My trouble with these lenses: 1. The common 67mm filter thread is silly. A step-up ring or two can be had for $5 and if carrying around multiple lenses, this would significantly cut down on size or you might be able to bring an extra lens or two. 2. The aperture is just too small to warrant a prime lens. Usable? Absolutely. But I see little reason to buy a set of 2.8 primes when a single 2.8 zoom lens could replace them all. IMHO, a prime (excluding extremes on the wide/tele ends) needs to be f2 or brighter.
I don't disagree on these points (though having a common filter size is a big plus in many situations and also a common diameter for gearing can be important for video people). The smaller aperture is a bigger issue, however, though frankly I find it a bigger deal on the 35mm than either the 24mm or 28mm lenses. The redeeming factor is the 1:2 magnification, which no zoom offers. If you don't need that, however, a zoom like the 17-28mm is a compelling alternative.
@@DustinAbbottTWI It would be useful to see an IQ comparison between this lens and the excellent 17-28mm zoom at 24mm. I'm struggling to see if there's much to be gained by using this prime compared to the zoom?
@@DustinAbbottTWI I have a sneaking suspicion that rather few people will regularly make use of the 1:2 macro capabilities of such wide angle lenses (slightly more believable with the 35). Though if thinking of wide macro lenses, Laowa makes a 15mm f4 lens that does 1:1 macro AND has some limited shift functionality. While I am certainly not everyone, personally I prefer the greater compression and working distance that a longer macro provides. I am still working with my Canon 100mm 2.8 L but I can't imagine wanting anything shorter than 65mm outside of perhaps exceptionally specific circumstances. For those rare situations, there are always inexpensive extension tubes that do well enough or if a gear-o-holic like me, 4x5 monorail view camera & a P65+ digital back.
Excellent, critical review. Positive in the areas of interest to me: landscape and close-up shooting. The af inaccuracy up close is not a great concern because I usually take my time with these sorts of shots and even shoot on a tripod at times. And, I don't shoot video--clearly the weak link here. I do expect a z mount release at some point but the proliferation of third party e mount releases is a point in favor of Sony. Maybe a reason Sony is beginning to dominate the ils business.
They have definitely grabbed the major market share and seem to have the momentum right now. Both Canon and Nikon still have some serious holes to address either in function or in lens selection.
Excellent review as always, waiting on part two. Great way to look at lenses and their behaviour. Kudos. Keep the great work, best there is. I would really like to see product shots in studio with this lens if you can fit it in part two, that's just a wish, thanks anyway. Best regards
Hi Dustin, really excellent review! Nice image quality! The lens reminds me of the former Tamron Adaptall 2 series. Best wishes from nearby Stuttgart, Germany, Magnetron
I did a review of this lens as well and had fun using this! Not the best but very versatile. For its price it is nice if you are on a tight budget. Waiting for the 20mm to be released soon!
Personally I'm on the side of keeping the lenses bigger. I get that mirrorless is "supposed" to be smaller than DSLRs, but there's a certain point where chasing size becomes ridiculous. The (overpriced) Sony 35mm f/2.8 is _tiny,_ and the Samyang 35mm f/2.8 is somehow even smaller than that. Good on Tamron for not going as far as either of those.
To be honest, I fully understand your point but I don't agree with it. I have an a850 ff + 80-200mm f2.8 love the combo. Still love my a7ii with both 135mm Samyang f2 and 45mm F1.8 (excellent portable kit the latter one) and still interested in 35mm 2.8 Samyang even if optically it's not really that good, it is really portable and good enough for casual photo dinner and street photo even at f2.8. So for me, very small for low key applications and always on you is excellent even if not top quality and full heavy kit is a joy to use fully pro max quality results. My two cents
@@luisfilipelopes2900 While sacrificing proper hand-holding while shooting unless you don't mind shooting one-handed. My hands are really big, so I end up hating super small lenses. I get that they have their uses, but small just for the sake of being small gets annoying to me after a little while.
Excellent review and looking forward to Part II. How do the image quality of 24mm and 35mm primes compare with the 17-35mm and 28-75mm 2.8 zooms at the same focal lengths? Thanks a lot!!
They are less than half the size and weight of the 17-28mm zoom, which itself is already considered small and light for a wide angle, wide aperture zoom.
Not that I recall, but I've reviewed dozens of lenses since this one, so my memory may not cover it. I would have noted that in my reviews if I had seen it, though.
I like taking landscape photos mostly, using a Sony A7 with my old Minolta manual focus lenses with mixed results. I realize the sensor tech is dated but am wondering if I can improve my results (very sharp, good contrast etc) with a trio of Tamron 20mm, 24mm and 35mm lenses, or would it be better to invest a bit more money and buy the Sony 16-35 f/4 ZA OSS lens. I assume the primes would be sharper but have watched video reviews that make the 16-35 sound excellent. I am retired so buying a newer camera is out.
I would try one of them in your preferred focal length to see if you are getting the results you are looking for. If you aren't, then start saving towards the new camera!
Hi Dustin, thanks for reviewing these Tamron lenses. I wonder between this and the Loxia 25/2.4, which has better 'something special'? Comparing your picture, am I right in saying that Loxia has that over Tamron? Or is it just the difference between reviewing during spring and winter? :-)
No one has bought the 20mm yet, as it hasn't been released. If I were to buy one, actually, it would most likely be the 20mm. That's a great focal length for landscapes, and the aperture is not really a disadvantage at 20mm
@@DustinAbbottTWI But isn't that covered already in their own zoom? Is this prime any better than the zoom? Otherwise, I am curious about why people will buy such slow primes? If I need macro, I will buy a macro lens.
For me both the 20mm and the 24mm are excellent options. First I prefer to work when possible with fixed lenses, you get deeper knowledge of the lens attributes and what they do. Second, go find a macro lens this wide and you will find none. I believe that for product photography it would be a welcome addition as in will give your work different perspective. Also zooms tend to focus further than my liking. There are exceptions, but these are me thoughts. I'm definitely try to buy the 24mm as soon as possible
But why 2.8? I have the 28-75mm why would I need this Dustin? No interest at all on their recent release of primes. Great review as always none the less Dustin.
Seems to be a very good lens for the money with, judging by the examples here, what will surely prove to be high IQ when you test later. As for focussing, firstly I seem to remember that the 28-75mm lens had hunting issues in video and/or AF-C until a firmware update and secondly, with the missed focus shot at mid-range, I wonder how you've set up AF Priority - AF, Release, or Balanced Emphasis? This might make a difference when testing.
One day somebody will shoot this 24mm on an apsc Sony and provide a video of such a feat, perhaps even a comparison with the Sony Zeiss 24mm f/1.8. I look forward to that day.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Thanks. I was wondering if the front element protrudes during autofocus, like the Sony 50mm Macro lens does? I take your answer to mean that this Macro lens doesn't do that.
if you need to update theses lenses, do you need a docking station like samyang or is it possible to use the camera plugged in USB ? Thx for the great review!
@@Doudoudelamotte1902 Samyang has their own docking station because they are not officially supported lenses on the Sony platform. Tamron on the other hand has a very close relationship with Sony (Sony also owns a considerable chunk of Tamron)
@@DustinAbbottTWI And you are astute to know your audience and their preferences which has a lot to do with helping out both education and choices in new products. In my situation, with a company like Tamron, they are not shy about putting out good glass for a number of brands. So, your reviews can speak to the day they come out with something in this lens for the Pana-Oly types....like myself :) Thank you for the extra mile you go!
Excellent review, thank you, nothing can be worse than the samyang 24mm f2.8 which not only is just terrible at focus but it's image quality is shocking so for me this is definitely a upgrade from the samyang 24mm! 📷😉
I may have a good copy of Samyang, but I'm spared of all the horrors that you described here. For me this lens from Tamron is no go due to it's size, which is very big for such mediocre aperture.
10 years ago you buy Tamron if you don't have money for the real stuff. Nowadays I can work as professional photographer/videographer with third-party lenses only.
By any chance you can do your review in about 15 min, the full review, rather than multiple parts. Your reviews are great, it’s just too long, don’t have time to watch it all.
Hi Sam, I've had the same internal debate, but whenever I've polled my audience the overwhelming response is that they prefer my thorough process. There are many people that give quick, shallow reviews, but few that give thorough, well-documented ones. I fall into the latter category.
Dustin Abbott the focusing motor is old tech. Samyang/Rokinon’s 24 & 35 2.8 have a better (more advanced) motor and its cheaper in price...plus more compact
Tamron had the chance to make something gorgeous in look and making like fuji f2 lenses, instead they made these super generic looking, boxy, fat, uninspiringly designed lenses.
@@DustinAbbottTWI yeah, true, but they also could have done better than this, the 67 mm obsession is unnecessary and making these lenses smaller, along with adding an aperture ring, like the sigma 45, in my opinion would have made a lot more buyers interested in them as how much uniquely different they'd have been than other lenses of the Sony world.
