[normhead]

The chart for the DA 35 2.4.... looks really good, one of the best plastic fantastics....


The DA 50 1.8 from the same period in Pentax times.


If there is a difference in designing either a 50 or a 35, it doesn't show up much in actual Pentax performance. IMHO differences of less than 200 lw/ph will be barely noticeable.

[house]

The chart for the DA 35 2.4.... looks really good, one of the best plastic fantastics....


The DA 50 1.8 from the same period in Pentax times.


If there is a difference in designing either a 50 or a 35, it doesn't show up much in actual Pentax performance. IMHO differences of less than 200 lw/ph will be barely noticeable.

Looks like you're trying to prove lens rentals correct?

As a general rule, the wider the lens, the more the MTF falls off away from center.

[normhead]

Looks like you're trying to prove lens rentals correct?

I guess you missed the part about difference in lw/ph less than 200 lw/ph are pretty much unnoticeable. I thought we were discussing meaningful differences. There are technical differences, but not visual differences. Applying technical differences without understanding what they mean visually is a recipe for really bad information.

My point would be, these lenses are visually on par. My point is not at odds with the lens rental generalization, my argument is with he assumption those difference will make a difference visually when examining photographs.

[house]

Beyond that, as you probably know, the Pentax plastics render quite differently. The 50 can get a bit swirly and has a different look to the 35.
I do find that with my copies the 35 maintain slightly blurry edges at f8 whereas I never noticed any such issues with the 50 at f8. I've not done any tests or proper comparisons but the blur is visible when looking carefully. Of course relative change in blur is more visible than overall lower resolution.

[mee]

Sure... I'm aware of that. What I meant was, if Nikon and Canon are somehow doing something with their lens communication protocol that makes it especially difficult to reverse engineer compared to their earlier F and EF mounts. If they're not, I've no doubt we'll see the Tamron lenses for Z and R mounts... Not for a little while, perhaps, but soon enough. I imagine Tamron is beavering away on the reverse engineering as we speak

Are you aware that earlier this year Tamron, in an interview, announced they were looking into the Z and R mounts and that it would take considerable work?

Tamron Z-mount mirrorless lenses: "We have to do a lot of research and development into the reverse engineering" - Nikon Rumors


I'm looking forward to it though. Tamron makes really nice lenses! I own the 45 f/1.8, 100-400mm, and the 70-210mm f/4 but would love that 70-180mm f/2.8 Full frame lens, which appears to be about the same size and weight as my full frame f/4 lens (similar to the 50-135mm f/2.8 crop on pentax). Nice to see smaller, lighter lenses that will no doubt have a nice optical formula (if past recent work is any judge).

[BigMackCam]

Are you aware that earlier this year Tamron, in an interview, announced they were looking into the Z and R mounts and that it would take considerable work?

Tamron Z-mount mirrorless lenses: "We have to do a lot of research and development into the reverse engineering" - Nikon Rumors


I'm looking forward to it though. Tamron makes really nice lenses! I own the 45 f/1.8, 100-400mm, and the 70-210mm f/4 but would love that 70-180mm f/2.8 Full frame lens, which appears to be about the same size and weight as my full frame f/4 lens (similar to the 50-135mm f/2.8 crop on pentax). Nice to see smaller, lighter lenses that will no doubt have a nice optical formula (if past recent work is any judge).

I wasn't. Thanks for the info... It more-or-less ties in with what I thought. Maybe the Z and R mount folks will see some native Tamron lenses next year? I hope for Nikon and Canon's sake that's the case...

[mee]

I wasn't. Thanks for the info... It more-or-less ties in with what I thought. Maybe the Z and R mount folks will see some native Tamron lenses next year? I hope for Nikon and Canon's sake that's the case...

Sure thing! But why for their sake? They seem to be rolling out the systems very quickly as is.

Nikon have 8 Z lenses out and Canon have around 10 RF lenses out in only a years time. That's very fast!


I don't expect to see Tamron or Sigma lenses out for Z or RF until sometime middle of the year to later in 2020. Hopefully late next year 2nd gen bodies will be launched then ahhh yeah buddy... it's on.

[Dan Rentea]

The new Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 lens for Sony is a lens that I think it will become very popular for Canon and Nikon mirrorless photographers if Tamron will start to produce it in RF and Z mounts. At 850$, with small size and with only 550g in weight... and is very good optically. I played with one mounted on a Sony A6500 and I like it very much.

I "don't" know why, but I like Tamron lenses more than Sigma Art lenses.

[BigMackCam]

Sure thing! But why for their sake? They seem to be rolling out the systems very quickly as is.

Nikon have 8 Z lenses out and Canon have around 10 RF lenses out in only a years time. That's very fast!


I don't expect to see Tamron or Sigma lenses out for Z or RF until sometime middle of the year to later in 2020. Hopefully late next year 2nd gen bodies will be launched then ahhh yeah buddy... it's on.

The new Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 lens for Sony is a lens that I think it will become very popular for Canon and Nikon mirrorless photographers if Tamron will start to produce it in RF and Z mounts. At 850$, with small size and with only 550g in weight... and is very good optically. I played with one mounted on a Sony A6500 and I like it very much.

I "don't" know why, but I like Tamron lenses more than Sigma Art lenses.

Dan's basically answered for me

A 28-75 f/2.8 for less than a thousand bucks is a practical and enticing option when Canon's 24-70 f/2.8 and 28-70 f/2 are two-and-a-half to three times the price respectively, and Nikon's 24-70 f/2.8 is a shade over twice the money. As Nikon and Canon fill out their lens catalogues, I've no doubt the pricing will be typically OEM in nature (read "expensive"). Tamron's value proposition is decent optics at affordable prices, and that can only be a good thing for continued and increased uptake of the Z and R mounts. I want to see all photographic equipment manufacturers succeed in what's becoming an increasingly challenging market

[mee]

Dan's basically answered for me

A 28-75 f/2.8 for less than a thousand bucks is a practical and enticing option when Canon's 24-70 f/2.8 and 28-70 f/2 are two-and-a-half to three times the price respectively, and Nikon's 24-70 f/2.8 is a shade over twice the money. As Nikon and Canon fill out their lens catalogues, I've no doubt the pricing will be typically OEM in nature (read "expensive"). Tamron's value proposition is decent optics at affordable prices, and that can only be a good thing for continued and increased uptake of the Z and R mounts. I want to see all photographic equipment manufacturers succeed in what's becoming an increasingly challenging market

Oh you seem to be somewhat like me in buying after the discounts have been set. We're going to have to wait another year to see real price reductions I think (on the bodies). As I said previously, late 2020 I expect more drops. That's also when I expect to see more 3rd party offerings arrive. So it will be win-win.


We must remember that the first year or so is for early adopters who have little to no consideration of price. So they won't be too bothered spending 2 grand on a 24-70mm instead of the budget Tamron. As a result, it isn't really for their sake as it's all timed well naturally.


I'm pretty excited though to put a Z 6, or maybe even 7 if the price is right, into my tool box though... maybe with that tasty 70-180mm f/2.8