Tamron announces 14-150mm superzoom for m4/3s

Seems like an unremarkable entry, though we've yet to see IQ, so I shall hold me tongue.

If it were a constant F4, it may have been more interesting...

Z...

 

this is sorta *yawn*

 

At $299 I would have been tempted, but at $589...no way. I guess I'll pick one up on clearance for $199 in a year or so.

 

The B&H price lists VC in the specs as well so something it out of whack. At $299 this is a winner as $589 there is no point.

I would certainly rather have the Tamron 18-200 Di III VC for $499...

 

Lenses are usually quoted in 135 equivalent. In the case of the Tamron:

Focal distance:
18-200mm (27-300mm on Sony NEX sensor)
Maximum aperture:
F/3.5 – 6.3

So for m43 it would be a 36 to 400. I personally just find it easier to think in FF equivalent focal length and know I have a two times crop factor (some people disagree with me :tongue .

 

OK, so 14-150 on mft and 18-200 on APS-C are both FL equivalent to FF 28-300. So when some of these sites are saying a Tamron 18-200 for mft they mean a real FL of 14-150. If true, that's a pretty awful way of reporting it. Using FF equivalent is one thing, but the APS-C equivalent is pushing it. For example,

http://www.adorama.com/TM14150MFTB....ate&utm_campaign=Other&utm_source=rflaid67913

Look at the descriptive paragraph a bit down the page.

 

Errrr..... These are two totally different lenses:

The 18-200 for E mount is:

SPECIFICATIONS
Model:
B011
Focal distance:
18-200mm (27-300mm on Sony NEX sensor)
Maximum aperture:
F/3.5 – 6.3
Minimum aperture:
F/22-40
Minimum focus distance:
.5m (19.6 in) through the range
Maximum magnification ratio:
1:3.7 at f=200mm
Filter thread:
62mm
Length:
96.7mm (3.8in)
Weight:
460g (16.2oz)
Standard accessories:
Flower-shape lens hood
Compatible mounts:
Sony E-Mount



Model name C001
Focal length 14-150mm (28-300mm 35mm-format equivalent angle of view)
Brightness F/3.5-5.8
Angle of view (diagonal angle of view) 15 minutes ★ 1 22 minutes to 8 degrees 75 degrees
Lens constitution 17 pieces of 13 group
Minimum focusing distance 0.5m (entire zoom range)
Maximum magnification 1:3.8 (f = 150mm at the time: minimum focusing distance of 0.5m)
Filter diameter φ52mm
★ 2 Length 80.4mm
Greatest dimension φ63.5mm
Mass 285g
Diaphragm blades The seven pieces (circular aperture)
Minimum aperture F/22
Standard accessory Flower-shaped hood
Corresponding mount Micro Four Thirds for


What I was driving at is I would prefer they released the 18-200 for m43. This would give us a new non-competitive FL (36-400 vs the 28-300 135 equivalent FOV) and another choice rather than 3 choices at 14-150.

Now they may be assuming that most m43 users don't want larger lenses and they could be right.

 

The lens listed at B&H is the old announced-but-never-shipped version. It would make no sense for Tamron to pricewise position a non VC lens against the Panny with OIS. So I believe something closer to the 4/3 rumors site price is probably accurate.

I had been thinking about selling my original 14-140 in order to get the weight savings on the new version. Now, probably, Tamron has torpedoed the value of my current lens but its weight is competitive with the new Panny. So .. waiting for IQ test reports and reports of how the GX-7 IBIS handles the lens.

 

I know superzooms have their use, but I think Tamron misjudged the majority of m4/3 users in offering that type of lens, especially given the first-party offerings.

Try again, try harder. Throw us a better bone.

 

Yes. The only real claim to fame here will probably be the price point. Shooting mostly travel photos, I would have liked to see a 12-150 or 12-140. Those two additional mm on the short end make a huge difference when shooting building interiors.

 

That's why this is so confusing. They released a few lenses that had the same equivalent FL, which is unusual. Like you, I was hoping for a real FL 18-200 in mft mount.

 

^^^^

Same equivalent FOV not FL, but yes I get 100% what you mean. The 18-200 would have been interesting, and about the size of the 12-60 which would be a usable size. Another 14-150 unless it really is $299 is sort of pointless.