www.dpreview.com Open in urlscan Pro
104.22.76.130 Public Scan

Back to summary

Submitted URL:
https://eml.videomaker.com/e3t/Ctc/GD+113/cGSxq04/VX2LQ197nv6PW1q2n0b79n5YQW2ZRfP15jdSs3N6wcHps5g8s-W50kH_H6lZ3kGW3wgf9d97H...
Effective URL:
https://www.dpreview.com/news/6301134355/tamron-announces-28-300mm-f4-7-1-di-iii-vc-vxd-superzoom-for-full-frame-e-mount?...
Submission: On August 02 via api (August 2nd 2024, 9:10:11 am UTC) from IL — Scanned from IL

Form analysis
1 forms found in the DOM

GET https://www.dpreview.com/search

<form method="get" action="https://www.dpreview.com/search">
  <input type="text" name="query" class="searchBox" placeholder="Search dpreview.com" autocomplete="off" spellcheck="true">
  <input type="submit" class="submitBtn" value="">
</form>

Text Content

Instagram TikTok YouTube Twitter Facebook Newsletter Submit a News Tip!
Reading mode: Light Dark
Login | Register
Begin typing to see search results.

NewsReviewsArticlesBuying GuidesSample
ImagesVideosCamerasLensesPhonesPrintersForumsGalleriesChallenges
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
Now reading: Tamron announces 28-300mm F4-7.1 Di III VC VXD superzoom for
full-frame E-mount 118 comments

TAMRON ANNOUNCES 28-300MM F4-7.1 DI III VC VXD SUPERZOOM FOR FULL-FRAME E-MOUNT

Comments (118)

Published Aug 1, 2024 | Richard Butler
Share

Buy on Amazon.de From 504,24 €

Tamron has announced the 28-300mm F4-7.1 Di III VC VXD, a stabilized superzoom
lens for Sony full-frame E-mount cameras.

Recent Videos

It's a third of a stop slower than the most recent DSLR version of the lens (the
2014 PZD version), yet is slightly larger and slightly heavier. It uses a "VXD"
voice-coil linear motor and VC stabilization system, though Tamron doesn't quote
a figure for its effectiveness (which presumably varies depending on the camera
it's mounted on).

The lens features 20 elements in 13 groups, including one XLD extra-low
dispersion and one LD low dispersion element. It also uses Tamron's BBAR-G2
(Broad-Band Anti-Reflection Generation 2) coatings to minimize ghosting and
flare.

Minimum focus distance is 0.19m (7.5") at the wide end and 0.99m (39") at the
tele end, giving a 1:2.8 maximum reproduction ratio at 28mm, rising to 1:3.8 at
the 300mm end.

It weighs 610g (21.5oz), is 126mm (5") long at its shortest, and 77mm () in
diameter. It accepts 67mm filters.

PRICE AND AVAILABILITY

The 28-300mm F4-7.1 Di III VC VXD will be available from the end of August at a
recommended price of $899.

Press Release:

TAMRON ANNOUNCES THE LAUNCH OF THE 10.7X ALL-IN-ONE ZOOM LENS

28-300mm F/4-7.1 Di III VC VXD (Model A074)

Commack, NY – Tamron announces the launch of the 28-300mm F4-7.1 Di III VC VXD
(Model A074), a 10.7x all-in-one zoom lens for Sony E-mount full-frame
mirrorless cameras on August 29, 2024, at $899 USD / $1,199 CAD.

The TAMRON 28-300mm F4-7.1 VC is an all-in-one zoom lens for Sony E-mount
full-frame mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras. This lens covers a broad
focal length range from 28mm wide-angle to 300mm telephoto with superior imaging
performance. It achieves a zoom ratio of 10.7x with a length of just 5” (126mm)
and weighs only 21.5 oz. (610g). The lens is equipped with the VXD (Voice-coil
eXtreme-torque Drive) linear motor focus mechanism, enabling it to focus quickly
and accurately throughout the entire zoom range. The lens also features TAMRON’s
VC (Vibration Compensation) mechanism to ensure sharp hand-held images when
shooting at the 300mm telephoto end and in low-light conditions. With an MOD
(Minimum Object Distance) of 7.5” (0.19m) and a maximum magnification ratio of
1:2.8 at the wide end, the lens allows users to enjoy the world of wide macro
photography. It includes a Focus Set Button and a connector port for the
dedicated TAMRON Lens Utility™ software independently developed by TAMRON to
expand the scope of expression for still images and video. The lens features
Moisture-Resistant Construction, and the front element has a protective Fluorine
Coating. The new 28-300mm F4-7.1 VC lets users take photos in an extremely wide
range of situations with just one lens.

PRODUCT HIGHLIGHTS

1. 10.7x zoom lens for full-frame mirrorless cameras that covers the focal
length range from 28mm wide-angle to 300mm telephoto

The greatest feature of the 28-300mm F4-7.1 VC is its 10.7x zoom focal length
range. In response to users stating that 200mm is not quite long enough at the
telephoto end for an all-in-one zoom lens, TAMRON has extended the focal length
to 300mm. Exceptionally portable, the lens features a highly compact design.
This single lens allows shooting in everyday life and during travel, including
landscapes, snapshots, portraits and sports photography. It's an extremely
versatile lens that lets users take photos in any situation of any subject
without changing lenses.

2. Outstanding imaging performance

This new TAMRON zoom has an optical construction of 20 elements in 13 groups. It
includes one XLD (eXtra Low Dispersion) lens element and an LD (Low Dispersion)
lens element to efficiently control aberrations such as chromatic aberration.
The BBAR-G2 (Broad-Band Anti-Reflection Generation 2) Coating suppresses
ghosting and flare, producing clear images even in backlit conditions. It boasts
best-in-class image quality as an all-in-one zoom lens for full-frame mirrorless
interchangeable lens cameras.

3. Lightweight and compact lens body

Despite covering a 10.7x focal length range from 28mm wide-angle to 300mm
telephoto, the lens is very compact, with a length of only 5” (126mm) and a
weight of 21.5 oz. (610g). Small and versatile, it can be casually carried
anywhere, and users are unlikely to tire even after long hours of shooting. It's
ideal for people who want to carry a smaller camera bag. Additionally, the lens
makes it easy to frame accurately when shooting still and moving images while
zooming in and out, such as sports and wildlife, and is designed to be
comfortable to use.

4. Equipped with VXD, TAMRON’s top-class linear motor focus mechanism

The 28-300mm F4-7.1 VC is equipped with the VXD autofocus drive that includes
TAMRON’s premium linear motor focus mechanism to ensure that the focus is
attained quickly and accurately throughout the 10.7x zoom range. Upending the
stereotype of all-in-one zoom lenses having slow autofocus, its nimble operation
allows users to capture more fleeting photo opportunities. The quietness
supports photography and videography in conditions that require silence.

5. TAMRON’s proprietary VC mechanism

Although it's compact, the 28-300mm F4-7.1 is equipped with TAMRON’s proprietary
VC mechanism that lets users take steady photos, especially at the 300mm
telephoto end of its broad 10.7x range. VC effectively suppresses camera shake
that often occurs when shooting in the telephoto range or under low-light
conditions, thereby helping users take sharp photos without a tripod.

6. Proprietary software tool TAMRON Lens Utility for lens function customization
and firmware updates

7. High convenience and operability

* 67mm filter size, same as most other TAMRON lenses for mirrorless cameras
* Focus Set Button for assigning camera function and TAMRON Lens Utility
function
* Enhanced overall lens design for user-friendly operation
* Zoom Lock mechanism

8. Protective features (Moisture-Resistant Construction and Fluorine Coating)

9. Compatible with many camera-onboard features and functions, including Fast
Hybrid AF and Eye AF

This product is developed, manufactured, and sold based on the specifications of
E-mount which was disclosed by Sony Corporation under the license agreement with
Sony Corporation.

TAMRON 28-300MM F4-7.1 DI III VC VXD SPECIFICATION

Principal specificationsLens typeZoom lensMax Format size35mm FFFocal
length28–300 mmImage stabilizationYesLens mountSony E, Sony FEApertureMaximum
apertureF4–7.1Minimum apertureF22–40Aperture ringNoNumber of diaphragm
blades9Aperture notesCircular apertureOpticsElements20Groups13FocusMinimum
focus0.19 m (7.48″)Maximum magnification0.36×AutofocusYesMotor typeLinear
MotorDistance scaleNoDoF scaleNoPhysicalWeight610 g (1.34 lb)Diameter77 mm
(3.03″)Length126 mm (4.96″)Zoom methodRotary (extending)Power zoomNoZoom
lockYesFilter thread67 mm

Tags: lens-news, e-mount, full-frame, tamron

GEAR IN THIS STORY

Gear in this story
Tamron 28-300mm F4-7.1 Di III VC VXD
* Discuss in the forums
* See full product details

When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.

Tamron 28-300mm F4-7.1 Di III VC VXD results on Amazon.de

TAMRON 50-300mm F/4.5-6.3 Di III VC VXD, Objektiv für Sony E-Mount919,00 €Shop
nowTamron 28-75mm F/2.8 Di III VXD G2, Objektiv für Nikon Z-Mount849,00 €Shop
nowTAMRON 150-500mm F/5-6.7 Di III VC VXD, Objektiv für Nikon Z-Mount1.289,00
€Shop now

View Comments (118)

COMMENTS

All (118)
Most popular (15)
Editors' picks (0)
DPR staff (0)
Oldest first
Comments on this article may be moderated before they are made public. Please
keep your contributions constructive and civil.
Login with your DPReview account to post comments
LoginSign up
EXkurogane

Superzooms ewwwww
Until the airlines point a big middle finger at you. Sometimes you want to split
into several lenses, but exceed the weight limit for hand carry luggage, and the
airline forces you to pack your expensive lenses into checked in baggage. They
will proceed to break your sheet and refuse to compensate. Just ask Air Asia.

I don't like variable aperture zooms in general, but getting the shots you want
on your vacation is better than having no photographs at all.

Reply
Like
2 hours ago*permalink
Report

Raziel Orlando

f7.1 maximum appertures should only be acceptable if the lens is +700mm.

Reply
Like
4 hours agopermalink
Report

McCarthy1984

F7.1? lol Nooopeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.

Reply
Like
1
8 hours agopermalink
Report

toomix

looks good, but I guess 24-200 range would be more useful

Reply
Like
2
16 hours agopermalink
Report

dmanthree

Sony does offer a 24-240 zoom.

Like
1
15 hours agopermalink
Report

Hide replies Reply

eno2

Very pricey for what it offers!

Reply
Like
10
18 hours agopermalink
Report

sirhawkeye64

Not really if you compare it to the OEM options. Yes this one is a bit slower
than the OEM versions but $899 still sounds reasonable IMO.

I mean you want to talk about overpriced, their Nikon Z 70-300 lens is over
priced at $699 MSRp and even when it goes on sale for $100 off. That lens is
over price for what you get.

Like
2
17 hours ago*permalink
Report

Mr Bolton

What's wrong with the Nikon Z 70-300, especially at $699 and esp. at $100 off?
Is it a really bad lens or something?

Like
1
2 hours agopermalink
Report

eno2

@Mr Bolton

There is nothing wrong with Nikon Nikon Z 70-300mm, on the contrary, and also
the Nikon Z 28-200mm zoom lens is very good and cheaper compared to this Tamron.

Like
1 hour agopermalink
Report

Hide replies Reply
btnapa

I let my 70-300 go in favor of the 50-400. Had this lens been available six
months ago, I would have chosen it for my landscape work. I love the 50-400 but
it is heavy. The 28-300 weighs almost nothing compared to the 50-400.
Additionally 50-400 requires a tripod collar (at an additional cost!), this lens
does not need a collar.

Reply
Like
2
19 hours agopermalink
Report

Impulses

The iShoot collar has been working great for me on the 50-400, I'm glad I passed
on Tamron's older overpriced collar without lugs or extra mounting points... I
use it for a mix of landscape, action, and wildlife tho so I'd never give up the
extra 100mm of reach, speed, and IQ at that end (not to mention the MFD at
50-100mm).

Like
1
16 hours agopermalink
Report

Aaron Yang

I have never liked the iShoot collars. They are way too tight and would scratch
the lens. Haoge collars are better. I bought three, one for 28-200, one for
50-400, and one for 35-150.

Like
15 hours agopermalink
Report

Impulses

Hmm, I think it probably varies by lens. I actually have a Haoge collar I like
for my Laowa 100/2.8 macro, Laowa's own collar is trash, both versions of it -
neither is solid enough to move the macro smoothly on a decent focusing rail...
I didn't like how short the foot was on their collar for the 50-400 tho.

For the 50-400 I first bought the older version of the iShoot meant for the
Tamron DSLR mount 100-400 (same as Tamron's own) and I had the opposite problem,
it wouldn't tighten all the way and could always rotate loosely around the lens.
They then came out with a second version specifically for the 50-400 tho.

That one has worked very well for me, a single turn of the knob loosens it so it
can be rotated and tightens it to where it's not going anywhere with no force
required at all. I added strap lugs to it by attaching a PD Slim Plate atop the
foot on the other side of the 1/4" tap so it doesn't interfere with ARCA
functionality.

Like
9 hours agopermalink
Report

btnapa

@impulses, I love my 50-400 too don't get me wrong. I have shot plenty of images
at the 400mm end and macros on the short end. For general landscape I think
28-300 might do for me. However, I am not selling my 50-400 anytime soon!!

The reason I let the 150-500 go was that for birding and wildlife you need 600
mm or more which the Sony delivers with the 200-600 that also takes a 1.4X
extender, making the lens even longer.

As to the collar for the 50-400 I chose after market too. It is kind of short at
the base. My 150-500 had a slightly longer base which allowed for the lens to be
grabbed and carried by the foot. I would have paid for the original Tamron ring
but my local dealer was out of them and I needed one soon.

Like
1
9 hours agopermalink
Report

btnapa

@impulses, @Aaron Yang,
I don't even know which after market collar I have but it is pretty tight on the
50-400 and the lens does not rotate unless I loosen the screw. My beef is with
the short base which has square corners that are kindof sharp and uncomfortable
to grab and carry the lens. The Tamron's own original collar for the 150-500 had
rounded edges, was longer by a 1/2-3/4 inch and made carrying the lens much more
pleasant.

Like
1
9 hours agopermalink
Report

Hide replies Reply
Horshack

A few days ago it was reported that Tamron has started using AI in their lens
design. If they train their AI model on the comments here then I predict this
lens will self-destruct when powered on.

Reply
Like
24
21 hours agopermalink
Report

teletorn

F4-7.1? Where are moaners about Canon's RF 100-500/4.5-7.1L and other 7,1
lenses?

Reply
Like
3
21 hours agopermalink
Report

sirhawkeye64

Well, the two lenses are sort of in different classes. The 100-400 is more of a
beginner wildlife lens, but generally people want faster lenses for wildlife.
The 28-300 and other similar lenses (in general) are travel zooms and people
sort of expect them to be slower as it's one of the trade-offs for the wide zoom
range. Given the relatively cheap price of the RF 100-400 f/4.5-7.1, I would say
it's still OK from a spec perspective, given it's price point (being sort of in
the beginner realm). But people's expectations are slightly less for travel
zooms (I mean I would say something like Nikon's 28-400 f/4-8 is probably the
slowest I would want personally in any zoom and that might be borderlined) but
travel zooms are also generally not used for wildlife, at least not much beyond
casual shooting at least.

Personally, I wish Nikon would have made a lens like this, and hopefully maybe
they let Tamron make one for the Z system (not very likely though).

Like
3
19 hours ago*permalink
Report

Andyyy

You are confusing the 100-400 with the 100-500. Two totally different lenses.

Like
3
18 hours agopermalink
Report

sirhawkeye64

Yes sorry I was thinking about the 100-400 f/5.6-8.

But either way, I'm guessing that the optics in the 100-500 are still very very
good in comparison so the price can probably be justified a bit more (plus it's
probably built a lot better than this $899 lens).

Like
1
17 hours agopermalink
Report

Impulses

Sure, ultimately it's still giving up speed for that extra 100mm compared to
other 100-400s tho, at quite a high price.

The Tamron 150-500 went a different direction and added on weight (+300g) rather
than trading on speed for a similar range (the speed at ~390mm in particular and
the aperture progression of both is worth noting). They're all definitely apples
and oranges compared to super zooms.

If anything the super zooms might be worth comparing with a 50/70-300 or even a
70-200/4.

Like
16 hours ago*permalink
Report

sirhawkeye64

Yes true, but I was even just implying the AF-P 70-300 vs the Tamron the value
is way better with the Nikon, even though it would have to be adapted to a Z
camera.

Like
16 hours agopermalink
Report

teletorn

@Andyyy it does not make a big difference. You may think about RF 24-105/4-7.1
too 😀

Like
15 hours agopermalink
Report

Andyyy

The 100-500 is amazing in every way. And that 7.1 aperture at 500mm is
justified, the competitor lenses are all stopping at 400mm.

Like
14 hours agopermalink
Report

Show more replies (2) Reply
Bender79ita

Is this a Canon kit lens?

Reply
Like
7
23 hours agopermalink
Report

Rodrigo Pasiani

No if it comes with a lens hood.

Like
36
23 hours agopermalink
Report

teletorn

@Bender79ita nope, it's Tamron for your Sony 😂

Like
2
21 hours agopermalink
Report

Hide replies Reply
Liquid Light

Are there somewhere sample images taken with this lens? I´m curious about the
optical quality....

Reply
Like
2
23 hours agopermalink
Report

elkarrde

Why would anyone buy this lens for travelling instead of many microFourThirds
long zoom options (Olympus 12-200, 14-150, Panasonic 14-140) is beyond me. You'd
save on size and money *and* have a backup camera.

Are people really so heavily entrenched in one system only, or is that a brand
loyalty thing?

Reply
Like
1
1 day agopermalink
Report

Hubertus Bigend

I have a couple of cameras from three different mirrorless and SLR
manufacturers, among them Sony FF E-Mount and Olympus/OM MFT. But I have only
one primary system which I mostly use when I leave the house, which in my case
is MFT, with several bodies of which I carry up to two at the same time. I
couldn't imagine mixing systems when travelling. I want to keep the effort to
handle the gear as minimal as possible, and even an OM-1 and E-M1 II/III are
already more different in operation than I'd like for two cameras I might use in
parallel. Which is why I sometimes also pay significantly more for a MFT lens
despite I could get a smaller, lighter and cheaper equivalent on a FF system.

Especially for travel kit, suggesting someone should buy another camera if they
only want a lens is the last I'd ever do, thereby making them pack and transport
even more kit. I also wonder what MFT camera + lens combination you had in mind
that would save money over a $899 lens.

Like
4
1 day agopermalink
Report

Hubertus Bigend

Oh, and, by the way, how small and light do you even want to get? 126mm long,
610g – if I could get anything even remotely equivalent for MFT with decent
optical quality, which would be a 14-150mm f/2-3.5, I'd be willing to pay
significantly more than the $899 Tamron is asking for this lens.

Like
9
1 day ago*permalink
Report

MikeRan

Why would I invest in multiple systems with incompatible lenses? Until I started
doing more professional work where k needed to lenses available at a moments
notice and a backup in case something went horribly wrong, I only ever had one
camera. Why would I keep a full frame camera for more serious photography work
and an m43 camera just for traveling?

I mean I know some people do it. And that’s fine, but it’s not hard to imagine
why if one system is enough, why would I invest in two systems?

Reality is the A1 is my primary camera and I use it on professional gigs (of
course) volunteer gigs, on vacation, everywhere. It’s small, not too heavy and I
have a variety of glass for any situation including a $600 28-200/2.8-5.6. If
you have a great full frame camera that’s not too big you really don’t need
anything else.

Like
8
23 hours agopermalink
Report

Tony5D

And you'd have to buy another camer?

Like
22 hours agopermalink
Report

unhappymeal

@Mike Even as a hobbyist, multiple cameras is a good idea and pretty nice. I've
had my a7C (departed) die on me on holiday. I was very happy I also brought my
a6400 that I also had at the time.

It can also be super liberating. For a while, I was traveling with 3 x Panasonic
GM5. I would mount the PL 12-60 f/2.8-4 on one body, the PL 35-100 f/2.8 or PL
50-200 f/2.8-4 on another body and then the third was a flex (prime lens or
ultra wide zoom). I kept all of that in a 7 L sling. It was pretty awesome being
able to have such a huge focal length range covered at my finger tips.

Like
2
21 hours ago*permalink
Report

elkarrde

That's all valid from your perspective, there's absolutely no fault in that - if
it works for you, go for it.

I was just wondering from my perspective - I have no use for lenses over 50mm,
and the widest I realistically need is 24mm, both equivalent. When I can, I'll
take 10+ lenses in as many mounts as I can but, realistically, I need only two -
a wide-angle and a normal, a lens wider than 35mm-e and a lens narrower than
35mm-e - e.g. a 28mm and a 50mm or maybe just a 24-50mm zoom (that I'll ever use
only at extremes).

@Hubertus Bigend: in my case, my digital travel kit is Panasonic 14/2.5 and
Leica 25/1.4 on a GX7. You can go smaller only with a 14-42PZ zoom (that I
have), with a 20/1.7 lens or a smaller camera, like the GM or GF series.
I've never had any problems using multiple different systems - I have cameras in
15 mounts and lenses in 19 mounts, so it's easy for me to use different cameras
side-by-side. Even when travelling light, I'll take two different systems at
least. 😁

Like
1
21 hours agopermalink
Report

teletorn

@elkarrde:
1. The article is about the new Tamron lens for Sony E mount, not about some
mFT.
2. Maybe mFT is barely needed for anyone?

Like
1
21 hours agopermalink
Report

elkarrde

@MikeRan: Professional photographers needs are quite different than enthusiast
and amateur needs. If you need a pro-grade FF body, well, you do what you need.
I, as just an enthusiast, have no need for that, I'm not willing to suffer the
weight penalty for some elusive image quality I'll never need. 🤷‍♂️

For example, if I'm travelling with a Pentax 645 with 45mm and 75mm lenses, I'll
take my GX7 with the 14-42PZ lens to minimize the size. If I'm lugging my
Bronica GS-1 and 80mm lens, I'll probably take 14mm and 25mm primes instead of
the zoom.
But if I'm driving and have room to spare, all bets are off, I'll probably take
10+ lenses and as many cameras as I know I'll use. 😁

I'd never be able to fit my photography into just one system and just one medium
size (digital sensor/film, whatever), I love to explore what's available and use
all the systems out there. It's much more fun that way, and it's all about fun
for me.
YMMV, of course! 🤷‍♂️

Like
1
21 hours agopermalink
Report

elkarrde

@teletorn: yeah, it's a convenience zoom for lazy photographers, so I've
compared it to the ultimate system for people like me and asked a question I had
no answer for.

It looks like I misjudged the target market and there are even lazier
photographers than I am, and using multiple systems in parallel is not something
photographers do regularly. I wasn't expecting that, honestly. 🤔

I started with one question, now I have even more questions. 😬

Like
1
21 hours agopermalink
Report

unhappymeal

@teletorn People continue to insist that m4/3 is dead, but here we are in 2024
with the OM-1, G9 II and GH7, the best series of crop bodies available today
with arguably one of the most exotic lens line-ups to support it. I do have a
GFX100S with adapters for when I need all the dynamic range I can get or the
stop of all f/stops to end all f/fstops.

Otherwise, the OM-1 + 150-400 Pro comes with me now that I am back into wildlife
and safaris or the OM-1 + 12-100 + a prime for travel and hiking. If I know I'm
doing macro, I will either grab my 90mm f/3.5 Pro 2:1 or absolutely tiny 60mm
f/2.8 1:1.

Like
1
21 hours ago*permalink
Report

MikeRan

“Why would anyone buy this lens for traveling instead of many microFourThirds
long zoom options”

Seriously? In the context of all of your other comments, why would you ask such
a silly question. You clearly already knew the answer.

Like
2
21 hours agopermalink
Report

unhappymeal

@MikeRan It's a ridiculous question, but also an interesting thought experiment.
So many people are buying full frame bodies and then putting slow, cheap optics
in front of the sensor. It kinda defeats the point of buying a bigger system.
Someone tried to brow beat me on the L-mount forum into why the S9 + 45mm f/2.8,
with all its flaws, is a superior choice to something like an OM-5 with the PL
25mm f/1.4. If all you are going to do is put slow, low quality optics in front
of your big sensor, what's the point of the big sensor?

Like
3
21 hours agopermalink
Report

Hubertus Bigend

@elkarrde, I have no "problems" with any such thing, either. But I can be
quicker when the cameras I have to change between are similar, and thus easier
able to follow and focus on the actual subject I want to shoot. As I'm
frequently shooting wildlife wherever I travel, fractions of a second can be
decisive. At the same time, especially when I travel, I don't want to be forced
to concentrate on my gear more than I absolutely have to.

Like
21 hours ago*permalink
Report

Hubertus Bigend

@unhappymeal: My A7 II is not bigger than my OM-1 (and neither would a more
recent FF Sony be). It's not a "bigger system" at all if you compare gear that
can do similar things, camera and lens combined. Specifically for this Tamron
superzoom, which isn't really big or heavy, either, you cannot even get an
equivalent option on MFT for any amount of money. We'd need something like a
14-150mm f/2-3.5 for that. I obviously don't know about image quality, but for
whatever else it actually can do, compared to MFT, this Tamron zoom is not slow,
it's faster than anything MFT has to offer.

Like
1
21 hours ago*permalink
Report

unhappymeal

@Hubertus You need to pay more attention then. Sony bodies (and Nikon) have been
creeping up in size with each iteration.

As for the Tamron super zoom, I agree, it's not heavy, but the quality of the
optics....if the 70-300 if anything to by, it's going to be really poor.

Like
1
21 hours agopermalink
Report

teletorn

@unhappymeal yeah, who cares when the article is about E-mount new zoom lens,
and in some reason we have to be informed mFT is still here again? Why?

Like
1
20 hours agopermalink
Report

unhappymeal

@teletorn Probably the same reason why E-mount folks comment on full frame in
m4/3 articles or E-mount folks comment on Nikon or Canon articles. To take
the...well you know what.

Like
1
20 hours agopermalink
Report

Hubertus Bigend

@unhappymeal: "Sony bodies (and Nikon) have been creeping up in size with each
iteration", I know. I played with an A7 IV only a couple of days ago, and it is
noticeably thicker than the II – but it's still not much bigger or heavier than
the OM-1. (Olympus/OM bodies have also been creeping up in size and weight going
from the original E-M1 over the E-M1 II/III to the OM-1, so they all are in good
company...) Oh, and other than OM System, Sony has a compact, recent and
full-featured A7C line of cameras.

Like
3
20 hours ago*permalink
Report

Hubertus Bigend

"E-mount folks comment on full frame in m4/3 articles" – do they? My experience
rather is that, in MFT articles' forums, some MFT folks will already complain
about the bad things full frame users are allegedly always saying, long before
any such person even would have actually been there.

Like
3
20 hours ago*permalink
Report

unhappymeal

@Hubertus They do. Just scroll through the G9 II release posts. I'm of course
not ignorant of the constant "hey look how good m4/3 is compared to FF" posts on
the forum. For what it's worth, you also see the Sony folks out in the Nikon Z
and Canon RF news threads.

Regarding the a7C, the first version wasn't great--I had one. Too many usability
and slow interface issues. The a7C II and a7CR are by accounts absolutely
excellent, and I commend Sony for that. It really erodes the size advantage of
m4/3 until you get into long lenses.

Like
2
20 hours ago*permalink
Report

Josh Journey

I owned the Panasonic 14-140mm and the Tamron 70-300mm. The ladder is lightyears
ahead in terms of image quality. If this can compete, it would be a very
tempting choice.

Like
19 hours agopermalink
Report

unhappymeal

I owned the Panasonic 14-140 and Tamron 70-300. The former was lightyears ahead
in quality through the zoom range.

Like
1
19 hours agopermalink
Report

unhappymeal

Double Post. Mods please delete.

Like
19 hours ago*permalink
Report

Hubertus Bigend

@Josh Journey: You need to be aware of the difference between the early 14-140mm
f/3.5-5.8 and the later 14-140mm f/3.5-5.6 (which itself came in several but
very similar versions). Specifically at the long end, the latter lens runs
circles around the early one. Also, it is a magnitude easier to make a good
70-300 than a good or even just decent 28-300 (or equivalent).

Like
17 hours agopermalink
Report

Impulses

Hmm, calling others lazy photographers isn't a good way to start or promote a
debate but I'll bite... Let's head off that initial comparison tho, a high end
Oly body with the 12-200 Pro isn't much lighter or any less bulky than a Sony
body with the 28-200 so that's actually a poor example of M4/3's portability
advantage IMO.

The 14-140 is a better example, I'm not big on superzooms but if I was I'd
probably champion it too... OTOH Pana's own 28-200 on L mount has approached the
size of the 14-140 by simply having a slower aperture range, a high res body can
make up the range different thru cropping... A decent 28-300 will crop to 400mm
& 27MP so arguing M4/3 covers all the same use cases is misleading.

I actually DO travel with dual systems at times, but for decidedly niche use
cases or preferences, eg my GX850 with an Oly 75/1.8 is somewhat harder to
replicate in FF land (at best I end up with a similar sized lens and similar
output on a larger body via crop).

Like
1
16 hours ago*permalink
Report

Impulses

(continued) I don't think running dual systems (let alone traveling with them)
is for everyone or even for most shooters... It can have it's place for sure,
but superzooms like these have always been about convenience first and foremost
which is the antithesis of dual systems.

As others stated, most people aren't gonna buy a second body just for one lens,
the 14-140 is a great travel option IMO but smaller M4/3 bodies seem to be going
the way of the dodo so that probably makes it less appealing and less relevant
to most.

Like
1
16 hours ago*permalink
Report

elkarrde

@Impulses: let me be a bit snarky here for the point, but - isn't using a
superzoom lens the ultimate laziness? If one doesn't intend to change the lens,
why not just go with a superzoom compact camera? Ultimate image quality
obviously isn't that important - a superzoom lens is a dead giveaway.

With a travel m43 setup, I was thinking more about multiple smaller lenses -
14mm, 20mm, 14-42mm PZ, 12-32mm and 35-100mm lenses, or even with 14-140mm and
12-60mm zooms and GF/GX/E-PL cameras. I've travelled with that (plus 25/1.4 and
45/1.8) on multiple occasions.

But there's nothing wrong with using superzoom lenses and just a single system,
my initial question was a surprised one (I had the impression nobody is using
superzooms anymore!), definitely not a rule somebody (else than me) should stick
to. 🤷‍♂️

On the other hand, I *might* have a skewed perception - I own cameras in 15
mounts and lenses in 19 mounts, and using 4+ different cameras side-by-side is
just a Saturday for me. 😇

Like
1
14 hours agopermalink
Report

Impulses

Yeah I think you're definitely in a small minority (we both are tbh, multiple
system shooters are not the norm), and AFAIK superzooms have historically been
some of the most popular and most sold lenses, and remain so.

" @Impulses: let me be a bit snarky here for the point, but - isn't using a
superzoom lens the ultimate laziness? "

You could argue that, subjective tho and dependent on use case.

" If one doesn't intend to change the lens, why not just go with a superzoom
compact camera? Ultimate image quality obviously isn't that important - a
superzoom lens is a dead giveaway. "

You could argue that too, but they haven't kept up with ILCs on things like AF
and speed, and the highest end ones like the RX10 are even pricier than this
lens despite their age, and still won't deliver the same level of IQ.

It's not like something like the 28-200 is holding back a FF sensor that much or
that far off from better lenses in IQ, it was a decent leap forward for this
type of lens.

Like
12 hours ago*permalink
Report

Show more replies (23) Reply

Deba007

Nice travel lens .....all purpose......

Reply
Like
3
1 day agopermalink
Report

Husband80

This is probably the first Tamron lens that I didn't like in the last 6-7 years.

Reply
Like
3
1 day agopermalink
Report

Satyaa

Not that it matters, because I don't have a Sony FF camera, but I agree.

There are several Tamron lenses which I wish I had along with a Sony body. This
is not one of them.

I am happy that Tamron is continuing with their variety, and that someone will
find this useful.

Like
2
19 hours ago*permalink
Report

WaterfallJoe

I'm sure Tamron is worried about one person not liking their lens... This will
sell like crazy regardless

Like
1
19 hours agopermalink
Report

Aaron Yang

The 17-50mm f/4 is a pretty sub-par lens as well. I am happy with the 28-200,
35-150, and 50-400. I've heard great things about lenses like the 150-500 and
50-300 too.

Like
1
15 hours agopermalink
Report

Hide replies Reply
Vit Adamek

Funny how some people complain essentially about having another option.

Reply
Like
19
1 day ago*permalink
Report

Hubertus Bigend

So what you're saying is: Don't ever criticize a new lens. Whatever it is, it is
"another option", and that automatically makes it good.

Like
16
1 day agopermalink
Report

noirdesir

Unless a new lens is fully redundant or equal/worse in every aspect than
existing lenses.

Like
2
22 hours agopermalink
Report

Hubertus Bigend

Ok. "Unless a new lens is fully redundant or equal/worse in every aspect than
existing lenses", nobody is allowed to criticize it, as bad as it actually may
be. Thanks for you opinion!

Like
1
22 hours agopermalink
Report

technotic

This is a forum for people's opinions right? You are implying their option is
worthless? Or am I implying you should not have an opinion on their opinion? You
decide.

Like
2
21 hours ago*permalink
Report

noirdesir

Why comment was more meant to address that a new lens is automatically and
always good because it is a new option. Meaning that the
it-is-good-because-it-is-a-new-option argument does not apply if the new lens is
redundant or equal/worse in all aspects.

It is not not nobody should be allowed to criticise a lens, it is more the
opposite, in that one automatically praise every lens just using the new-option
argument.

Like
21 hours agopermalink
Report

Hubertus Bigend

@noirdesir, ok, I see! My original comment was mostly addressed at the thread
starter's complaint, though, that people were complaining about, i.e.
criticizing this new lens...

Like
21 hours agopermalink
Report

Show more replies (1) Reply
ybizzle

We waited 10yrs for them to release an inferior version of a lens they already
had...

F7.1 at the long end basically makes this a sunny day lens. My guess is Tamron
assumes that since cameras have come a long way in handling noise during high
ISO shots, it can get away with a slow lens.

Reply
Like
9
1 day agopermalink
Report

unhappymeal

May I introduce you to Canon RF mount lenses?

Like
39
1 day agopermalink
Report

Vit Adamek

Not a big deal for consumer's zoom. Majority would take the weight-saving as
opposed to more bulky faster lens, me including.

Chances are you would need to stop it down anyway, to achieve optimal sharpness
across the frame at the tele end.

Like
8
1 day agopermalink
Report

Stig Nygaard

> F7.1 at the long end basically makes this a sunny day lens

People keep writing that every time they see a lens slower than the lenses they
were used to with DSLRs (where AF wasn't so flexible in that regard).

Of course there are situations where faster lenses are practical or desirable.
But saying it is "a sunny day lens" is in my opinion nonsense.

Like
8
1 day agopermalink
Report

unhappymeal

Stig, it kinda does. I shoot with lenses with that effective aperture all the
time on m4/3. I am not taking a lens like that indoors and even in overcast
conditions, you're going to be hitting some pretty slow shutter speeds if you
don't want the ISO to go crazy.

Like
4
1 day agopermalink
Report

Vit Adamek

@unhappymeal

Not necessarily, especially for static subjects like landscapes.

Like
3
1 day agopermalink
Report

unhappymeal

Sure, for landscape and architecture. But for the intended audience, they're
going to bump up against shutter speed limitations very quickly indoors if they
want to photograph their family members and pets.

Like
3
1 day ago*permalink
Report

karoli9

@unhappymeal everyone should buy the right tool for the purpose, it is not the
lens's fault.

Like
4
1 day agopermalink
Report

unhappymeal

@karoli9 Of course not, but it's surprising that the apertures keep on getting
narrower and narrower on new lenses.

Like
4
1 day agopermalink
Report

karoli9

Weight, size, purpose, mFT lenses usually have narrower effective aperture and
still work great. It is a good choice, if you need a small footprint lens for
hikes and don't want to have two different systems.

Like
1
1 day agopermalink
Report

unhappymeal

As I said, I often shoot m4/3. I know the limitations of those narrower
apertures. A lens for hikes/landscapes plays exactly into the notion that this
is a stereotypical "Sunny Day" lens. The folks who have traditionally purchased
an 11x super zoom are generally not the hiking landscape community. They are
usually vacation shooters, where this lens is going to really struggle to record
motion indoors or in cloudy or darker conditions.

Like
3
1 day agopermalink
Report

Stig Nygaard

Handheld 800mm, f/11, 1/800s on a very dull cloudy day:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/stignygaard/51363586319/

So if you got f7.1 instead and maybe don't need 1/800s...

Like
2
1 day ago*permalink
Report

unhappymeal

Yes, and ISO 6400. You're about one, maybe two, tops away from the "acceptable"
zone for most software these days. That's daylight and cloudy. Now mount a
similar aperture lens and try to take a picture indoors of people moving, like
many travel zoom buyers do.

I feel exhausted, but I need to re-iterate this: I shoot m4/3 as one of my two
systems. I am intimately aware of the limitations of apertures that you are
referring to. They work fine, for the most part, during day time. Indoors or
shaded areas? You're going to be struggling.

Like
1
23 hours agopermalink
Report

BrentSchumer

Vit Adamek: The 28-200mm is quite decent wide open at 200mm.

Like
1
22 hours agopermalink
Report

Stig Nygaard

> I feel exhausted, but I need to re-iterate this:
> I shoot m4/3 as one of my two systems

We are discussing a fullframe lens for Sony E-mount?
And with f/7.1 and 1/250s we would be *below* ISO 800.

Like
1
20 hours ago*permalink
Report

Leonp

> F7.1 at the long end basically makes this a sunny day lens
You may not have noticed, but the film days, when we were practically restricted
to 400ISO max, are over.
(Nice catch Stig)

Like
3
19 hours ago*permalink
Report

unhappymeal

I'm sorry, what? You cannot equivocally state you would be below ISO 800 at
f/7.1 at 1/250s. If that was the case, I wouldn't bother with owning primes for
my m4/3 system when I stepped indoors. I would also shoot my GFX all the time
with my variable aperture zoom.

Like
19 hours ago*permalink
Report

ZodiacPhoto

Don't forget about today's noise reduction software. An image taken at ISO6400
to maintain fast shutter speed can be cleaned and made usable for printing and
viewing.

Like
17 hours agopermalink
Report

Impulses

These complaints might be somewhat valid if this was Tamron's only super zoom,
but they also make one of the fastest (if not the fastest) FF superzoom in the
28-200, it's f2.8 at the wide end and f4.5 thru 112mm. The 28-300 is clearly
just an option for those that want the extra range but it's not coming at the
cost of speed in an absolute sense.

If you want speed then get the 28-200 (tho cropped to 300mm it'll be effectively
slower, faster at everything under tho). If this was a first party $1,200
superzoom I'd bash it too, but with context that bashing rings hollow IMO.

Like
1
15 hours ago*permalink
Report

Stig Nygaard

> I'm sorry, what? You cannot equivocally state you
> would be below ISO 800 at f/7.1 at 1/250s.

I was referring to the light in my example photo.

You keep talking M4/3 and indoor photography. You have to look at what the
purpose of this lens are.
First of all its a fullframe lens.
Next I see it as a all-round "casual lens", when you only want to carry one lens
for a wide area of purposes. If you are shooting indoor it might not be the lens
(my objections was referring to the "sunny day only lens" comment). But if
shooting indoors, you would normally never use it in the long end (Sportshooters
might want to use 100-200 or even 300mm indoors, but this is of course not a
sportshooters lens).

Like
2 hours ago*permalink
Report

unhappymeal

Sigh. I say m4/3 because even though it's a full frame lens, it's the *same
effective aperture as a m4/3 standard zoom lens*.

Like
2 hours agopermalink
Report

Show more replies (15) Reply
marc petzold

It should be better after 10 years from IQ, and it is perhaps of course (2014)
but my Tamron 28-300 VC PZD is 1) F3.5-6.3, 2) 67mm filterthread too 3) smaller,
shorter than this slower 28-300...4) weights only 540gr, and is 5) only 96mm
long.

https://www.dpreview.com/products/tamron/lenses/tamron_28-300_3p5-6p3_di_vc_pzd/specifications

For this size, i expected a 28-300/2.8-5.6...or a 28-400/F4-7.1 for this size,
but not that slow, bigger than my old PZD. Into contrast, this new version with
the lens hood on...is some kind of behemoth. ;-) US price means - it might cost
for sure 998 EUR here, or perhaps even 1098 EUR.

Not with that zoom range of course, but instead of this new 28-300 Tamron, i'd
rather buy the 20-70/F4 G FE anytime over this, because that's the almost same
price range, but much better IQ otherwise, no 10.7x factor zoom, with all these
optical compromises...and also with a aperture ring.

Horses for courses... ;-)

Good light.

Reply
Like
9
1 day ago*permalink
Report

Vit Adamek

The weight difference is not huge, only 70 grams. That can account for one more
element to provide better optical performance. I would take that slight trade
off.

Like
6
1 day agopermalink
Report

BrentSchumer

Yeah it's an odd lens. The only thing I can think of is that the extreme zoom
and lowish price will snag unsophisticated buyers in a store ("Oh look honey,
over 10x zoom for only $900. That 24-70G doesn't even have 3x zoom!").

The only application I can think of is light wildlife in a very sunny place
while traveling, like Iceland in the summer. And I write this as someone who
sings the praises of the 28-200mm lens.

Like
2
22 hours agopermalink
Report

Hide replies Reply
EXkurogane

Where are all the people who claimed nikon's 28-400 is a Tamron lens

You guys on E mount get 300, not 400.

Reply
Like
7
1 day agopermalink
Report

LoSPt1

Nikon's lens is longer reaching but also heavier and larger, not to mention it
is actually dimmer in most focal length settings due to the difference in the
way f-number changes in these lenses as you zoom in. Past the 200mm mark Nikon
will be shooting in F8 - Tamron maintains F7.1.

After all, all about trade-offs. If you want an extra reach Nikon is definitely
better suited. If you prefer lighter and brighter lens, Tamron is the way to go
to.

Like
22
1 day agopermalink
Report

Hide replies Reply
BrentSchumer

As someone who adores the 28-200mm, this one is a head-scratcher. Starting at
F2.8 and slowly narrowing your aperture makes the 28-200mm very unique among
superzooms (as well as having strong IQ), if you're starting at F4 and going to
F7.1 then you're sort of killing the concept of an "actually good superzoom."

I'd rather see a 28-200mm V2 with VC and maybe some metal on it as a higher tier
option.

Reply
Like
17
1 day agopermalink
Report

unhappymeal

Yes, I think everyone was expecting a 28-200 II. This lens isn't as versatile as
the Nikon Z 28-400. I guess it's a fair bit cheaper, so they've got that...

Like
2
1 day agopermalink
Report

FuhTeng

Thank you Brent. I know that 28-200 is very well liked (loved?) so I was curious
how a user would feel about this alternative.

Like
1
18 hours agopermalink
Report

Hide replies Reply

Keros

Was looking for the announcements from Tamron and Sigma about their upcoming
superzooms for budget alternatives to the Nikon Z 28-400mm. Seems like I'll have
to wait for the Sigma now cause this one is a bit underwhelming.

$899 vs $1299 for the Nikon, add $300 and get 400mm. I guess I'll choose the
Nikon, even though it's super expensive.

I know this announcement is for Sony but I am assuming they will have other
mounts available and same price.

Reply
Like
1
1 day agopermalink
Report

karoli9

For 33 % more reach you pay 44 % more. Between 899 USD and 1299 USD there is 400
USD difference.

Like
1
1 day agopermalink
Report

Keros

Right my mistake my math is not mathing. Still 400mm is so much more versatile
it can be an all around light weight travel and wild life lens.

I guess you can crop with the Tamron and it's lighter and cheaper.

Like
1
19 hours agopermalink
Report

Hide replies Reply
Sida

with the existing 28-200, I think most people would prefer a 24-200 instead of
this.

Reply
Like
20
1 day agopermalink
Report

Dan_168

I know I would prefer the 24-200, as multiple system user I went with the Nikon
24-200 as my " one-fits-all" travel lens and selling the 28-200 for the exact
reason. that 4mm on the wide end is much more important for me even that 24mm is
not the best 24mm money can buy, if I am critical about the image quality I
wouldn't be using any of these super zoom anyway.

Like
5
1 day agopermalink
Report

BrentSchumer

Eh, that 4mm buys you a lot of aperture (and a slow aperture narrowing) and IQ
on the 28-200mm; it's a good trade-off. A 24-200mm would likely be more like the
Nikon, which suffers from narrow apertures.

Like
3
1 day agopermalink
Report

unhappymeal

A 24-200 f/2.8-5.6 would be a large step up in size and cost.

Like
2
1 day agopermalink
Report

io_bg

It could be 1/3 stops slower to keep the size and cost down and still be
attractive to users. No one is mentioning keeping the same aperture range.

Like
1
23 hours agopermalink
Report

unhappymeal

....so f/6.3 at the long end combined with 24 mm f/2.8 at the wide end would
still be noticeably larger and require more expensive optics to keep the same
quality as the existing 28-200.

Like
23 hours agopermalink
Report

io_bg

1/3 stops slower throughout the range, obviously. Please don't make assumptions.

Like
22 hours agopermalink
Report

Show more replies (1) Reply
thx1138

Seriously it was bad enough f/6.3 became the new f/5.6, now we are continuing
the downhill slide to f/7.1. Please only release it for RF mount, it'll feel at
home amongst those molasses slow lenses.

The fact it's larger and heavier than a DSLR based 28-300 f/3.5-6.3 a full 1/3rd
stop faster throughout the range and requiring a 44mm+ flange distance, is poor.

By now, I was expecting a 24-300 f/3.5-6.3. That would warrant a larger size.

Now queue the ususal "it's only 1/3rd a stop slower" comments. So when they next
release the update at f/4.5-8 it'll only be a 1/3rd stop slower right. It never
ends.

Reply
Like
31
1 day agopermalink
Report

Dan_168

So true !!!! LOL.

Like
1 day agopermalink
Report

ybizzle

Agreed. Canon is number one on the guilty list for doing this, especially on
their kit lenses. Remember when the Rebel kits were 3.5-5.6, then during the EOS
M it went from 3.5-6.3, and now on the RFs it's f4.5-6.3 with less range. Might
as well just make the kit lens a constant f8 like Panasonic did on the S9 and
call it a day.

Like
6
1 day ago*permalink
Report

AbrasiveReducer

I wonder if this is the best they can do, or It's a cost issue, or what? If
someone says "I can make a reasonably lightweight, reasonably sharp 24-300 but
it's either going be $800 and f/6.3 or...$4000 and f/2.8, and 5 pounds" maybe
they just can't do it.

Like
2
1 day agopermalink
Report

Samuel Dilworth

Slower lenses make sense when people are clamouring for tack-sharp, small lenses
and cameras go to ISO one million (or 6400 with minimal noise at typical viewing
sizes).

I welcome this trend. The blurry ‘consumer’ zooms of the SLR era are over. You
could easily shoot stock images with this new crop of affordable small-and-light
slow zooms … if consumer cameras hadn’t killed stock photography, I mean.

Like
5
1 day ago*permalink
Report

Hubertus Bigend

I might even be interested in something like a 28-300mm f/7-11 for my Sony, if
it could be as compact and as sharp as existing Micro Four Thirds options like
the Panasonic 14-140mm f/3.5-5.6. Generally, slower lenses shouldn't replace
faster ones, though, especially if they're even larger and heavier. Except of
course if it needed to become better and thats why it became slightly larger and
heavier, too.

Like
2
1 day ago*permalink
Report

L Lenson

Yes, more slow options please. Ricoh GXR P10 28-300 comes to mind.

Like
1 day agopermalink
Report

teletorn

@thx1138 "I was expecting..." 😂 Tamron is deeply concerned about your
expectations.

Like
1
21 hours ago*permalink
Report

Impulses

" I might even be interested in something like a 28-300mm f/7-11 for my Sony, if
it could be as compact and as sharp as existing Micro Four Thirds options like
the Panasonic 14-140mm f/3.5-5.6. " -Hubertus

Pana's own 28-200 f4-7.1 gets pretty close on size/weight, but I think longer
range makes it tougher, but then there's the cropping leeway of high res FF
bodies (which it doesn't seem like M4/3 will match anytime soon)... A Canon RF
100-400 f5.6-8 is about the size of the Pana 100-300 f4-5.6.

Those FF options overlap with the M4/3 ones to a great extent, simply increasing
the degree to which a system can scale up or down, just like the 12-200 on M4/3
(as large but slower by equivalence than the 28-200).

Like
15 hours agopermalink
Report

thx1138

What's even weirder they just released a 50-300 f/4.5-6.3 which is much better
optically at the telephoto end. Why did we need this?

Instead, how about a 24-240 f/2.8-5.6 update of the already excellent 28-200
f/2.8-5.6.

Like
7 hours agopermalink
Report

Show more replies (4) Reply

www.dpreview.com Open in urlscan Pro 104.22.76.130 Public Scan

Form analysis 1 forms found in the DOM

GET https://www.dpreview.com/search

Text Content

www.dpreview.com Open in urlscan Pro
104.22.76.130 Public Scan

Form analysis
1 forms found in the DOM