JuzaPhoto uses technical cookies and third-part cookies to provide the service and to make possible login, choice of background color and other settings (click here for more info).
By continuing to browse the site you confirm that you have read your options regarding cookies and that you have read and accepted the Terms of service and Privacy.
You can change in every moment your cookies preferences from the page Cookie Preferences, that can be reached from every page of the website with the link that you find at the bottom of the page; you can also set your preferences directly here
Do you want add your opinion? You do it by joining JuzaPhoto, it is easy and free!
There is more: by registering you can create your personal page, publish photos, receive comments, join discussions and you can use all the features of JuzaPhoto. With more than 242000 members, there is space for everyone, from the beginner to the professional.
The following opinions have been automatically translated with Google Translate.
Pros:Sharpness, Weight, Autofocus, Colors, Price, Size, DOWN
Cons:In relation to his lens None. In absolute terms that is, compared to targets that cost thousands of euros something and the deepening in the review
Opinion:I use this optics with a Sony A7II, in addition to this I own the 50mm Sony 1.8, but I regularly also use many other machines and lenses. I wrote this premise to give a yardstick for the reader. Let's start, the Tamron is a decidedly cheap lens so in relation to its cost I can safely say that it is built really well (despite the plastic body), it has a sharpness already at full opening excellent from board, an autofocus that confirmed a doubt that I had long -brought (that the slowness of the a7II after the last updates was due more to the 50 1.8 than to the car itself) in fact with the Tamron the winning pairing (not the winning pairing (not the winning pairing ( imagine with a7III and superiors), of course I would not recommend it for sports photography but for everything else yes, but this is another speech. The lens is light, decidedly solid, fast, small, it is sharp already at full opening from edge to edge, it is also macro which makes it even more comfortable and versatile, I would recommend it for all kinds of work where a 24mm is useful TRANNE for architectural photographs if strictly professional where it suffers from a minimum of distortion easily correctable and never really annoying except in strictly professional cases. PART 2: and if we want to (improperly)compare it with targets that cost thousands of euros ? I created 2 sections just to highlight the fact that the "defects" that I'm going to list are not at all limiting in the daily use of the lens, I quote them for completeness, although they relate to practically all similar goals that are not ultra premium. DISTORTION: Reduced but there is, It's probably a real problem (or rather has a hassle since it's easily solvable in post) for those working in architectural photography contexts (by heart only 24GM doesn't suffer from it) AUTOFOCUS: quick, precise, but has some slight uncertainty sometimes in keeping the fire on video (really little but the 24gm or the 20G that cost 4 times as much as have this problem) : Compared to the reference it has a slight vignette, nothing worrying and limiting but goals of thousands of euros have not consCLUSIONS: of course I never thought to compare a lens that I bought for about 300 euros to a lens that costs 1500 euros I felt dutiful despite this writing over these clarifications so as not to let the reader misunderstand that when I write "that in relation to the lens has no defect" I did not want to say that since it costs little you have to to be satisfied, but rather, that in order to find optical defects to this lens we must necessarily compare it with targets that cost 4 times as much.
The following opinions have been automatically translated with Google Translate.
JuzaPhoto contains affiliate links from Amazon and Ebay and JuzaPhoto earn a commission in case of purchase through affiliate links.
