We have first info about the new Tamron SP 15-30mm A-mount lens. Image samples can be seen at DC.watch. And there is also a full MTF chart posted by BlogNaver (found via Dicahub). It’s interesting to look at the chart because the lens is rumored to resolve the future Sony 50Megapixel FF sensor resolution:
The MTF resolution is impressive even at widest aperture. And also on the telephoto end the resolution remains high. By comparison here is the MTF chart of the AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm F2.8G ED lens:
The Tamron has no official US price yet but it’s rumored to be around $1,500. So much cheaper than the Nikon. The Tamron A-mount lens is listed at BHphoto (Click here) and should be available soon for preorder.
132 Responses
Tokina? Tamron… 🙂
Hey, they all start with a T. 🙂
Admin too busy as usual bashing Nikon and Canon you totally screwed up the headline. The lens is from Tamron!! Don’t worry, it’s not like Sony fan boys will be buying this lens.
True, this lens is only for Sony fan girls
Because it is important to show that canon and nikon, though being huge camera corporations, are behind in many areas and are being shown how it should be done by other smaller companies :). Which only leads to better competition, which is therefore good for us. Or would u rather read stylish bull$hit posts lile “at canon we see the impossible possible blahblah “:)?
So far, c and n are better at everything. Go out and shoot, you might notice a slight difference between real life and online marketing. Sony will need to “innovate” (I love that nonsense word) a lot before they catch up.
“So far, c and n are better at everything”
And then they complain about Admin’s posts.
what future 50 mpix FF sensor?
I don’t think the MTF from different companies could be compared fairly…
but still … it isn’t FE 24-105 f4…
New Tamrons are all getting very positive reviews and are weather-sealed… but Sony already hopped on to mirrrorless, that offers neither 3rd party, nor native lenses. Well done.
It took a while but I got used to shooting without any lens, now I have to photoshop 30 hours for each image, but it is worth it knowing I am using the latest camera!
LOL, good one.
Trying out nerdic humour?
No just too clever, even for you.
Pretty much any lens ever made works fine on E-mount. I don’t even use Sony lenses. I shoot with 2 manual Voigtlanders, a manual Rokinon, a manual Mitakon (50mm .95), and a Sigma for the Canon EF mount (in manual), and I’m getting great images. Practice shooting manual with focus peeking, you might prefer it. I have never used the autofocus function on my A7 or A7s, and I don’t ever plan to. Because of focus peeking, I’m now faster with manual focus than most are with autofocus.
Available lenses for the E-mount are not limited, not at all, just available autofocus lenses. Free yourself from autofocus and remove your limits! 🙂
Yes, yes, I know the statue-shooting club is happy.
Manual focus is generally useless in reportage. You need fastest AF bodies and lenses you can afford.
No, my friend. Manual focus is much better for composing scenes with moving elements. Because you can simply compose your shot and simply adjust the focus as people move. Instead of needing to recompose as people move and you need to refocus on them.
Here is an event with A LOT of movement in the dark that I shot with only a manual Voigtlander 35mm f1.2 at challenging wide aperture:
I couldn’t have done this with any other camera than the A7s and it would have been very difficult to try this with autofocus.
http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2014/09/10/shooting-ephemerisle-2014-with-the-sony-a7s-and-a-voigtlander-35mm-f1-2-by-judd-weiss/
I also dealt with a lot of movement when I shot Behind The Scenes photos for this movie, and I shot each shot with either the Voigtlander 35mm f1.2 and some with the Voigtlander 21mm f1.8
http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2014/09/22/shooting-atlas-shrugged-part-3-behind-the-scenes-with-the-sony-a7s-and-voigtlander-lenses-by-judd-weiss/
I’m telling you, manual focus is better and easier. And the control over focus is something I’ll never give up again. Manual focus does take a little bit of practice, but when you know it and become one with it, you will never go back to autofocus. Autofocus will slow you down too much.
Don’t waste you time with him.
He’s right up there with CI Sales in the Troll listings.
Yeah right. Top camera manufacturers put a lot of resources into developing best AF systems and people pay top dollar for bodies with most cross-type AF points and lenses with fastest motors. But who needs all this crap, you can just MF.
And I’m the troll… right.
Yes, so even incompetent idiots can take a well focused picture. But it’s likely not focused on the subject as you wanted it so you can just blame the camera.
I love shooting with MF, even with all the clever AF my 5DIII had I preferred MF, don’t even us the a6000 AF even though it does do some very smart tracking. I do use Af when on holiday and I don’t really care about the picture hah. I bought the sony lenses to get fast working AF and when I got it, well turns out I prefer my Nikon lenses, what can I say, I learned shooting decades before there was such a thing as AF maybe that has something to do with it. I know loads of people who can’t do without, people should buy what they want and let that be their vote of confidence. I don’t do your job so who knows perhaps I would be a total AF monkey if I did.
Manual focus has it’s place, this is why you can still manually focus your AF lenses. While zone focusing and using manual glass in non-critical or non-called for situations works, like Duott said… there is a reason why AF gets faster, and it isn’t just because everyone who uses AF sucks.. this is getting very similar to the film vs digital conversation. The guy only using manual glass acting like an elitist like the film guy does talking to digital shooters… seriously stupid to have this argument..and no offense Judd, but it’s highly unlikely you are out focusing pro camera gear and nailing it every time…manually focusing can be fast, but in the end AF is going to be faster in many situations.
“just because everyone who uses AF sucks”
Where did he even say that, seriously? You are putting words in his mouth, then you are feeling insulted.
Yes, you are. Judd Weiss not only explained why MF may be better in some situations, but also provided imagery and, of course, that isn’t enough! You’d rather reply with some moronic argument.
“In some situations”, “for some people” etc.
The go-to textbook solution for reportage is still f/2.8 zooms and fastest PDAF you can find.
Why do you show off the broken pics? Show us the ones that came out right!
Slow moving in one direction, no problem. Using a 200mm lens with shallow DOF and focus on the eyes of a dog or horse in erratic motion is another issue, especially if you want pictures sharp at pixel level.
Might be interesting to see who wil come up with more in focus and composed images: MF or AF shooter, Did a session years ago with a 400mm, long distance ice skaters coming right at me, from the beginning of the track right up to me, ended in a in focus extreme close-up. I doubt any autofocus could have pulled this of because they bend over, flex, look down, look up, what is it going to track?
I really like how you patiently answer an insulting post… But Honestly only if they are really good at their eyes and hands coordination, even with focus peaking, manual focusing is still really hard for relatively fast moving objects (harder with >200mm). I want to see your pics too. You seem to be a nice photographer 😉
Thank you. I admit that I have no experience shooting greater than 200mm in manual focus. But I am shooting with a 50mm f.95 Mitakon on my A7s, and while getting that lens in focus wide open with a bunch of moving people all around me is the most challenging thing I’ve ever tried to do in photography, after some practice I’ve gotten pretty consistent at it. And when you do nail focus, the results can be magical.
Here is one of my first attempts trying the Mitakon out at an LA pool party. I had a bunch of focus issues, but I’m happy with the results even when I first got the lens:
https://www.facebook.com/juddweiss/media_set?set=a.10152818024775763.1073741960.544700762
And here is a large 1000 photo set I just posted the other day from a large event in NYC. I shot everything with the Mitakon 50mm f.95 and some with the Voigtlander 21mm f1.8, all manual focus. I feel like I’m now pretty consistent about getting focus even at f.95 after only 2 months of practice:
https://www.facebook.com/juddweiss/media_set?set=a.10152945705920763.1073741975.544700762
Even at that crazy wide aperture, with people quickly moving all around me at events, I’m usually able to get their primary eye in focus. I’m up for the challenge of manual focusing a 200mm f2.8 and feel pretty confident I can handle it after finally tackling the insanely difficult 50mm f.95
I don’t deny that there’s certainly a place for autofocus for many photographers, but I also think that photographers don’t need to rely on it as much as they think they do. A lot of options in photography open up to you when get good at manual focus with focus peeking.
Completely agree, ever since I got my A7S and put lovely manual Nikon glas on it, it has been joy. The effect is fantastic, much more reliable then any autofocus fast extreme framing choices without worrying the autofocus wil pick up on what you really want.
Because I also shoot a lot of film / video I can tell you it is not hard to do nice long lens tracking shots. In fact it is easier then doing a nice 50mm F1.2 close-up because the throw of the lens. The longer the lens the easier I think it is to keep tracking. Most people don’t even try it because in their minds eye they don’t see it working. The reality is: everybody who shoots video / film has to manually focus these shots and never says ‘I wish I had AF’ because it takes the choice away from you.
The only downside to using the Nikon is it focusses counterclockwise, it’s a bit of a mind shift when using the 24-70 Sony for video but so far so good.
Nice look & beautifully people too!
I checked your instagram, and there is a lot of nice pics there… I wish I can be as good as you in MF. I missed a lot of shots with MF.
Well thank you refillable for taking the time to take a look 🙂
Your welcome, keep up the works.
I don’t need to recompose with back-button AF. I just press the AF-ON and it focusses automatically. It is a big difference additionally, if you use wide angles or telephoto primes to focus. Many times you shoot a soccer game, action happens at 10m away, ball gets lost and e.th. suddenly turns direction at a totally different distance. Easy with AF, very difficult with MF (unless you increase DOF drastically). For most static scenes MF is no problem at all. The same is true for the shots you presented (objects stays in one place, spinning s.th. around, using long shutter speed to blur the motion (exact AF is not required here)). Both techniques have their place, but to generalize doesn’t help.
Horseshit.
Explain “statue shooting club” if you will……….
Those guys who are always ready to explain that if you can just throw ~40 years of AF development out of the window and shoot in MF, E-Mount can have “any lenses”.
In their eyes, 7D-II is not an amazing camera (65 cross type AF points!!), it’s ‘old tech’, and E-Mounts are already proper replacements for DSLR.
Maybe your points would be better served by posting as you have here to me, rather than throwing out blanket statements that risk offending the rest of us that actually agree with what you’ve written here?
Oh petal, are you offended? What a pity…
Obviously, waisting our time with you if you have to post THAT under a different handle…….
Why don’t you consider a basic English course as a new year proposal?
I’ll leave that to the brothers duott. Your looking for a career as a critique, maybe DigLloyd will hire both your personalities.
Oh you are being so clever and self-deprecating, why don’t you / me / I try a 3 course meal and learn how to read as a new years proposal?
eamonn mccabe sports photographer
Google that and look at what was possible 40 years ago.
I know stuff is possible. If you put a lot of effort into it, I bet you’d be able to take some great sports shots with your smartphone as well. Doesn’t mean you have to shoot with one in almost-2015.
http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/09/a-distinctive-voice-on-instagram/?_r=0
Learning’s fun isn’t it. Beats the heck out being sarcastic!
Again you’re making no sense; when you find yourself in a hole stop digging. But you have mastered the smartphone, built for dumb photographers.
You keep repeating the same mistake: you talk photography in a gadget forum, controlled by marketing pirates and clueless geeks.
A lot of photographers I talk to are really disappointed with the Canon 7D-II. Canon advertised it to shoot 10 FPS, but it actually only shoots 6.6 FPS at best — search for the Gary Fong 7D Mark 2 test on YouTube & see for yourself.
Meanwhile, Sony A77II shoots real world 8 FPS, so even at it’s slowest, it supports a faster frame rate. In Speed Priority mode it increases to 12 FPS. Additionally, Sony increased total PDAF points to 79. While only 15 of those points are cross, unlike Canon/Nikon, Sony mixes the points with contrast and visual data from full time live view to achieve faster and more accurate AF, face detection and so on.
Canon still makes some great cameras, particularly the 1Dx, but 7D Mark 2 certainly isn’t the top APS-C camera anymore.
I know that A77-II is amazing. All the more shame that Sony has shown no inclination to develop this system.
Anyway, that’s what I’ve been saying – AF is one of the most important characteristics of a camera. For a lot of people it’s even the single most important.
How can anyone have the nerve to say they can focus faster that any AF. Dumbest self serving bullcrap I have ever heard. I would rather enjoy taking hundreds of crisp sharp photos than focus peeking like an idiot.
How about shooting a portrait through a screen-door, or though a window, or in a field of blowing out of focus grass. Go look through some old NGS magazines, look at how they frame & compose. A/F has its place as does M/F. The more you learn = the less you actually know for sure mate!
You took what he said out of context, changed the wording and, consequently, the meaning, and now you are complaining about someone being self-serving?
I suppose you can’t drive a car with a manual transmission unless it’s on a straight road, stop defending your incompetence, you’re just making a fool of yourself.
I only drive manual cars. But its because i like to torch the rear tires and for no other reason.
Agreed, those guys who are constantly complaining about how good things used to be because of their stubborn refusal to move on current tech are so irritating to listen to.
Current tech is fantastic! What “some guys complain about” is the zealotry of which some canonize new tech without a proper understanding of the fundamentals of craft. Both are required and once adopted practically make for a more rounded operator.
/sarcasm
There’s no wizardry here…every technique I believe has it’s highlights and shortcomings in my opinion. I can do fast action with manual focusing. But damn, try getting my dog in focus while it’s moving all around the freaking place and forget about it. You have to shoot stationary…a bit back…pick a spot and wait. That’s not freeing you up creatively…not that my dog cares. To me, AF is about more than just getting the shot. It’s one less thing you can “ignore” to focus on what really matters. Like your histogram…your composition…your DOF…all that stuff.
7D-II is a piece of shiiit. I tried it out and had to wash my hands afterward. A77II all…day….long.
SLT combines the best from both worlds – fast focus, EVF, everything.
If you actually PRACTICED YOUR CAMERA-CRAFT as much as your trolling skills, then you may, IN TIME, produce AN IMAGE that you’d be happy sharing with the group!
Just a thought for your new years list young man!
Yes, if you have no manual focusing skills, you need a lot of help.
statue-shooting club haha, funny.
Back in the day when the Nikon F501 showed up in 1986? I got one, used AF for a while and went back to manual. was shooting film back then as well as photo and everything was manual, it’s been like that for my whole career: picking up the latest and greatest Af system just to go back the MF. Perhaps the right system will convince me, who knows. It is fun when you get a proper AF system with quick lock but I feel you need to look at the big boys for that. Anyway, I think old age got me on repeat again.
I shoot most of my garbage with manual focus. It’s not as hard as people think. Even without focus peaking it’s not a big deal. For fast moving subjects I find using a M43 stepped down a bit works wonders with a 45mm. Wait for the action in the right spot and Wammo. If we’re talking about just having fun here then AF might have that beat. Nothing like rattling off 24 images on the A77II in just 2 seconds. I say…OWN IT ALL.
Did that today with the a6000, like a machine gun catching a flock of crazy birds. The Af was pretty impressive, the gulls where so fast, but it kept them in focus at 210mm. Shame the kit lens is a bit crap and the images from the a6000 are not exactly ‘pretty’. But it was fun to do some mindless shooting.
Focus peaking is good to shot brick walls. Manual focus for moving things requires an OVF with precision focussing screen. Sony might catch up in 10 years though.
You obviously never used a good EVF because is far superior to an OVF for manual focusing of any object moving or stationary. Change your handle to MF Idiot, it suits you better.
Unless you have a good focusing screen on your OVF. That shows you precisely when your subject is in focus via multiple methods. Vs focus peaking on an EVF, which only gives you a general idea of the area that’s in focus unless you’re zoomed in.
Unless you have a good OVF and a good focusing screen, you mean. Which isn’t easy to find nowadays and is only valid for FF cameras.
I an sort of agree. I usually end up using magnification to insure I get it right. If your shooting seriously narrow DOF then it’s the only way IMO. By the way, I do shoot brick walls from time to time. I find them fascinating.
As much as I love manual focusing, I cannot take you for anything but a troll when you say you can be faster than most people with AF. Manual focus is great for landscapes, portraits and slow moving subjects. I even have a few sharp shots of my kids, but I lost so many shots because of manual focus. We do need good AF lenses.
Yeah, if you can’t do it, certainly nobody can, right?
You are aware of ~6ms mark that a6000 is taking to focus a subject? I need ~2s. I bet some crazy fast people can do it at ~1s on a stationary subject. But noone can do it as fast as machine. Even at a very low light (a disco ball light) my a6000 was spot on almost instantly and for each shot. If you check his fb pics, most of his subjects were posing, and there are only a few dynamic pics. Who knows how many opportunities were missed because of MF.
Agreed, the camera is very fast. And I am sure there are many situations where AF will be preferable. But, in the end, it is a human that is operating the camera. How long does it take to switch the focus point on the a6000? The focusing mode? The focusing area? Are you aware that with zone focusing there are 0ms to focus and that zone focusing is used mostly for moving subjects? MF will also be more precise in more than half the cases. Who knows how many opportunities were missed because of AF.
Perhaps I need to get used to the AF of the a6000 but it missed a lot of shots I almost always get when using MF. I find setting up framing, putting the focus zoom where you want it, MF and shoot to be effective for really shallow DOF.
For street, something I never do anymore, having your focus nailed down and moving yourself is the one true way.
I do nature with my landscape set up all the time. You just need to learn to wait for it to come around. 😉
http://carnagepro.com/photo/EX1/raptorS.jpg
I can count his feathers on the full size file.
Still if you chasin’ flying birds etc, you need a killer autofocus machine.
This looks like a picture from a Lumix superzoom compact: everything in focus and lots of purple fringing. Perhaps it is the jpeg conversion 🙂
All my stuff is in focus. Perfectly normal.
You newbies got this weird concept of focus, must be hard for the poor manufactures.
It looks about right on my calibrated IPS 30″ 2560×1600 screen. YMMV.
Oh good another passive aggressive “you newbies’ bullcrap response. There is nothing exciting about this picture being in focus, you are obviously not using a fullframe camera because there is too much DOF, besides this looks like a 70mm shot, so not effin amazing you got that in focus. Considering the poor dynamic range it is probalby a MFT camera and you are a hobby photographer, so you might keep your silly suggestive nonsense to yourself. We just might have the same screen.
Again, perhaps your reading skills could use an upgrade, all my stuff is in focus.
I do landscape and nature exclusively and I like everything in focus. I am not interested in anything other than showing you what I saw. I just waited for him to come around to where I wanted him. An illustration of fix focus and wait. Possibly a bit advanced for the autofocus weenies.
It’s a Fuji X-E1 with the very fine XF 60mm on it.
You started this nonsense, where do you get to be defensive?
What nonsense did I start? I’m not the one who started with the ‘newbie’ rubbish, that was your call. I suggested it looks like the picture was taken with a cheap camera, turns out I was right, it was. We are talking about Af V MF and how Af can be important to keep difficult situations in focus and you come up with a dead easy shot like this to illustrate how easy it is. I think you are the one who needs to figure the point of the conversation. Landscape is not exactly in desperate need of tracking Af now is it? Or are you seriously saying this picture is as hard to take as a 400m FF close up of dogs racing at the racetrack? If you can’t help yourself and need to throw in te nonsense and newbie comments, expect to get a reply in kind. Stick to your landscape hobby, enjoy it and stop pretending you know about photography.
p.s.
In case you didn’t read it: I also do everything with manual focus.
LOL.
Coming from you….I never would have thought. Interesting.
I was visited by the ghost of comments future?
If I want to compose every shot with the subject in focus in the center, then yes, autofocus is much faster. Because I can just set the focus point to the center and snap away. But if I’m using a shallow depth of field and I want to compose the shot differently, perhaps draw the viewer’s eye a little to the left or right, autofocus slows me down, severely.
When you have lots of moving pieces around you that you’re trying to capture, it’s SO MUCH easier to compose the scene and surgically adjust the focus as people move, rather than autofocus on a subject then recompose, and refocus if anything moves, then try to recompose again, and then repeat again if anything moves again. The difference is night and day for usability.
Manual focus is more important at wider apertures and shallow depth of field shots where you MUST take more precise control of what you are focusing on. Focus peeking has opened up a world of opportunities for manual focus photography.
Let me give you an example. I shot the below image on an escalator, with the manual Voigtlander 35mm f1.2. I was moving up, and she was moving down. The point of focus is not in the center of the frame. Which would have made it pretty much completely impossible to get this shot composed this way with autofocus while moving at each other and shooting on the fly. But with focus peaking I was able to compose the shot while flagging her to look at me, line up the yellow dots around her face, and fire while moving past each other. Focus isn’t absolutely 100% perfect, but plenty good enough considering we were on escalators moving past each other! And my camera was in my coat pocket when I stepped on the escalator. I had only seconds to turn on the camera and compose the shot when I saw her coming towards me (she’s a friend, it wasn’t creepy).
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10152366392815763&set=a.10152366384765763.1073741918.544700762
Here’s another example, of a singer moving and contorting herself rapidly on stage. The A7s allowed me to get a clean shot in a very dark bar with a high enough shutter speed to freeze motion. I would not have attempted this with autofocus, because I don’t always want my composition to have the point of focus be the center of the frame. There is no way to recompose after you autofocus on a performer that is moving, and moving fast. But with focus peaking I line up the yellow dots and click. It doesn’t matter where in the frame the point of focus is. This way I can sometimes add some unique drama to the shot by drawing the eye to the point of focus at the side of the frame.
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10152655507520763&set=a.10152655507240763.1073741943.544700762
Yes, it absolutely is challenging to focus on moving subjects with manual focus, but with some practice you will get surprisingly good at it, and you will hesitate before you give up that control and return to autofocus. Besides, the options open with the variety of lenses that you can now effectively use on the A7 series is just beautiful 🙂
the advantage of autofocus is often a bargain in sports where you keep the main subject you follow in the center of the image. It also might help in landscape. But myself experience the same as you do, i shoot to 95% manual focus, it put the sharpness just anywhere i want with the focus peaking within fractions of a second. All in all those who come and say that AF is faster do not know what they talk about, I experienced since ever that in 75% of all shots I do, no AF could beat me in speed when it comes to focusing on a subject and on a specific part of the frame I select instantly while with AF is takes a considerable time loss to set the AF selection square on that spot. When Sony brought the NEX-7 to reality with focus peaking, my time had come and found myself 30 years younger once more. I use AF for sure too, in certain situations like all over travel pictures as a tourist, but never when it comes to serious photography. So my request to Sony, make for people like us an A7 camera with MF only and cheaper pricing, it would be a great deal for us. We really do not need AF. Note also that I ow the best Minolta lenses that this company ever made and no regret, the average medium calculated price range of my lens park lies around 150$ per unit.
Oh, I doubt anything like that will ever happen, but if Sony did make a camera optimized for Manual Focus Only, I’d buy it if it had the A7s 12MP sensor. Especially if it came without a viewfinder in a slightly more compact body.
How do you want to focus manually if you have no viewfinder, an lcd screen is just an additional tool one really doesn’t needs if all is seen in an EVF. I would not like a MF camera from Sony to become a rangefinder, then what concerns the 12mpix chip from A7S, here also we have different opinions. I would more go for an 18 or 20 mpix, something halfway between the 24 and the 12 in some way. Now, I just wait the day we get interchangeable sensors on simple drawers you slide in and you select what you want according to the situation you encounter. 19 mpix is a better alround solution to my opinion. But, anyway, never without viewfinder, it is for me a must if someone wants to sell me a camera.
I really want the camera to be more pocketable, and I really want that hideous bulge for the viewfinder to be gone. I don’t care if there’s a popup viewfinder, or to live with a detachable viewfinder, I enjoy using my coat pocket as my camera bag.
Ideally I would love if Sony developed a sensor with the same performance of the A7s but at 14MP or 16MP, but I’m perfectly happy with 12MP. It’s more than I need most of the time. And I just printed a piece of mine from the A7s that is huge at 72″ x 48″ inches, and it looks great on my wall behind my dining table. No one goes up to stare an inch away to look for pixels.
What I really want is an A5s like the A7s but without the bulge. That would be a dream. I shoot mostly at night, I only use the viewfinder during the day in heavy direct sunlight, so I’m perfectly happy with a detachable viewfinder for the few times when I need it.
Pocketable cameras are fun until you have one. Then you want the viewfinder back in the right place. You want the grip that you thought you didn’t need. You want more manual controls big enough for your fingers.
“own the best minolta lenses the company ever made”….so your saying you own the 200mm 2.8 and the 400mm f4?
To be efficient with Manual focus, you need training.
I started my career as a photojournalist 28 years ago with Nikon FE2 film camera and a set of AIS lens. No professional zoom and no autofocus at that time and we had to switch lenses all the time (or use 2 bodies) and set the focus manually every shooting day.
I was working for magazines specialized in motorcycle race (speed racing, Motocross, Indoor supercross…) which is a bit faster than running kids.
And I was using film which means everything was recorded, developped and paid. This forced me to be concentrated and efficient on every assignement.
Nowadays people rely on camera assisitance too much without questioning their own skill. I am teaching photography in Shanghai, and sport photography is the most complex part for students. Whatever sophisiticated AF system they have in their camera, if badly used, it will be never efficient enough to answer to any situation. You need training and methdodology to shoot movement with or without AF. There is no trolling in saying that, in some situation, Manual focus can be as efficient as AF. All depends on who is holding the camera. http://www.francperet.com
Well said, and I appreciate your thoughts on this. And you have some very cool photos on your site!
Thanks Judd.
For others to understand my meaning, feel free to visit some of my older pictures shot in Manual focus back to 1988 or with clumsy autofocus back to 1998. Nowadays, beside my Nikon D800 and AF lenses, I am also used to shoot with a Nikon1 V1 and amazing antic movie lenses (Cine-Nikkor) Manual focus (without peaking) and manual exposure.
http://www.francperet.com/2014/08/13/1998-24-h-le-mans/
http://www.francperet.com/2014/08/16/1988-concert-in-paris/
http://www.francperet.com/category/portfolio/photography-portfolio/
That picture is bad asss.
That’s great, so you are telling me you spent years to get good at tracking focus using MF. I believe you when you say you are as good as the more advanced AF systems but I highly doubt the majority of even professional photographers are, nor would they care to be. Just like most people that use a computer don’t want to manually build it themselves, most people who use a camera don’t want to manually focus all the time. It is much less efficient for the majority most of the time, save for you and a few others that had no other choice but to be good with it.
Sorry Bhima, for my lack of clarity. My post was not about always using MF because it is better than AF. I just explained that MF is far less limited and intimidating than what people usually think, even for sport photography and moving object. Of course, I do enjoy a good AF system when it is faster or more efficient than what I can achieve manually, but I am able to survive without it and work efficiently in Manual Focus mode as well, when needed or when I am forced to. For example, when I am using classic Manual lenses on a modern body. A professional photographer simply use what is working the best for him. And each situation or assignment has to be approached on a case by case basis and there is not only one way of achieving a good result. If AF works the best for most people, it is logic they are using it the most, but it is never bad to try something different and to understand that skills and inspiration are a dominant part in photography, beside gear sophistication.
Seriously, stop that manual focusing nonsense. 🙁
AF was invented for a reason.
If you’re making portraits, products, macro or something like that – sure, go on with focus peaking.
Some people need AF. Some photographs are possible because of the AF.
I have many great advises for you, though. Free yourself from computers, mobile phones, cars, shoes… Homo sapiens can easily live without such weird novelties.
Try focus on HULK fist coming for your face, fgt!
Admin, please add ‘HULK’ to restricted words
Admin, pls ban profile “gay sounding russian names” from possible user names
Im curious about this lens. Guess its gonna b bought inn along with the a99 mk II when this camera is heading for the market. But only if the quality of the lens is good enough, at wide open aperture
Do not pay too much attention to factory mtf charts! They measure differently. In most cases it is also just a virtual mtf, calculated in the lens CAD system. A few, like Zeiss, measure on physical lenses.
Are you sure Zeiss still does that? 10 years ago I wouldn’t doubt it.
Not sure if this is that important or not, other than the A99II Sony seems interested only on releasing more E-Mount bodies 😉
MTF chart is meaningless. It’s created by calculation rather than real measurement. Moreover, each manufacturer does not use the same method to creat the chart.
Big boy lens needs a big boy body. A99II please.
We do realize MTF charts from different manufacturers aren’t comparable?
Why, the colours are the same.
Yes…..making any conclusion based on MTF Chart is waste of time. Each brand may or may not use the same formula or methamatical method to plot the chart.
Is this lens weathersealed? If priced right (and if it beats the upcoming Sony-Zeiss 16-35 f2.8 SSM II) I will buy the Tamron along the next FF A-mount
Could be a great new option for people choosing an ultra wide, but it shouldn’t directly be compared to the Nikon 14-24mm which goes 1mm wider. Anyone who shoots ultra wide angle knows that 1mm is quite significant in terms of field of view and if you need that extra field of view then as good as this new Tamron is, it isn’t the widest option. Why do Canon users pay such a premium for the 16-35 vs 17-40? Partly because the extra 1mm at the wide end does make a significant difference in field of view
Yeah, 14 to 15 is about 5 degrees FOV.
Whether or not that’s significant is up to the individual photographer I suppose. That’s about the FOV difference between 38.5mm and 35mm at those focal lengths, for those not used to ultra wide.
You just compared the 16-35 to the 17-40.
When I bought the 16-35 it was not just because of the 1mm, it simply was a much better lens.
The 1mm difference is slightly less than 5 degrees – maybe that’s a world of difference to some. But that’s not really the point. The Nikon 14-24mm is epic because of the sharpness, distortion control and performance. I think people are curious to see if this Tamron can match the sharpness & performance of the Nikon where they overlap (15-24mm) at a cheaper price point. That is the real test here.
I agree with what everybody has said. I was merely making the point that 1mm in a wide angle lens translates to quite a substantial difference in field of view compared to 1mm in say a normal focal length/telephoto lens. That 1mm in an ultra wide makes the lens design that bit more complex. I do agree that if the Tamron can match the Nikon in the 15-24 range at a lower price that would be a substantial achievement, but the Nikon will always give the widest perspective and for some that is the most important factor. If only this new Tamron didn’t have that bulbous front element I might be interested in buying one myself!
New lens…oh, not from Sony, lel
Where and when f2.8 ultra-wide zoom from Sony will be available?
You mean like the CZ 16-3mm f/2.8?
Sony already has an excellent 16-35mm f2.8 lens. 🙂
Why does that make difference for an EVF camera? It’s not for bokeh anyway. It’s for OVFs cameras they made faster lenses that needed to be just for picture in OVF brighter.
Unfortunately, no FE-mount version of this lens.
It would make no sense. For real lenses you go A mount.
They’re both full frame lenses, A- or FE-, so that comment makes no sense.
Besides, Sony’s greater effort and emphasis is on FE-mount technology versus A-mount anyway. I live in Tokyo, and talk with Sony reps occasionally. Personally, I won’t invest in A-mount any thing going forward.
Well, if the Sony reps you speak of are sony salesmen, I wouldn’t believe a word they say. Of course they want all the hypsters from Tokyo to good ol’ USA to pony up and sell whatever Sony is making at the moment. If Sony does want to kill off A mount they can go F’k themselves with the thick end of a baseball bat. They are then idiots who are betraying their install base and all the while the FE toys keep getting bigger. Because that’s what you need with more optically corrected lenses..that are also bigger…you need a bigger grip, thicker base..etc., etc. Let’s not even mention a huge yet essential flash that often grazes the top of most peoples cameras. I have the A7…it’s cute. I like it with the retro lenses..that are also cute. But when I slap on the big guns, I’m not looking to giggle and dance around like a fairy. I want to take my gear into the freaking woods…punish it…no compromises…and come out with whatever I want… NO COMPROMISES.
And my comment does make sense because FE lenses make no sense…except for loxia…I’ll give you that. Those makes sense to me. I don’t want SLOW ASSS overpriced F4’s. F4 in low light equals garbage..total garbage. OF course I can slap the A7S on their and get a wonderful 12MP, but I’m still limited at F4. I don’t always want to shoot portraits at F4. My micro four thirds gives me an equivelant 3.4…now why the helll am I getting more shallow DOF in my M43 equipment and paying less for it might I add than FE?? Have you seen the newly announced 35mm 1.4 FE. It looks HUGE. It’s a freaking barrel that needs a big gun at the end. IT MAKES ZERO SENSE. ….except…like I mentioned….loxia…..yeah, those make sense.
Just stop for a really brief minute…just a minute. Now take a trip with me to imaginary land. Imagine this Tamron on any FE camera. Have you seen this lens? It is awesome and it is huge. It makes ZERO sense on an FE camera at present…absolutely zero. It doesn’t belong there and Tamron knows it.
MTFs are easy to compare to Tamron’s own 90 and 70-200. The promised IQ is thus top notch.