tamrons latest offerings

[badpickev]

17-50mm F/2.8 XR Di-II LD - DX type lens
http://www.tamron.co.jp/en/news/rele...s0215_a16.html

28-200MM F/3.8-5.6 XR Di - Full Frame lens-optimized for digital
http://www.tamron.co.jp/en/news/rele...0215_a031.html

70- 300mm F/4-5.6 Di LD Macro - Full Frame lens-optimized for digital
http://www.tamron.co.jp/en/news/rele...s0215_a17.html

[Mr. Pickles]

I'll give the first one a test drive. Do you have my address to send it to?

[ohenry]

Originally Posted by Mr. Pickles

I'll give the first one a test drive. Do you have my address to send it to?

Sorry MrP...they don't make it with a Kodak Brownie mount

[badpickev]

i to am interested in the first one. i hope the cost is not to bad.

[FocusingOnFlorida]

The article on the first says

"Lightweight, Compact, Fast Standard Zoom Lens Designed for Exclusive Use with
Digital SLR Cameras (APS-C Size), Featuring True Wide Angle
Tamron Introduces SP AF17-50mm F/2.8 XR Di-II LD
ASPHERICAL [IF]"

They make it sound as if you will get the full range use of this lens as one would get with a Canon EF-S lens. Later in the article it states that the wide end will actually be 26mm based on a 1.55X conversion ratio. Yet it also states that it is built specifically for the APS-C sized sensors and that it is not to be used on a full frame sensor or a 35mm film camera.

I would just as soon keep my Tamron 17mm to 35mm that I can use on any body. "any Canon body in my case"

Or am I incorrect in assuming that one achieves the say full 10-22 mm from the Canon 10-22 EF-S?

I haven't as of yet purchased an EF-S lens, because I am unsure if I will go to a full frame sensor or another film camera later.

[Kevin Barrett]

Originally Posted by FocusingOnFlorida

The article on the first says

"Lightweight, Compact, Fast Standard Zoom Lens Designed for Exclusive Use with
Digital SLR Cameras (APS-C Size), Featuring True Wide Angle
Tamron Introduces SP AF17-50mm F/2.8 XR Di-II LD
ASPHERICAL [IF]"

They make it sound as if you will get the full range use of this lens as one would get with a Canon EF-S lens. Later in the article it states that the wide end will actually be 26mm based on a 1.55X conversion ratio. Yet it also states that it is built specifically for the APS-C sized sensors and that it is not to be used on a full frame sensor or a 35mm film camera.

I would just as soon keep my Tamron 17mm to 35mm that I can use on any body. "any Canon body in my case"

Or am I incorrect in assuming that one achieves the say full 10-22 mm from the Canon 10-22 EF-S?

I haven't as of yet purchased an EF-S lens, because I am unsure if I will go to a full frame sensor or another film camera later.

Interesting that they're introducing the 17-50 at the same time Canon is introducing their 17-55 but with IS. If the price is about half of the Canon, they may sell quite a few. However, if you already have a 17-35 and work mostly on the wide-end, I would say that you're set.

BTW: I have a 10-22 EF-S and it's great. I don't know yet if I'll be getting another 1.6x camera, regardless the 10-22 is a purchase I would make again today.

[Nikonfreak]

Originally Posted by Kevin Barrett

Interesting that they're introducing the 17-50 at the same time Canon is introducing their 17-55 but with IS. If the price is about half of the Canon, they may sell quite a few. However, if you already have a 17-35 and work mostly on the wide-end, I would say that you're set.

BTW: I have a 10-22 EF-S and it's great. I don't know yet if I'll be getting another 1.6x camera, regardless the 10-22 is a purchase I would make again today.

Do you guys really think that IS adds much to a lens with this focal length?

I must be alone in the thinking that I'd much rather save a few hundred dollars with this focal length and cut the IS. The Nikon users keep saying they want the VR technology on NIkon's version of the 17-55 f/2.8 but I don't understand that at all.

Where am I wrong?

Juio

[JDArt]

The 17-50 looks great. Tamron is definitely on my list of companies to watch in the photographic world.

When will these be available?

[Kevin Barrett]

Originally Posted by Nikonfreak

Do you guys really think that IS adds much to a lens with this focal length?

I must be alone in the thinking that I'd much rather save a few hundred dollars with this focal length and cut the IS. The Nikon users keep saying they want the VR technology on NIkon's version of the 17-55 f/2.8 but I don't understand that at all.

Where am I wrong?

Juio

I'm anxious to see the price point on the Tamron. It's a great range for a crop camera, and fast enough where IS is less of an issue. You're not wrong or missing anything.

[Kevin Barrett]

Originally Posted by JDArt

The 17-50 looks great. Tamron is definitely on my list of companies to watch in the photographic world.

When will these be available?

Ah.... that is the question.

[Nikonfreak]

Originally Posted by Kevin Barrett

Ah.... that is the question.

Indeed. I have the 28-75 Tamron f/2.8 and I've really put it to some hard use.

I wonder what the real price point of the 17-50 will be and when it will become available. If it is in the $750 range, I don't know that I won't just opt to drop the other $350 and go with the Nikon 17-55 f/2.8 ... But if it's in the $400 range like the 28-75 f/2.8....... it's one of those things that will make you go "hmmm....."

Julio

[Mr. Pickles]

It has to be around $500 to $600, I'd think

The very popular Canon 17-40 L f/4 is in the upper $600's. Yeah the Tamron would be longer, and one stop faster, but it still has to be cheaper I'd think.

[cyclohexane]

Originally Posted by Nikonfreak

I must be alone in the thinking that I'd much rather save a few hundred dollars with this focal length and cut the IS. The Nikon users keep saying they want the VR technology on NIkon's version of the 17-55 f/2.8 but I don't understand that at all.

I agree with you, so you're not alone. I don't see VR as something extremely useful below 70mm, as I got all the way down to 1/3 sec with the 18-70mm (I forget where I was at on the range). IS/VR, however, seems to be a big status symbol. All the parents seem to be make sure "Image Stabilization" or "Vibration Reduction" is clearly visible when using their cameras to photograph their children. Maybe those unhappy Nikon users want to be able to show that they too have VR in their midrange or wide-angle zooms.

[scoundrel1728]

Originally Posted by Nikonfreak

Do you guys really think that IS adds much to a lens with this focal length?

I must be alone in the thinking that I'd much rather save a few hundred dollars with this focal length and cut the IS. The Nikon users keep saying they want the VR technology on NIkon's version of the 17-55 f/2.8 but I don't understand that at all.

Image stabilization might come in handy near the long end, where it would be possible to handhold shots down to 1/8 second or so that would otherwise require shutter speeds in the 1/30-1/60 second range. The K-M digital users would have anti-shake available for just about anything that will fit onto the front of the camera.

[Nikonfreak]

True, but down at 1/8 sec you'd better be shooting static life given the potential for motion blur.

Julio

[JDArt]

I'd personally like to see VR/IS on every lens. I can see use for it on my 50mm, definitely.