Posts: 8,004
Threads: 1,851
Joined: Apr 2010
Reputation:
49
Yes, probably in X-mount (I'm doing so many tests in E-mount ...)
Chief Editor - opticallimits.com
Doing all things Canon, MFT, Sony and Fuji
Posts: 3,125
Threads: 34
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation:
21
10-16-2023, 05:08 AM
(This post was last modified: 10-16-2023, 05:11 AM by Rover.)
I guess the old days when you would test the same (third-party) lens models in up to 3 (I thought even 4, but apparently I was wring...) different mounts are gone now.  Ditto testing FF lenses on APS-C.
Posts: 8,004
Threads: 1,851
Joined: Apr 2010
Reputation:
49
I think Markus has checked the Z stuff on APS-C.
Generally, the FF borders are an indicator for the APS-C corners.
As far as testing on multiple systems goes - budget constraints ...
Chief Editor - opticallimits.com
Doing all things Canon, MFT, Sony and Fuji
Posts: 3,125
Threads: 34
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation:
21
I understand. Anything new in the pipeline you would want to unveil? 
Posts: 8,004
Threads: 1,851
Joined: Apr 2010
Reputation:
49
Other than the 10-18mm, I'm trying to get my hands on the Tammy 17-50mm.
But I still have to write 3 reviews based on existing lab tests, anyway.
Chief Editor - opticallimits.com
Doing all things Canon, MFT, Sony and Fuji
Posts: 3,125
Threads: 34
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation:
21
10-16-2023, 12:44 PM
(This post was last modified: 10-16-2023, 12:45 PM by Rover.)
Woohoo, the Tamron 17-50 is exciting. So is the 50-400 - I think if both are ever released in Z-mount, I could just get these and finally leave the Canon gear behind. Would probably be a killer 2-lens solution.
Posts: 2,724
Threads: 595
Joined: Apr 2010
Reputation:
15
(10-16-2023, 12:44 PM)Rover Wrote: Woohoo, the Tamron 17-50 is exciting. So is the 50-400 - I think if both are ever released in Z-mount, I could just get these and finally leave the Canon gear behind. Would probably be a killer 2-lens solution.
On paper yes for the first months at least, however superzooms like 50-400 tend to deteriorate rapidly, with a few exceptions like Canon 28-300.
I know a friend of mine who had Tamron 28-300, he was happy with it the first months then recurrent problems started arising.
Don't expect a durability and reliability like on Canon 16-35f4, in your shoes I would stick to Canon 16-35f4 rather than going Tamron 17-50
Posts: 8,004
Threads: 1,851
Joined: Apr 2010
Reputation:
49
So far, I haven't tested the 50-400mm because I don't understand its purpose.
* at 50mm, it's too slow to make it useful
* it overlaps with a lot of standard zoom lenses at the wide end - and even with the 17-50mm, you aren't really "required" to fill the gap compared to a conventional 100-xxx.
* 400mm isn't long enough
* it's excessively expensive for what it is. Where I live, both the Tam 150-500mm as well as Sigma 150-600mm Sports are much more affordable. And if I had a choice between 400mm and 500/600mm for less money, I would know what to choose, really. And the Sigma 100-400mm is almost half the price.
The 50-400mm could make more sense in X-mount, maybe. But the value props remain questionable, IMHO.
It doesn't seem to gain lots of traction in terms of sales volume either.
Chief Editor - opticallimits.com
Doing all things Canon, MFT, Sony and Fuji
Posts: 3,125
Threads: 34
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation:
21
Well take my word for it... I now prefer the 100-400 over the 70-200 (especially on full frame), and coupling it with a wide zoom like the 16-35 I have, or indeed the 17-50, would allow me to lessen the gap which is now quite large (35-100, although switching to DX mode and Large file size allows me to narrow it somewhat without loosing too much resolution) whenever I'm carrying just two lenses.
17-50 and 50-400 would've been a good native solution for me. Inasmuch I've checked on the interwebs, the 50-400 has gained mostly favourable reviews. Of course if I really choose to go full native, I'll have to procure some large aperture options as well because f/4 and f/4.5-6.3 isn't terribly fast by any stretch of the imagination...
|
