Dustin, thanks for this review and I was saddened to hear about Loki. I know that Loki will always have a special place in the hearts of your family and you took some stunning photos to remember him by. I look forward to seeing little Nala as your animal model in your future reviews!
I am so sorry to hear about your loss! My 16-yr old Bengal passed late last year, and it still brings me to tears to think of her and all those who have loved their animal companions. I will think of you when I get this lens and use it to get pictures of the tortie and Siamese cats that still inhabit my household.
Oh no, brother. I'm so sorry to hear about Loki. I can only imagine how upsetting that must be, and I'm so sad that it happened. I appreciate you continuing to put out such great work when you're going through so much, and I'm happy to see Nala stumbling around. All the best ♥️
One thing I'm finding on my 16-35pz is that I feel it takes an unusually large hit from diffraction at anything smaller than 5.6. Planning to swap it with this because I like the focal range more and I'm hoping it won't lose as much to diffraction. Thanks for the review and sorry to hear about your pet.
Hey Dustin, paused the (excellent as usual) video here - my condolences, so sorry for your loss. Losing our beloved ones is always tough, wishing the grief becomes a dear collection of warm memories.
I would love to see a direct comparison between this lens and the Sony 16-35mm f2.8 GM. I would be very interested about your oppinion. I do currently own the GM but I am debating on selling it. I don't use it that often and it's expensive, and one the big and heavy side of things. This Tamron could be a better alternative for me instead of the GM as I don't want to be without a wide angle zoom. Also I never liked the 16-28mm zooms as that range isn't versatile enough for my liking, I rarely do wide angle shots only.
Thanks for this informative review of a seemingly high quality product. The focal range of 20 - 40 is something I would really appreciate. Perfect for my needs. However, I do have the 17-28 Tamron and unless I go for a trade-in, I wouldn't anticipate making a purchase.
This Tamron looks really sweet… In terms of optical performance, does it match Sony’s 20mm G lens? Would love to see a comparison. Which one would you personally choose and why? Thanks for the review, Dustin.
Thanks for the review! I would be interested in that lense once I switch from Canon to Sony (because of the 3rd party ban of Canon), but unfortunately in Europe it is abour 40% more expensive than in the US,. It costs 999 Euros while the 17-28 2.8 is quite a bit cheaper with 799 Euros. No idea why Tamron makes the lense cheaper than the 17-28 in the US, but 25% more expensive than the 17-28 in the EU. That´s why I probably would go for the 17-28 instead.
Yours are the best lens reviews. Thanks! I’ve been eyeing this lens. I paid the big bucks for the Sony 16-35 GM for the range (the 16-35 Zeiss was just not sharp in the corners at any aperture), but I like the Tamron 20-40 range even better. Mostly for landscape and astro. Wondering how much IQ I would be giving up with Tamron. I would love to see a 16-35 GM and 20-40 comparison. You could throw in the 16-35 PZ too, which would be great for landscape, but not so much for astro. In the end, I’m considering going with 20-40 and 35-150, in place of the 16-35 GM and 24-105 G I currently use. Of course, this would cause me to lug around about 7 oz more weight (not including the extra $300 in my pocket).
I'm using 35-150 and zeiss 16-35 f4. Planning to swap out the 16-35 for 20-40 to make a full tamron bundle. However I'm afraid I will miss the 16mm end.
@@shem44 check out the Sony 16-35 PZ G. While the Zeiss lens just did not cut it for sharpness (for me), I understand the 16-35 PZ is as good as the GM for sharpness.
I just received this lens from Amplis Photo ( great service!) as it shipped much earlier than expected. I haven't had a chance to do much with the lens yet but from what I can see I am really going to enjoy using it. The build quality is the best I have seen from Tamron to date. The lens feels dense for its 365 grams but is nicely balanced on the A7C; it feels better in use than the 17-28 which I always felt was front heavy. I have already updated the firmware to Version 2 so have used the Tamron Lens Utility and was impressed. I only wish that my 28- 200 had the same build and features as this newer lens. Well done Tamron! Thanks again, Dustin for all your hard work and a very happy New Year to all the Abbotts!
Excellent review video of this lens. I guess my dilemma is, would you rather have and use this lens over both the Sony FE 40mm f/2.5 G and Sony 24mm f/2.8 G, and not have to deal with the lens switching with those primes… or does the compactness and image quality from those primes out perform the Tamron lens… price notwithstanding
Wondering why this lens couldnt be an F2.0 like the starting aperature of the Tamron 35-150. Would it make it that much bigger? I have not received my 35-150 yet, but it seems this 20-40 might be a good complement
I will definetly try out this lens , because probably this focal range suits the most my portraiture style nowadays ...cuz im in love with editorial look with some distortion and first i was trying out with 24mm GM first but that was a bit pricy and sometimes when i wanted to go wider but havent got the space i used 16-35 for it ,but i found out everything less than 20 mm is distracting even in this little surrealistic style of portraiture and 16-35gm is also pricy for me... so i went for a little less wide 17-28 Tamron but i missed the 35mm from Sony ...so this Tamron 20-40mm looks like a golden way for me :D
As a cat owner my condolences on your loss of Loki. I wish you a good start with Nala. As a professional photographer thank you for your reviews. One of the best. All the best wishes to you from Stuttgart.
I was curious about how they would make a zoom lens of their semi macro primes in this range. The primes have the magnification & are very sharp + much more distortion which has now become standard for most compact primes. The zooms have a better af motor as they don't have to give the magnification. I also found the primes had slightly better light transmission. There is such a range that Tamron is now offering in terms of mixing and matching. All the best for your deep processes.
Dustin, thanks for the review. I am using Sony 10-18mm f4 and Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 on my 6400. I always want something similar to 16-35mm full frame range but there is never a lens with same zoom range for APSC. This range (14-28mm APSC) is perfect to me. Manufacturers, please make a zoom for APSC that is wider than 16mm and tighter than 24mm.
Thank you for another detailed review! All looks promising, nicely surprised with its IQ at wider end and all focal length in smaller aperture. Maybe pair it with 50-400 makes the ultimate lightweight travel kit? A Two lens combo covers 20 to 600 (with apsc mode) starting with a f/2.8 and total weight of 1.5kg. That's incredible.
Hi Dustin, just a quick update and a thank you! I just ordered this lens plus the Tamron 70-300 from Amplis Foto and used your 5% discount code! I was wavering but rereading your text review convinced me that the 20/ 40 will be a good complementary travel lens and the 70/ 300 will be a good light telephoto for my A7C; the Black Friday pricing made me pull the trigger! I hope that my photos will try to live up to some of your stunning examples!
Thanks for the thorough review. It's given me the confidence to get this to replace my 17-28. It'll be a better fit at close range on dance floors at private events. Previously, I had the 17-28 on one body and a 35 on a second body, but in the frenzy two cameras is dicey. This also looks like a better complement to my 35-150 for event work and a new 50-300 for walkabout (thanks for that review, too!).
Ordered my Tamron 20-40mm f/2.8 Di III VXD and will receive it on the first of November. I already have the older 17-28 Tamron which is an awesome lens, but often miss the longer reach. This new lens will definitely complement my amazing Tamron 35-150 f/2-2.8 lens which is my all time favorite for my Sony A7IV! I like my Sigma’s, but Love my Tamrons!!!
The IQ is a bit better from what I’ve seen so far. The VXD autofocus alone is worth the upgrade, extremely fast for photo and video shooting. I did sell the 17-28 for the 20-40 and never looked back! Flare is well controlled as well.
@@rickt.8866 Viewing from reviews (look also the digitalpictures image comparison) It seems very less sharper. Also in Dustin review It seems not so Sharp in midframe at 40 mm. Are you sure? I'd like to replace both 17-28 and Samy 45 1.8 with this 20-40. I don't know if do It or no
Dustin I always really like your reviews.. You do the best reviews on RU-vid ... You do cover the cameras and lenses very well .. I always trust what you think about all things that you cover .... Keep doing the excellent job that you are doing. Best wishes .. 😊
Thanks for the introduction. I have a question about the USB port. You said the port is sealed. I suspect the seal is inside the lens. Is there a cap that can be slipped off the USB port. An additional seal would be great. If you own a Canon R7, I would be happy if you test the Sigma 18-35 and 50-100 1.8. Unfortunately, there are too few RF lenses.
I've got the 24 1.4 GM, but now I am so torn between getting the 16-35 F4 PZ, or this new Tamron 20-40 to pair with....argh! Good problems to have though, glad to see Tamron pushing the creativity
Michael I have the 24mm GM and had this same decision. Depends on what exactly you are doing with the lens and your kit, but I went with the Tamron. I always look for value and function and try to balance. Not a pro, this is a passionate hobby and I use it on at the A7C in studio (A74 with the 24mm GM) to use as a two lens studio setup. I also find this to work nice with either, for a vlogging lens (20mm being better than 24mm).
@@GuitarRJP Cheers Rob, I ended up going with the 16-35 PZ, picking it up this weekend actually. My reason being that the 16-35 is a better range for me, especially as I can put a 15 stop ND on it and get some really cool ultra wide long exposure photos. When it gets darker, I can use my 24 1.4 instead. But, any choice of the 16-28 Sigma, the 16-35 pz, or 20-40 tamron is probably pretty good!
@@starskymedia Michael, yes, I can see how that 16 would come in handy. My current use for the Tamron 20-40 is in my home studio on the B cam. I am using the 24mm GM on the Sony A74 as the A cam, and I have the A7C on an angle and a little closer.
Nice review, thanks. I just got this lens and really like it (particularly having the slightly wider range I've not had previously). It being fully extended at 20mm and retracted at 40mm will take some getting use to.
As always, a big thank you for your excellent detailed review. Always super helpful! I was on the fence on this one as I have the 24G and 40G, both of which I like but I don't tend to like to change lenses when I'm out. So was considering this one to cover both focal lengths, was just worried about the IQ of this lens.
Mm. Considering this for walk-around photography. I’d pair it with an 85mm F/1.8.. either that or the Sigma 28-70mm (not the tamron G2 because I love how small the sigma is) and a Tamron 17-28 eventually. I’m torn, because this lens is an incredible performer and very impressively small and light. The tamron 28-75 is a bit too big for me, and I think I’d rather sacrifice some of its sharpness for the smaller size of the 28-70. Not sure.. but this 20-40 is a very interesting and intriguing option for a premium walk around lens.
Dustin, thank you for the review. I am a big fan of your reviews and your presentation. I was waiting for your word on this lens before I let go of my 17-28. Losing 3mm on the short end is not a huge deal but gaining 12mm on the long end makes this a better one lens walk around option. I shot some interiors for a broadcast client. 17mm was not wide enough so I borrowed my friend's Sigma 14-24. Even that was not wide enough. So I guess for extreme and occassional situations I can rent a Sony 12-24.
Hi Boris, I am of the same mindset as you and am looking forward to getting my hands on this lens! I share those same 17-28 limitation frustrations. As you know I will be pairing this lens with the 28-200 for traveling and with the 85f1.8 (or the 55 f1.8) for a more compact 'city' kit. Cheers!
@@chryseass.5143 Hi Chryseas, I like the 28-200 option with a prime or two. I borrowed my cousin's Sigma 85 f1.4 and I am blown away by the image quality. However, my 70-180 easily matched the Sigma in quality even wide open. I think as landscape photographers, we may have different kits. 20-40 with a 28-200 for a compact travel set and the 20-40 with a 50-400 for a heavier kit with longer reach. So many choices. Tamron you rock and suck at the same time for giving us so many choices!!! The ultimate landscape kit may be the 20-40 with a 24-120 f4 once Tamron gets around to making one! If I had to take one lens on a city walk, the 20-40 fits the bill perfectly. I can go to APSc mode on my A7RIV and get a 60mm f2.8 lens for even longer reach.
@@boristahmasian9604 I think that the 20-40 could almost be considered as a kit lens replacement! It will be intriguing to use it in APS-C mode as well, making it a truly useful walkaround one lens solution especially on my A7C. I think that we will have a lot more reviews about this lens to digest very soon. See you there!
@@davidligon6088 Hi David, I have thought about that too. I have the 70-180 already and use it for the long shots where I need the ultimate quality. I think the 35-150 would be a perfect replacement for my 70-180. However, I want to address the short end first. The 17-28 I have is fine and sharp enough, I just think the 20-40 is a better fit for my landscape work. My lens line up will change based on the photography I have done in the past 6 months and the 20-40 is the latest must have lens!!
It really hurt, particularly after a season where just a few weeks before I had lost my dad and had to put down our dog...and my little girl left to go to university 6 hours away. Not a fun time.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Holy cow that's a lot! My heart goes out to you and your family. You share so much in your channel. I wish you all the best for this Christmas dude.
@DustinAbbottTWI Dustin, thank you for sharing your challenges with us. Your loss touches me deeply. I pray for those you hold dear, but are now gone from your life. I send my condolences to you. May their blessings bring peace to you this Christmas.
Thank you very much for your video, very informative. this lens is great to take along with the 70-180 f2.8 and with that you have more than enough. For me, a better combo than a 28-75 + 70-180 You lose the space from 40 to 70 millimeters, but by moving your feet you have it solved, instead having those 20mm and reaching 40, for those of us who usually do landscape more than anything, is a great focal length
Great review, and I'm surprised this lens isn't getting more attention. I'm a Nikon Z shooter and will be adding this lens to my bag with the megadapV2. The Nikon primes are too long to be portable, and only the 20/85 really stand out. I just wasn't a fan of the 14-30. This lens, the 24-120F4S, and Sigma 100-400 HSM cover just about everything. I'm going to try the Tamron 70-180 because it pairs so well with this lens. I hope they both get Tamrikon'd. ;) I had tried the 20 Ferrin as well, but didn't care for it. I also have the Sony 15f1.4G for my Z30/Z50.
This is the 3rd online review I have seen so far on the is lens and it's the first very positive one, the previous two reviews I saw showing the lens is not that sharp at all even the center, so perhaps some copy variation there.
Hello Dustin, could you please give me advice on which one to choose: 16-35 pz or 20-40 2.8? Main purpose is street and landscape photography. Thanks in advance
Hi Dustin, have you found it to be a bit slower in AF-S than in AF-C? I've been using mine in AF-S, with either center or spot S focus areas, and it feels a bit slow, comparing to AF-C, which is rather frustrating. Still trying to find a fix for this...
I’m sorry to hear about Loki. We lost our family dog to coyotes in our back yard (with a 6 foot fence in northern San Diego) last winter. Nala is exceptionally cute!
I'm not sure I'd make that move unless you are missing the space in between those two focal lengths. The Samyang is a special little lens, and it is going to be comparatively sharper.
@@DustinAbbottTWI thanks for your time, it's not only for the missing space between the two focal lengths, but in family trekking i need to change often between the two. So this could be the right choice about the focal length. What i'm worry is flare (the 17-28 hasn't flare) and sharpness. Samyang 45 has (as you say)its own special character.
Another interesting lens from Tamron. Is there any reason why the release is confined to the Sony E mount. If anyone could access Tamron's Annual Reports for the last few years', it would be interesting to discover the significant financial resources that must have been devoted to R and D, given the wave of excellent lens released over a relatively short period. Also, what would presumably a significant increase in revenue would be of interest.
@@Donbros I bet that's all depends on which focal length is more important for you, I personally use 35mm way more than 16mm so for me it's very obvious choice if both lens has the same optic quality. but I am not in the market for a zoom, I am prime lens shooting when it comes this focal range.
For the first time i disagree with your opinion between 20-40 and 17-28 from what you show. I prefer my 17-28 also for its internal zoom, better for my gimbal. There is less distortion in the 17-28, also some reviewers have talked about focus issues during zoom with the 20-40. I prefer the 17-28.
Thank you for yet another well-done review. Still debating between that lens, and the Sony PZ 16-35 f/4. I do mostly stills, but video at times. My hesitation is f/4 vs f/2.8, not for low light (the A74 has great high ISO) but more for a shallower DoF.
I chose the 16-35 PZ over waiting for this lens (and primarily over the Sigma 16-28 f2.8) and I can tell ya that the f4 was not limiting at all (vs f2.8); even shot at a wedding reception with it (stills) and it performed very well. I find myself reaching for wider apertures than 2.8 for low light or shallow DoF anyway, and that Sony 16-35 blows this Tamron out of the water optically, especially at the long end where it's not even in the same league. To be fair though, the Tamron is nearly half the price.
Just heard that Sony will soon release the 20-70mm f4 G on January 17th. Wonder how that lens will compare to this? F2.8 vs f4… 40mm vs 70mm. Size and price. Should be an interesting comparison.
I love my 20-40 and Thanks for the memories of my childhood currency. Deutsche Mark notes have been so harmonic and beautiful. Euros are as soulless as the EU.
Great review! But if I hadn't already got the excellent Sigma 16-28mm f/2.8 I would still go with it over this lens. Very strange zoom range, for me the Sigma's internal zooming and the extra 4mm on the wide end are the selling points. On a wide angle zoom 40mm is not needed that is what my feet or 24-70mm is for, just my thoughts...
It isn't available in-store, yet, and Tamron is working hard to stabilize pricing around the globe. Hoping this situation improves after the release date.
@@joeteton9099 oh cheers that's good to know, Amazon have pretty brutal import taxes to Europe over ~€150 but it's definitely worth checking out. At this kind of price it'd be cheaper to fly there and collect it myself from an Amazon dropoff point 😁
I bought the 17-28 when it was released for 999 € because at the time of the release there was the strange situation of it having an MSRP of 1.300 €, but being available for preorder for 999 €. It fairly quickly dropped lower than that preorder price afterwards, never going to the MSRP. I suggest to wait a bit, the Tamron lenses do not seem to be that stable in value over the first couple of months and are often bundled with camera bodies for nice prices. I regret buying both the 17-28 and the 28-75 right at release.
Please go through your videos and correct the time stamps. I’m losing track of how many times I click your time stamps to go to the chapters I want, only to find that the times are completely wrong.
