Hi Austin, great review and fantastic samples. I agree this lens and the 17-28 make a great landscape package. The combo weights almost nothing. It is hard to believe that the image quality can be this good from such lightweight lenses. Kudos to Tamron and Sony for giving us medium format quality in a small FF body. I have the 17-28 already and had the 28-200 for a few days a couple of years ago. One of my all time favorite images was shot using the 28-200 at 28mm shot wide open. For my two lens landscape work, I opted for the 17-28 and the 50-400. It is a little heavier combo but gives me far more reach and macro capability. I was at Zion in December and again in January and got really nice images at 17mm and 400mm and focal lengths in between mostly on the 50-400 lens. I have to borrow the 28-200 and give it another go. I may replace my 50-400 with the 28-200!
@@AustinJamesJackson It is heavier for sure but the extra reach on the long end and macro like capabilities are fantastic. You will love it. I let me 70-300 and and 150-500 go in favor of the 50-400. My Zion trip shots confirmed that I made the right decision. BTW, I shoot with a Sony A7RIV and love the image quality.
I love my Tamron 35-150 f/2-2.8 but it is heavier than this lens with less range but I suspect the clarity on a A7RIV or A7RV would be noticable between the 2 lenses. True you're not shooting wide open but why not go wider like the Laowa 10mm?
Hi I'm a baby in terms of understanding this so I'm just going to ask my questions. Assume that weight and size don't matter for my purposes. Let's say that multiple lenses are not much of a factor but should be considered. No one wants to lug 5-7 lenses in a pack on a hike. But maybe 3 or so are fine. Let's also leave price as a factor that's limiting but not necessarily the most limiting. Also assume that we're not talking about primes. Questions: What does getting the top Sony GM lenses or Zeiss lenses which cover the same range get me over the Tamron? If I could afford the Sony or Zeiss lenses and I didn't care much about the weight, why would I want to consider Tamron? Thank you for putting up with my noob questions.
Potentially just the versatile ranges. You'll get the best picture quality with G master but they are pricey. What will you be photographing? I love the Tamron 35-150mm f/2-2.8 and for wider the 16-35mm Zeiss is okay but G master depending on your uses will be better.
Bokeh: Check out the type of bokeh each lenses produce and choose accordingly. Sharpness: They're all sharp enough for most professional work. If you're printing huge and large(as in Billboards), you might want the Sonies and the likes. Else you don't need that level of sharpness Chromatic aberrations(of various kinds): Newer lenses are more or less optically perfect, and even if they aren't, the aberrations can be corrected in post. Sometimes they're not even noticeable. There's No guarantee that higher end lenses produce zero aberrations. Each lens come with their perks and you'll need to research them individually to know which does what As a timelapse photographer who hikes a lot, I use mostly a range of between 20 to 150 mm. Occasionally if I'm doing Birding, I use a 150-600. Most landscapes I shoot on F8 or above. Occasionally I'll do other stuffs like portrait or event, only then I may need faster lenses such as F1.8/F2.8/F4. On those occasions I also do not need to go more than 150mm At the end of the day it depends on you, but my suggestion is the more budget-friendly lenses do most of the jobs well. Specially the newer ones. And do your research before buying. And know what you want to achieve
@@looptimelapse Is "3D pop" actually a factor in lenses? Some people I've listened to say it's definitely a characteristic of lenses and some brands are better than others. They tend to emphasize vintage lenses and particular manufacturers. Then others say that vintage lenses focus more on the center of the lens and the outsides will be darker and that's giving some people the appearance of 3D pop when it's not actually present. They say you create the 3D pop in composition, adjusting the camera (the triangle) and it's not the lens. Kind of like bokeh or toneh is not just from f1.4 or lower aperture lenses, but you can get it with compression at higher apertures and you don't have to have that really low aperture.
@@iamionscat9035 i'm not sure about 3D pop tbh i've never taken it into consideration. I usually 'pop' my subject out in post(i.e editing the subject and background seperately as 2 different layers ..but again I shoot mostly landscape so i'm not an expert on Portrait) Vintage lenses are great, usually either because of their bokey quality and characteristics, or because of the lenses flaws which add character to your image. Matter of fact one of the Batman movies was shot using high end cameras mounted with a 1970 Russian lens(look it up) Your questions are all legit before you spend the big bucks. And the more you dig the more you have to dig lol What helped me back in the days were choosing like 3 of the best creators that I personally like. Study their work, buy their courses, basically immitate them. Gradually then find your own style
