DSLRUsers.com

IF this baby is anywhere near as good as the old one...Tamron has hit a the jackpot.

http://www.tamron.com/lenses/prod/1750_vc_b005.asp

Now all we need from Tamron (wishful thinking) is fast AF and VC going into the rest of their lineup (28-70, 70-200)

doesn't tamron have some sort of affiliation with sony ? they're doing a great job in completely destroying sony's in body IS advantage. great move from tamron. i also noticed that all of canons latest releases were IS aswell. great news.

Rooz wrote:doesn't tamron have some sort of affiliation with sony ? they're doing a great job in completely destroying sony's in body IS advantage. great move from tamron. i also noticed that all of canons latest releases were IS aswell. great news.

Hmm now that you mention it...when I first say Sony's 18-250 and 11-18 i thought they looked suspiciously Tamron in spec (never bothered about looking at optical formula though).

to Tamron for this release as it will really put the pressure and tighten up the market for a lot of people

EDIT: just checked....SAL1118 really does look like the SP11-18
http://www.cameralabs.com/lenses/Sony/Sony_wide-angle_zoom_lenses/Latest_Sony_wide-angle_zoom_lenses.shtml#sony1118
http://www.tamron.com/lenses/prod/11_18mm.asp
as does the SAL18250 and the Tamron 18-250
http://www.cameralabs.com/lenses/Sony/Sony_DT_lenses/Latest_Sony_DT_lenses.shtml#sony18250
http://www.tamron.com/lenses/prod/18250_diII.asp
and the SAL18200 and the Tamron 18-200
http://www.cameralabs.com/lenses/Sony/Sony_DT_lenses/Latest_Sony_DT_lenses.shtml#sony18200
http://www.tamron.com/lenses/prod/18200_diII.asp

Other than small weight difference (usually no more than 10gms) all of these lenses share the same number of elements/groups, aperture blades as well as the same miniumum focal distance.

yeah thats what i meant, the "new" sony 28-75 is also basically a tamron lens. thats why i thought there was a direct connection.

Oh well...I will happily take a Tamron with a Nikon F-mount over a Sony SAL rebadged Tamron....even if I was the end consumer with a Alpha body I would probably choose to save the money and grab the Tamron badged lens (with the added cosmetic bonus...I find Sony lenses are a bit ugly looking )

I didn't realise that the Tamron 17-50 had better IQ than it's Nikon or Canon equivalents? Or is it not? [Forget the price ]

surenj wrote:I didn't realise that the Tamron 17-50 had better IQ than it's Nikon or Canon equivalents?

it doesnt. its just lighter, smaller, cheaper and now...stabilised.

Rooz wrote:

surenj wrote:I didn't realise that the Tamron 17-50 had better IQ than it's Nikon or Canon equivalents?

it doesnt. its just lighter, smaller, cheaper and now...stabilised.

It was funny reading the Nikon Rumors site regarding IQ with parties having completely conflicting ideas about how well the Tamron stacks up in terms of IQ....

Bit of a noob question...but can someone please explain to me what exactly this 'IQ' is in relation to? Focus accuracy??

aim54x wrote:
Bit of a noob question...but can someone please explain to me what exactly this 'IQ' is in relation to? Focus accuracy??

IQ is anything related to image quality. sharpness, bokeh, vigetting, CA, contrast, colour...the whole box and dice. i wouldnt personally put AF into the mix but i dont think there's any hard and fast rule.

its close, yes. no doubt; but its not equal to the 17-55, let alone the 24-70. basically all the NR fanboys do is look at MTF charts. an improtant part of lens perforamnce sure, but its not everything.

Dont I feel like an idiot now? Hmmmm it just brings another thread about abbreviations into mind....well I guess I now know what they mean by 'IQ'.

In my opinion...there is a huge gap between the A16N and the AF-S 24-70 but I cannot pass a judgement on the AF-S 17-55 as I dont own that lens.