About $30 more expensive than current grey stock and digi directs March specials. Great lens as an every day lens to carry on your body. Pretty confident the price has been reduced since the special started as I originally disregarded it as being too expensive.
Personally I'm still hunting for the Sigma but I'm mighty tempted to grab this for the time being.
Very true guess it comes down to your primary purpose. I'm eyeing this off a little more intently now due to the minimum focus distance aswell
Good price very tempting hut already have 16-35 fe ahhhh
Very different FL range. The Tamron is still too long for any wide-angle situations.
I've got this. love it. the 4mm difference on the wide end isn't a deal breaker unless you're shooting real estate. other times, just take a step back and you're sorted. I got this when it first came out, have always been a prime lens guy but now this lives on my sony a7iii.
It is one of the most fantastic lenses available for Sony!
Tack sharp images at an affordable price!
Highly recommended!
Tempted to sell my Sony 24-70mm f4 and grab this. Any thoughts? I've got the 16-35mm
I will also vouch for this lens. It’s on my A7iii 90% of the time. Like everyone mentioned 28mm is not enough in some situations. If you’re hiking or travelling and want to get some selfie’s, 28mm doesn’t cut it, it is too tight and you don’t see any of the background.
It’s sharp, auto focus is fast, colours are nice, it’s light (comparatively of course), cheap (comparatively). If I had to take one lens with me, this is the one.
Would you guys recommend this over the tamron 28-200?
Get the 28-200 only if you absolutely need (and frequently use) FLs beyond 75mm. Superzooms usually offer very wide FL range at the expense of sharpness and speed.
If the aperture is a constant 2.8, wouldn't there always be softness in the background? Good for bokeh, but what if you want an in focus photo?
I think you are confusing shallow DOF/bokeh with general softness here.
The 28-200 is only F2.8 at 28mm. The aperture increases with focal length:
https://petapixel.com/2020/06/19/tamron-28-200mm-first-look-…
@orly: 2.8 is its minimum (or max depending on pov) aperture at all zoom lengths. Can always increase it to 8 or whatever for landscape
@orly: As pei mentioned, the 28-75 is able to maintain a minimum aperture of 2.8 at any focal length (you can increase it to F8, F16, etc.).
The 28-200 and many other zooms can't maintain their minimum aperture as you zoom in, hence the term variable aperture.
I got the 28-200.
There are a few YouTube reviews comparing the 28-75, 70-180mm and 28-200.
The conclusion was that the 28-200 is a great all rounder lens and will be enough for most people (like myself will use mostly for hiking and travelling) but if you have specific needs, having both the 28-75 and 70-180 is better.
Any deal on the 17-28 F2.8? Kinda tempted to get it to replace my current 16-35 F4 (good idea?).
i have this lens and its fantastic
It might not seem like much but 24mm is a big difference if you need to be able to fit some basic cityscape or landscape.
Of course you could always just pick up the sigma 20 or something and it would do a better job…
Either way great price for a decent performer I loved the old 28-75 A-Mount lens