xpfloyd wrote in post #18665470
Charlie is that because you got the tamron? How you finding that for landscapes compared to the CY?
yes. As far as I can tell, the tamron seems sharp to the edges and autofocuses like a native lens. It doesnt give the zeiss look, and I'm ok with that.
unlike the 24-70 f4, I'm not finding many weakness with the tamron. I havent done proper testing, however looking from my images taken (many on tripod), I'de guess that wide open, tamron is likely stronger at most, if not all focal lengths. Stopped down, probably a mixed bag. Likely the CY @ 70mm, likely tamron from 35-50. It's all so close, I'm not even bothered to test TBH. Tamron is the no nonsense approach and it takes the same filters as the CY, so it's a simple switch for me. I'm hugely into video these days, and the tamron is a no brainer in that aspect, I cant use the CY on a gimbal. On a size level, the footprint is similar, the CY is smaller by negligible amounts, takes up the same amount of space in my very small bag (peak 5L).
the lens is a bit plasticky, but hard to deny its performance.
Sony A7rii/A7riii/A9 - FE 12-24/4 - FE 24-240 - CV 21/3.5 - FE 35/2.8 - SY 35/1.4 AF - FE 50/1.8 - FE 85/1.8 - EF 135/1.8 Art - F 600/5.6 - CZ 100-300 - Astro Rok 14/2.8 - Tamron 28-75/2.8 RXD, 70-200/2.8 VC