar. You won't notice a lack of quality in build or image quality with one of these. This is coming from a guy who owns red-ringed lenses and Sigma EX lenses.

I've got a 100-300mm F4 which many people reckon is one of Sigma's best & yet I've never been that impressed with it. Perhaps I just got a poor copy ...