TIPA awards 2010

[Dr. Harout]

Sony 28-75/2.8 SAM wins "Best Expert Lens" award
http://www.tipa.com/english/XX_tipa_awards_2010.php

[David Kilpatrick]

Now you know why my company pulled out of TIPA a few years after TIPA was founded

Meaningless award title, not very meaningful award. They are just in the business now of creating awards in order to give them.

David

[Dr. Harout]

As we understand "Awards" in Armenia, it means "how much you pay"

[pakodominguez]

Meaningless award title, not very meaningful award.

Probably, but the Maxxum 7 or the Dimage 7 and A2 deserved some sort of award -and I don't think Minolta paid anything for those awards.

In the case of the 28-75 f2.8, I had the Sony version for a couple of weeks and I can tell you that the gears that you can see from the rear of the lens looks exactly the same but the barrel is better than the KM version, the lenshood fit better and the focus is a little faster, specially in low light situations. Even if it cost more than the KM or the Tamron, it is a singular lens (Nikon have the 24-85 f2.8-4 that I don't know how good can be; and Canon doesn't have anything similar: in both cases you gotta go to a 1400 + US$ option)

Regards

[David Kilpatrick]

I think my point is that as far as I know, this title has not existed before in the TIPA Awards. It appears to have been invented for the lens!

David

[Old Hydro]

In the case of the 28-75 f2.8, I had the Sony version for a couple of weeks and I can tell you that the gears that you can see from the rear of the lens looks exactly the same but the barrel is better than the KM version, the lenshood fit better and the focus is a little faster, specially in low light situations. Even if it cost more than the KM or the Tamron, it is a singular lens (Nikon have the 24-85 f2.8-4 that I don't know how good can be; and Canon doesn't have anything similar: in both cases you gotta go to a 1400 + US$ option)

Regards[/quote]

Why did you only have the lens for a couple of weeks? Was it one that you would not buy to keep?

[pakodominguez]

Why did you only have the lens for a couple of weeks? Was it one that you would not buy to keep?

Because I got a super deal on a Zeiss 24-70 f2.8 and I decided to jump on it.

[bfitzgerald]

The awards are dubious at times.
I believe the A200 won one once for best entry level DSLR
That award went to the Pentax K-x this time around.

Sony only got the lens one and that is questionable as it's merely a Tamron lens with a cheap in body motor in it.
No awards for Sony DSLR's if I am correct..what a shocker!

[bakubo]

Sony only got the lens one and that is questionable as it's merely a Tamron lens with a cheap in body motor in it.
No awards for Sony DSLR's if I am correct..what a shocker!

I wonder if it is the same motor that Tamron puts in for the Canon mount version?

[bfitzgerald]

No idea not even tried this version of the lens. I'd say it might be if it rolls off the Tamron production lines with the Sony bits on it.
Regardless a lens of this price really should have a SSM motor in it.
Funny thing is I know a few Nikon users who have turned their noses up at the Tamron in lens motor version as it's "slow as heck" as one put it for AF speed. I believe there is a screw drive version of this for Nikon and that is actually the more sought after lens due to much faster AF speed (evidently)

I'm not against in lens motors as such..just if you are going to do it, do it properly with decent motors. In many lenses I simply think it's purely a waste of time. I hope the SAM is quieter than the new Sony kit lens..that's actually noisier than a screw drive version! (the one I tried..shocking whine off it)

[catalytic]

The awards are dubious at times.
I believe the A200 won one once for best entry level DSLR
That award went to the Pentax K-x this time around.

Sony only got the lens one and that is questionable as it's merely a Tamron lens with a cheap in body motor in it.
No awards for Sony DSLR's if I am correct..what a shocker!

Being new to this forum, i'm not sure about your opinion on current Sony dSLRs, but i personally don't think any of the current bodies merit an award except for maybe the A850, but it would be more for value than pure performance and features.

[catalytic]

Funny thing is I know a few Nikon users who have turned their noses up at the Tamron in lens motor version as it's "slow as heck" as one put it for AF speed. I believe there is a screw drive version of this for Nikon and that is actually the more sought after lens due to much faster AF speed (evidently)

Absolutely correct. I am a Nikon shooter too and that's exactly what i find with the 17-50/2.8 when comparing the versions with/without in-lens motor. The worst i've used is the Tamron 70-200/2.8. The sample i used was so slow to AF that i personally felt the lens was useless. We're talking $50 point & shoot CDAF in low light slow. Too bad, because it has rated very well in optical quality in a couple lens tests i've seen for half the price of the Nikon variants.

I'm not against in lens motors as such..just if you are going to do it, do it properly with decent motors. In many lenses I simply think it's purely a waste of time. I hope the SAM is quieter than the new Sony kit lens..that's actually noisier than a screw drive version! (the one I tried..shocking whine off it)

Totally agree. They are trying to spin in-lens motors as a feature, but really, their M.O. is to make in-lens motors ubiquitous so they can take the AF motor out of the bodies like Nikon has done to reduce costs.

[pakodominguez]

Funny thing is I know a few Nikon users who have turned their noses up at the Tamron in lens motor version as it's "slow as heck" as one put it for AF speed. I believe there is a screw drive version of this for Nikon and that is actually the more sought after lens due to much faster AF speed (evidently)

Absolutely correct. I am a Nikon shooter too and that's exactly what i find with the 17-50/2.8 when comparing the versions with/without in-lens motor. The worst i've used is the Tamron 70-200/2.8. The sample i used was so slow to AF that i personally felt the lens was useless.

In that case, the SAM motor is not the same as the Tamron at all. My experience with the 28-75 SAM was pleasant, not specially faster than the KM version but smooth and quiet. Of course, SSM is a pleasure!

I tried at the store both kit lenses (18-55 and 55-200) and the 30 f2.8 macro and the only weak point I found was the plastic mount (if you are not changing lenses all the time this is not a biggie) but AF speed and motor/gear noise are just OK. I can not tell about AF accuracy or performance because I haven't 'work" those lenses. People that did so are happy with optical performance and I haven't heard about anybody breaking the plastic mount...

About the Tamron 70-200 f2.8, the A-mount version doesn't have any motor and it is slow, but not at the speed that you said. DK tried it on Canon mount and it was slow and the AF inaccurate. The A-mount version, that I have, is just fine for everything but sports.

Regards

[pakodominguez]

Sony only got the lens one and that is questionable as it's merely a Tamron lens with a cheap in body motor in it.

This statement is a little simplistic. A lens is not just a group of optics. Coating have an impact in final IQ result, and barrel construction and gearing can transform the "merely" same optic in a totally different product. We can not tell yet about how good or bad the SAM version will age, but there is a reason Tamron have to offer 6 years warranty on their lenses.

It is easy to find complains about the Tamron version of this lens (DPReview or Dyxum in the case of the A-mount community, but you can dig a little more about other mounts). There is huge sampling issue, people exchanging it up to 3 or 4 times in order to get a decent copy. Was not the case with the KM version and the SAM version is not that popular yet, even if they reduced the price at the beginning of the winter.

I'm not saying that the 28-75 SAM deserves a price, but even if "extremely" similar, it is not the "same" lens...

[catalytic]

This is a very interesting topic... Why do you suppose the KM/Sony lenses have fewer reported QC problems than the Tamron version? is there a higher level of QC applied to KM/Sony branded units? Do you think it could be due to the higher number of Tamron branded units in circulation compared to the small numbers of KM/Sony lenses?

I think it would be great to establish what you really get for the price premium -- not just the 28-75 lens, but also the 11-18, 55-200, 18-250, etc. Has Sony ever commented on this at all?