Tamron announced a new A-mount lens. The 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 Di VC PZD Aspherical (IF) can be preordered now at Adorama (Click here) and Bhphoto (Click here).
Tamron 28-300mm Main Features
- Delivers superb image quality in a remarkably compact, lightweight package
- The advanced optical construction includes four LD (Low Dispersion) glass elements, three Molded-Glass Aspherical elements, one Hybrid Aspherical element,one XR (Extra Refractive Index) glass element, and one element of UXR (Ultra-Extra Refractive Index) glass.
- Designed for use on both full-frame and APS-C DSLRs incorporates PZD (Piezo Drive) a standing-wave ultrasonic motor system optimized for swift, quiet AF and Tamron’s acclaimed VC (Vibration Compensation) mechanism
- Circular diaphragm for spectacular blur effects and moisture-resistant construction add to the appeal of this exceptional new All-In-One zoom.
0 Responses
Now how about some Tamron FE lenses?
+1 on that one, my A7 definitely needs a superzoom during my travels!
Tamron – for all you superzoom needs since 1833…
OK, so you’ve plumped out for a full-frame camera body.
Why would you stick a 10X zoom on it?
Total waste.
If a 10X zoom is one of your needs, you should be shooting crop sensor to start. If the zoom’s convenience is a key, then at least go with a lightweight body and smaller lens.
This lens is a POS.
Interesting comment, considering the lens isn’t available yet, and you haven’t tried using it. I personally want it for traveling. I’ve been shooting with a Canon 5D which is a great camera, but really heavy. I bought the Sony A7 based on its weight, but can’t use it for travel because Sony, in its wisdom, hasn’t come out with any decent zoom lenses. I mean, the only telephoto weighs two pounds. It may be a great lens, but it’s useless if I plan to be lugging it around all day. Let’s hope this Tamron is decent. I will use it on my Canon, while my A7 awaits an equivalent FE lens.
When I carry my a99 on a family trip, I sometimes do wish that my Sony 70-300 G lens started a little wider, just because my kid will run close to me and I could miss a shot if I stopped to put the 24-70 back on. Of course I wouldn’t buy this particular lens if it’s poorly reviewed, but I certainly can see the appeal of zoom lenses with wider zoom ranges, even for full-frame cameras, if they hit the right balance of zoom range, size, weight, quality, and price.
The Sony mount does not include VC, since Sony digital SLR bodies include built-in image
The Tamron spec sheet doesn’t say it doesn’t have VC. Not all A-mount cameras have SteadyShot anymore. (a3000, for example)
Absolutely all Sony A-Mount cameras have SteadyShot.
All Sony’s digital cameras have had it since before Minolta days. All Sony A-Mount DSLRs have had it as well. Name 1 that doesn’t.
*All Sony digital cameras before acquiring Minolta. Should not have said “Since”. I didn’t mean to include E-Mount. Was talking strictly about A-Mount as per @balazer:disqus post above.
The a3000 is not A-Mount. It’s E-Mount.
The following was copied straight from the Sony Site Spec page for the A3000…
Camera
Lens Mount : Sony E-mount
Camera Type : Interchangeable Lens Digital SLR camera
Lens Compatibility : Sony E-mount, operation with Minolta/Konica Minolta Maxxum A-mount lenses confirmed via optional LA-EA1/LA-EA2 adaptor
Call me crazy but I think this announcement could be correct and rather shrewd. In the past VC has been disabled on A-mount Tamron lenses but now not all “Alpha” cameras are stabilized—at least according to Sony who is really pushing A-mount compatibility for the A7.
A 10X zoom is largely a waste in high-resolution still photography but according to DxO mark (insert grain of salt) the perceptual megapixel rating of the 28-300 is still higher than 4K (9MP vs 8MP). A large zoom range like that is very useful for documentary or run-and-gun shooting. Slow? Yes, but f/6.3 isn’t that bad when you can shoot clean video up to 3200/6400 on the A7S.
Certainly not a replacement or step up from ANY of the native lenses but the size, weight, and flexibility make it an appealing option. Would be better if it were a native E-mount though.
I’d get it for those 1 lens occasions if the quality is decent, if they hadn’t removed the VC.
I think people buying $850 lenses are smart enough to turn it off on IBIS bodies.
After using APSc Sony SAL18250 and Sigma 18-250 on my A55 a few years ago, I can confidently say that all these lenses are a total waste of money, no matter how you spin it.
Both lenses were horrible in sharpness beyond ~125mm and weren’t anything to brag about below ~125mm.
The reach seems awesome at first, but when a lens is inferior to a kit SAL1855 lens in quality, that says alot about these superzooms.
I can see only one type of consumer, that would slap this thing on a FF body – the consumer with more money than brains, the one that uses “Auto” mode at all times.
While yes, the images will be better than on a cell phone or a compact zoom with a 1/2.3″ sensor, merely using a kit lens would yield better results.
On top of that, most of these users would never use anything close to 300mm fl.
24-105 or 28-135 are much more useful to the same consumer.
So many other slow zooms why another? It’s like a buffett of McDonalds burgers no one asked for.
This one isn’t just slow, its going to be very soft too. Just like every other superzoom out there from every brand. They are all trash, absolutely all of them.
Sony is a MAJOR shareholder of Tamron. Some of the current Sony lenses are rebadged Tamron lenses, for example the 28-75mm.
Sony should stay as far away as possible from this abortion.
+1
After trying out SAL18250 and Sigma 18-250 I can safely say that all superzooms are utter trash. The kit lens SAL1855 was much sharper, contrastier and produced better colors than the SAL18250. The Sigma was an even bigger dissapointment. While SAL18250 was sharp up to about 180mm, The Sigma became very soft at about 125.
Why in the world would you pair this thing with a FF camera is beyond me. A 24-105 or 28-135 would be a much better option.
The advanced optical construction includes four LD (Low Dispersion) glass elements, three Molded-Glass Aspherical elements, one Hybrid Aspherical element,one XR (Extra Refractive Index) glass element, and one element of UXR (Ultra-Extra Refractive Index) glass. http://sn.im/290xdj8
yay, 2 hours later, my post shows up….
Why is a new FF travel-zoom-lens starting on 28? FF’s have now manly 24 or 36 Mpixel. I then
do zoomin in the final Picture but the part from 24 to 28 is ever lost, and that’s quite a lot.
I will wait on a 24 to 135-250, with a good IQ, this is much better.
Tamron makes a crop-frame version of this that goes down to 18mm on the low end. I believe that the rear focusing element will not allow them to go below 28mm on a full-frame sensor.
Probably because its easier to design a 28mm onwards lens.
Many people are very happy with a 28-300mm type lens. Sure a 24-300mm type lens will be better but it will probably be much more expensive and any superzoom > $1k of an off brand like Tamron is unlikely to sell well.
I agree in general, but 35 years ago, I had always 18-250 travel Zooms (but on FF Minolta). On dyxum.com, you could find more than 20 A-Mount Zoom-Lenses, starting at 24! I think it should be possible to do them with the new technologies.
None of those lenses starting at 24mm went up to beyond 135mm much less 300mm. Even lenses upto 200mm started at 28mm only.
For APS-C its easier to design even greater zoom ranges and Tamron has a 16-300mm lens (24-400mm equivalent).
For those who bash on anyone who would consider using superzooms, please get over your high and mighty selves.
I keep a SAL18250 on my A57 most of the time and I find it quite usable. Granted, it may not be as sharp as a good prime lens, but it’s always ready and waiting. Better to grab a very good shot of something while it is happening than miss the shot while fumbling for the right lens to make it just a little bit better.
For travel, a superzoom is much lighter and more compact than a bag full of primes. If the gear gets too heavy it tends to get left behind, and the sharpest lens in the world won’t take good pictures if it is in the closet back home.
Stan said: “On top of that, most of these users would never use anything close to 300mm fl.”
Baloney. Most consumers would rather have more reach at the tele end of the range. Why do you think most bridge cameras and camcorders keep getting longer and longer zooms if nobody shoots tele?
Haha,
Alpha A mount…..
confuse, confuse
a little high price, no VC, but since its the only option in town, come to papa.
i read many comments, saying how crap it is, how bad image quality, etc
since i like it, instead of saying that my opinion is godlike and everyone should agree with me and i know better the needs of everyone so everyone should follow what its better for me (like many here) i will counterattack.
“””I will wait on a 24 to 135-250″””
keep waiting, that wont happend anytime soon
“””So many other slow zooms why another? It’s like a buffett of McDonalds burgers no one asked for”””
i asked for one, thank you tamron, you will get my money, thank god this guy dont make the calls for what lense is made or not in your company
“””OK, so you’ve plumped out for a full-frame camera body.
Why would you stick a 10X zoom on it?
Total waste.
If a 10X zoom is one of your needs, you should be shooting crop sensor to
start. If the zoom’s convenience is a key, then at least go with a
lightweight body and smaller lens.”””
how its a total waste stick one lense to one body? i buy a body to stick the lense i need at the moment, if you are like the ones that only use one lense for your FF, then you are wasting your camera, buy a RX1 then. did you know that FF camera needs lower resolution lenses than crop sensors? did you know that you get better image quality from zooms in a FF than you get from the most expensive primes in crop sensors because of that? and i can use high iso and get clean image unlike with a crop sensor camera, so no thanks… i go for a 10x on FF than 15x on APSC or 60x in tiny sensors.
“””After using APSc Sony SAL18250 and Sigma 18-250 on my A55 a few years
ago, I can confidently say that all these lenses are a total waste of
money, no matter how you spin it.
Both lenses were horrible in sharpness beyond ~125mm and weren’t anything to brag about below ~125mm.
I can see only one type of consumer, that would slap this thing on a FF body –
the consumer with more money than brains, the one that uses “Auto” mode
at all times”””
so, you used 15X zooms in APSC bodies, and suddenly you “confidently” say this lense is a waste of money, sure… first, a FF body needs lower resolutions lenses than an APSC body, second, you dont know how good this lense is, just because sigma made a bad lense, then all future lenses are equaly bad, seems you have not tried the new ART line, tamron released the best megazoom that trashed anything else in price, quality and range, i will give them the benefit of doubt before “confidently” saying their new zoom is crap
I KNOW this lense wont give me the resolution or image quality than my primes, neither it will come close to what i get from a good fast zoom, BUT I wont print posters from it, i wont shot in the studio with it, each lense fills a purpose, and in my next vacation i can left all my others lenses at home and still get the best picture a FF can give me, because i dont need 20+megapixels sharp images (like my sigma ART prime gives me) i will only show the photos in my 4K TV (8mp), i can put my 24-70 2.8 but its twice as heavy and probably i will need to crop at home, with a 10X zoom i can frame what i want without need postprocessing the photos
NO a compact camera wont give me similar results, a RX10 maybe, but what would you do? buy a RX10 or buy this zoom, i chose to buy this zoom, also i wont buy an APSC camera plus a lense, that would be more expensive and i will get inferior photos, not to mention that my a99 is so ligth, like any APSC body, also I buy my a99 so i can put ANY LENSE that fill the job, and this is the best lense for a vacation, probe me wrong.