# Tamron Announces the Smallest, Lightest Ultra-Wide-Angle Zoom Lens in its Class



## Canon Rumors Guy (Aug 6, 2018)

> A sophisticated balance of outstanding optics and matchless mobility
> August 6, 2018, Commack, New York— Tamron announces the launch of a new ultra-wide-angle zoom lens, the 17-35mm F/2.8-4 Di OSD (Model A037), for 35mm full-frame DSLR cameras. The vision behind the Model A037 is that of an ultra-wide-angle zoom lens that has a separate concept from SP 15-30mm F/2.8 Di VC USD (Model A012), with superb image quality and easy portability. At just 3.5 in in length and 16.2 oz. in weight, it is the smallest and lightest in its class. The focal length ranges from an ultra-wide 17mm that is suitable for professional landscape photography to a standard 35mm perfect for snapshot photography. As for F-stops, the wide-angle end is a large aperture F/2.8, and at the telephoto end is a fast F/4. The Moisture-Resistant Construction and Fluorine Coating help to enhance the user’s photographic experience. For those looking to try out an ultra-wide-angle zoom lens for the first time, as well as...



Continue reading...


----------



## Chaitanya (Aug 6, 2018)

With brochure being leaked there nothing new to learn here. Also is this the only announcement for Photokina or some other lenses will be announced in coming weeks by Tamron?


----------



## Redline (Aug 6, 2018)

I still have and love the original Tamron 17-35...spec wise it doesn't look much different with the old one being 14 elements in 11 groups versus the 15 elements in 10 groups with the new. It would be interested either way to see how much they improved. The only thing of course about the 35mm end is the f/4 which doesn't scream fast like say Canon or Sigma 35 f/1.4 but for the price I can't complain. Last unit I bought was a mint condition (practically new) for $200. That's a steal.


----------



## fox40phil (Aug 6, 2018)

IS would be nice on this on :/ for some filming while hiking maybe or bad light.


----------



## that1guyy (Aug 6, 2018)

Why no E-mount version?


----------



## mb66energy (Aug 6, 2018)

If I were into full frame and ultrawide, an interesting lens which is marginally heavier than EF-S 10-22 and substantially brighter & has nearly the same dimensions. But I am more the tele type and then the APS-C format helps - and with the wonderful new sensors (200D, M50 in my case) really shine.
But if I will look deeper into FF with my old 5D maybe an option - especially the 2.8 @ 17mm for night sky or night skylines. Tamron-speak lets me expect wonders!


----------



## timmy_650 (Aug 6, 2018)

That seems weird, they are doing the Nikon mount first and then Canon, I don't remember seeing that happen before. It seems like they do Nikon and Canon and if they do another mount that coming out later.


----------



## SkynetTX (Aug 6, 2018)

A 16-35mm f/2.8 Di VC USD would have been better even it's somewhat heavier and a bit more expensive. I surely will wait for it.


----------



## fullstop (Aug 7, 2018)

timmy_650 said:


> That seems weird, they are doing the Nikon mount first and then Canon, I don't remember seeing that happen before. It seems like they do Nikon and Canon and if they do another mount that coming out later.



true. Simple explanation, though: 
1) Tamron needs to hurry their lens with legacy Nikon mirrorslapper F-mount, because soon nobody will buy them any longer, but rather Nikon Z-Mount lenses only. 
2) As for Canon .. Tamron is not sure about future of EF mount.


----------



## Memirsbrunnr (Aug 7, 2018)

Redline said:


> I still have and love the original Tamron 17-35...spec wise it doesn't look much different with the old one being 14 elements in 11 groups versus the 15 elements in 10 groups with the new. It would be interested either way to see how much they improved. The only thing of course about the 35mm end is the f/4 which doesn't scream fast like say Canon or Sigma 35 f/1.4 but for the price I can't complain. Last unit I bought was a mint condition (practically new) for $200. That's a steal.



I feel they will bring a new version of the 16-35 G2 out with fixed aperture and VC.. maybe at a higher price point. Personally I would not mind if Tamron brought out a 24-105mm F4


----------



## Memirsbrunnr (Aug 7, 2018)

fullstop said:


> true. Simple explanation, though:
> 1) Tamron needs to hurry their lens with legacy Nikon mirrorslapper F-mount, because soon nobody will buy them any longer, but rather Nikon Z-Mount lenses only.
> 2) As for Canon .. Tamron is not sure about future of EF mount.


*Just wondering would Tamron and Sigma not already have been informed about the technology behind the new upcoming lens mounts by Canon and Nikon?. Both Canon and Nikon might find it to their advantage to have a portfolio of applicable lenses so people will not as easily move over to the competitors camera due to more lenses? The compatibility of the mount can be given/licenced that way so Tamron Sigma can start designing the mount and lenses , they just might wait a little bringing out the communication protocols


----------



## Chaitanya (Aug 7, 2018)

Memirsbrunnr said:


> *Just wondering would Tamron and Sigma not already have been informed about the technology behind the new upcoming lens mounts by Canon and Nikon?. Both Canon and Nikon might find it to their advantage to have a portfolio of applicable lenses so people will not as easily move over to the competitors camera due to more lenses? The compatibility of the mount can be given/licenced that way so Tamron Sigma can start designing the mount and lenses , they just might wait a little bringing out the communication protocols


It all depends on mindset of both Nikon and Canon either open up protocol like current Milc makers and allow 3rd party makers to join in to bring lenses in early so they dont have to do too much work from get go or close the protocols like their current DSLR systems locking out 3rd party makers from get go which might turn away potential new users to system.


----------



## bergstrom (Aug 7, 2018)

SkynetTX said:


> A 16-35mm f/2.8 Di VC USD would have been better even it's somewhat heavier and a bit more expensive. I surely will wait for it.



You took the words right out of my my mouth. Maybe Yongnuo can come out with a 16-35 2.8.


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Aug 7, 2018)

It would not make any sense for Tamron to build a 16-35 2.8 with IS, because they already have a 15-30 2.8 with IS. The 17-35 is a lighter lens without an IS and without f/2.8 at the long end. This lens is for those who care about weight.


----------



## fullstop (Aug 7, 2018)

I am holding out for an even more compact, lighter and less expensive 15-35/4.0 IS STM for upcoming Canon mirrorfree FF system. 

I'm done with variable aperture zooms. Either hi-end IQ with f/2.8 all the way and size/weight/cost be damned. 
Or really small, light, decent IQ, inexpensive and f/4.0 all the way. 

f/2.8-f/4.0 lens just combines the worst of both concepts.


----------



## fullstop (Aug 7, 2018)

Chaitanya said:


> It all depends on mindset of both Nikon and Canon either open up protocol like current Milc makers and allow 3rd party makers to join in to bring lenses in early so they dont have to do too much work from get go or close the protocols like their current DSLR systems locking out 3rd party makers from get go which might turn away potential new users to system.



Canon will have no issue, because all EF glass will remain fully functional on their mirrorfree FF system. Either natively - if they bring some or all mirrorfree cameras with EF mount or by means of a simple little extension tube "adapter" if they go with new mount ("EF-X). 

Nikon has a bit more of a problem, because many of their F-mount lenses will face severe functional limitations on their Z-mount mirrorfree FF system. 

But I would be extremely surprised if they would license their lens mount (mechanical, electrical, communications protocol, algorithms for AF system, flash, etc.) to 3rd party lens makers. And even more so for Canon. Sigma, Tamron, Tokina will have to wait until CaNikon stuff is available, purchase cameras and lenses, start reverse-engineering efforts and try their luck by spoofing some old lens ID codes. Maybe they'll find that Canon and Nikon have closed that route in their new mount system by using protected individual lens ID data in some proprietary chip in each lens. I'd be rather nervous if I were invested in 3rd party lens makers.


----------



## MrFotoFool (Aug 7, 2018)

I agree with Fullstop that constant aperture even at f4 is preferable to variable aperture at f2.8-4. My wide angle zoom (16-35) and standard zoom (24-70) are both Canon L series f4 and I love them. (Though ironically my two telephotos are f2.8 ). I wonder why they do variable? Is it because having 2.8 in the title makes a better sell? Or is it because variable aperture is easier/cheaper to design and build than constant aperture (even if you use the smaller aperture for the constant)?


----------



## Sharlin (Aug 7, 2018)

SkynetTX said:


> A 16-35mm f/2.8 Di VC USD would have been better even it's somewhat heavier and a bit more expensive. I surely will wait for it.



That doesn't make any sense. It would be a completely different lens, much more expensive one too. And as has been mentioned, Tamron already has that, it's just 15-30mm instead of 16-35mm. And twice the price of this one.


----------



## Sharlin (Aug 7, 2018)

17mm/4.0 = 4.3mm
17mm/2.8 = 6.1mm
35mm/4.0 = 8.8 mm

With a constant aperture the apparent size of the aperture needs to change quite a bit between the zoom endpoints which constrains the optical design space. A constant f/4 aperture would most likely not make the lens any lighter or cheaper. Plus it's almost certainly good marketing to have the f/2.8 there. Plus it's very nice for those who need it (astro, anyone?)


----------



## Quirkz (Aug 8, 2018)

MrFotoFool said:


> I agree with Fullstop that constant aperture even at f4 is preferable to variable aperture at f2.8-4.



Really???

Much prefer something that affords me the opportunity at 2.8 @ 17mm even if by 35 it’s 4.0, as long as the image quality is there and not compromised. At least I get a choice this way  

I never understand when people say things like this. Give me less!!!


----------



## andrei1989 (Aug 8, 2018)

Quirkz said:


> I never understand when people say things like this. Give me less!!!



because this is the internet and anyone can complain about anything

because a variable aperture lens is commonly viewed as inferior to a constant aperture lens, even if having 2.8 to 4 means getting more than havin 4 all the way

because on this forum, which i've been reading for some years, there will ALWAYS be someone to complain that a newly launched lens isn't some other lens that already exists or is phisically/practically/financially impossible

i could bet a kidney that, if the new canon 70-200 f4 would have been launched alone, someone would have bit....complained that it's not f2.8, same as someone said that stupid canon didn't make the f2.8 m3 into an f2


----------



## psychilles (Aug 8, 2018)

These still focus in the opposite direction of Canon lenses right?


----------



## Memirsbrunnr (Aug 8, 2018)

I stumbled over the fact that Tamron had a very similar specked lens some 2 -3 design series back Christopher Frost tested is some 6 years ago on youtube


----------



## MrFotoFool (Aug 8, 2018)

Quirkz said:


> Really???
> 
> Much prefer something that affords me the opportunity at 2.8 @ 17mm even if by 35 it’s 4.0, as long as the image quality is there and not compromised. At least I get a choice this way
> 
> I never understand when people say things like this. Give me less!!!


Because having the aperture change on you without you changing it is a pain to me at least. Also (and this goes for any variable zoom lens) large aperture is more useful IMO at the long end (where background blur is more noticeable and camera shake is more likely to show up) yet variable aperture lenses only have the large aperture on the short end where it is less needed. Just my two cents but if others like variable lenses of course that's fine and good they have the option.


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Aug 8, 2018)

Doesn't a variable aparture mean that the lens gets much longer when zooming and therefore sucks dust into the lens barrel? Of course some lenses even get longer while zooming even though they have a fixed aperture, but I love lenses like the Canon 70-200 lenses, which keep the same length over the whole zoom range.


----------



## Sharlin (Aug 9, 2018)

Skyscraperfan said:


> Doesn't a variable aparture mean that the lens gets much longer when zooming and therefore sucks dust into the lens barrel? Of course some lenses even get longer while zooming even though they have a fixed aperture, but I love lenses like the Canon 70-200 lenses, which keep the same length over the whole zoom range.



No, those things don't really correlate. Except insofar that more expensive lenses tend to have both internal zooming and constant aperture. If anything, the zoom group(s) of a variable-aperture lens needs to move less as there's less change in the magnification of the entrance pupil.


----------



## Random Orbits (Aug 14, 2018)

Quirkz said:


> Really???
> 
> Much prefer something that affords me the opportunity at 2.8 @ 17mm even if by 35 it’s 4.0, as long as the image quality is there and not compromised. At least I get a choice this way
> 
> I never understand when people say things like this. Give me less!!!



It matters if you use manual settings a lot or if you do video. Changing exposure due to zooming is inconvenient if you're trying to limit ISO and specify a shutter speed. You could set it to f/4 but when I'm changing aperture, it's just easier to spin the wheel and know I got to constant max aperture rather than having to look and confirm setting it to a particular aperture.


----------



## amorse (Aug 14, 2018)

Quirkz said:


> Really???
> 
> Much prefer something that affords me the opportunity at 2.8 @ 17mm even if by 35 it’s 4.0, as long as the image quality is there and not compromised. At least I get a choice this way
> 
> I never understand when people say things like this. Give me less!!!



I can understand why people would prefer a non-variable aperture, but for me I'd be happy with variable aperture on this lens - I think it could have a pretty interesting niche use. I am pretty keen on finding a lens which is:

Ideally 16mm wide (but I could maybe manage with 17)
small and light (so I can carry it long distances with my camping gear and other camera gear)
fast at the wide end at least (so I can do some wide astrophotography without having another wide/fast lens to carry)
has a normal filter thread (so I can mount a 100mm filter system)
The only other lens that ticks those boxes is the Canon 16-35 f/2.8L iii (and its predecessors), and it is likely to be quite a bit more expensive, heavier and larger. I'm very curious to see performance on this versus the 16-35 2.8L iii - no doubt it won't out-perform, but I really just want to see if it will be "good enough". My hope would be to take my Rokinon 14mm f/2.8 and Canon 16-35 f/4L out of my bag for this lens which would reduce my packed weight, but let me come close to the same flexibility.


----------

