New Tammy Lens?

[Melkus]

Been looking into a new lens with a longer zoom range and one I would not have to sell me house I see Tammy is soon to release this one. My thinking is with this and my 1.4 prime lens would be all I need for my walk around shooting I do. Right now I carry two other lens in my Shootsac lens bag along with what's I have mounted on the camera. Seems to me this would fill most of my needs 90% of the time without changing lens. With it's 35mm equivalent of 24.8mm to 465mm I can still shoot landscapes, do intimate interiors work and as a telephoto lens I can get them distant subjects shots also it will Macro focuses down to 1:2.9 which is also a plus. Guess I'm looking for that one lens will do it all I have only had one other Tammy lens before and for one reason or the other did not like it and send it back.

http://www.dpreview.com/news/2014/02...for-aps-c-slrs

[macca1980]

17-50 is good

[macca1980]

Sorry just read you said zoom

[DanK]

Guess I'm looking for that one lens will do it all I have only had one other Tammy lens before and for one reason or the other did not like it and send it back.

I've had only one Tamron, a 28-75, and it was great. It lacked some features of more expensive lenses, like full time manual focusing, but it was optically very good and a great value.

Re one lens that does it all: I haven't read any reviews of this particular lens, but as a general rule, there is a tradeoff between quality and convenience. Most of the very highly rated zooms have zoom factors of 3x, like the Canon 70-200 series. Some lenses with larger zoom factors are still very good, like the Canon 15-85. However, as a general rule, the larger the zoom factor, the greater the optical compromises. This lens has a zoom factor of 19X. So, if I were in your shoes, I would wait for real reviews to come out, to see just how much of a compromise it will require. It might be just fine for your uses, but personally, I would want evidence in hand before springing for a lens with that large a zoom factor.

[Melkus]

Dan that sounds good. Right now all I have for a zoom lens is a 70-210 which dose it's job but I'm doing more wild life now and just need more zoom than the 70-210 can give. I will wait and see what comes of things and continue to look at some other options.

[jordand]

Paul, what you describe is rather wider range than longer zoom.
I agree, it is more convenient not to switch glasses all the time, but the real life experience proves that you usually trade this convenience for optical quality.
My experience is with Tamron SP 70-300 F/4-5.6 Di VC USD and I like it very much (compared to Nikkors 55-200, 55-300 and even 70-300).
What they say in most reviews about its VC (vibration control) is also true – excellent, although when activated and deactivated it really produces a weird sound.

[Melkus]

I think the main reason I was looking at this is the fact it would pick up where my Tokina 11-16mm zoom stops at. Would seem to give me the best of both worlds, 16 mm for general walk around shooting or if I need more zoom can do that as well. So only other lens I need would be my 1.4 prime lens. Still looking at some other options at this time.

[macca1980]

I have the 18-200mm and agree that quality is much less than the shorter ranged 17-50mm but you get shots you otherwise would miss.