Tamron Announces the Smallest, Lightest Ultra-Wide-Angle Zoom Lens in its Class

Sep 1, 2014
291
2
29
#21
I never understand when people say things like this. Give me less!!!
because this is the internet and anyone can complain about anything

because a variable aperture lens is commonly viewed as inferior to a constant aperture lens, even if having 2.8 to 4 means getting more than havin 4 all the way

because on this forum, which i've been reading for some years, there will ALWAYS be someone to complain that a newly launched lens isn't some other lens that already exists or is phisically/practically/financially impossible

i could bet a kidney that, if the new canon 70-200 f4 would have been launched alone, someone would have bit....complained that it's not f2.8, same as someone said that stupid canon didn't make the f2.8 m3 into an f2
 
#24
Really???

Much prefer something that affords me the opportunity at 2.8 @ 17mm even if by 35 it’s 4.0, as long as the image quality is there and not compromised. At least I get a choice this way :)

I never understand when people say things like this. Give me less!!!
Because having the aperture change on you without you changing it is a pain to me at least. Also (and this goes for any variable zoom lens) large aperture is more useful IMO at the long end (where background blur is more noticeable and camera shake is more likely to show up) yet variable aperture lenses only have the large aperture on the short end where it is less needed. Just my two cents but if others like variable lenses of course that's fine and good they have the option.
 
#25
Doesn't a variable aparture mean that the lens gets much longer when zooming and therefore sucks dust into the lens barrel? Of course some lenses even get longer while zooming even though they have a fixed aperture, but I love lenses like the Canon 70-200 lenses, which keep the same length over the whole zoom range.
 

Sharlin

EOS Rebel T7i
Dec 26, 2015
721
51
Turku, Finland
#26
Doesn't a variable aparture mean that the lens gets much longer when zooming and therefore sucks dust into the lens barrel? Of course some lenses even get longer while zooming even though they have a fixed aperture, but I love lenses like the Canon 70-200 lenses, which keep the same length over the whole zoom range.
No, those things don't really correlate. Except insofar that more expensive lenses tend to have both internal zooming and constant aperture. If anything, the zoom group(s) of a variable-aperture lens needs to move less as there's less change in the magnification of the entrance pupil.
 
Last edited:

Random Orbits

EOS 6D Mark II
Mar 14, 2012
2,078
15
#27
Really???

Much prefer something that affords me the opportunity at 2.8 @ 17mm even if by 35 it’s 4.0, as long as the image quality is there and not compromised. At least I get a choice this way :)

I never understand when people say things like this. Give me less!!!
It matters if you use manual settings a lot or if you do video. Changing exposure due to zooming is inconvenient if you're trying to limit ISO and specify a shutter speed. You could set it to f/4 but when I'm changing aperture, it's just easier to spin the wheel and know I got to constant max aperture rather than having to look and confirm setting it to a particular aperture.
 
Jan 26, 2017
233
75
www.flickr.com
#28
Really???

Much prefer something that affords me the opportunity at 2.8 @ 17mm even if by 35 it’s 4.0, as long as the image quality is there and not compromised. At least I get a choice this way :)

I never understand when people say things like this. Give me less!!!
I can understand why people would prefer a non-variable aperture, but for me I'd be happy with variable aperture on this lens - I think it could have a pretty interesting niche use. I am pretty keen on finding a lens which is:
  • Ideally 16mm wide (but I could maybe manage with 17)
  • small and light (so I can carry it long distances with my camping gear and other camera gear)
  • fast at the wide end at least (so I can do some wide astrophotography without having another wide/fast lens to carry)
  • has a normal filter thread (so I can mount a 100mm filter system)
The only other lens that ticks those boxes is the Canon 16-35 f/2.8L iii (and its predecessors), and it is likely to be quite a bit more expensive, heavier and larger. I'm very curious to see performance on this versus the 16-35 2.8L iii - no doubt it won't out-perform, but I really just want to see if it will be "good enough". My hope would be to take my Rokinon 14mm f/2.8 and Canon 16-35 f/4L out of my bag for this lens which would reduce my packed weight, but let me come close to the same flexibility.