p.18 #1 · Official: Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD (Model A058)
I have no problem putting my a1 in harsh conditions. If I am willing to be out shooting my camera goes. I do admit that at almost 70 my personal weather sealing is not what it used to be. The a1 is way better at this point. My gear is insured against all risk Worldwide. Worth the piece of mind.
I was just in Colorado Mountains shooting Fall Colors. Up over 10,000 feet a number of times. I Had two zooms and 4 primes. All went out in all weather. Only light rain this trip snow only on the highest peaks.
I have equipment to shoot. I take reasonable protections for it like rain covers when needed. But I am willing to shoot and mitigate with insurance. Life is too short to let risk aversion run it.
p.18 #2 · Official: Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD (Model A058)
1bwana1 wrote:
I have no problem putting my a1 in harsh conditions. If I am willing to be out shooting my camera goes. I do admit that at almost 70 my personal weather sealing is not what it used to be. The a1 is way better at this point. My gear is insured against all risk Worldwide. Worth the piece of mind.
I was just in Colorado Mountains shooting Fall Colors. Up over 10,000 feet a number of times. I Had two zooms and 4 primes. All went out in all weather. Only light rain this trip snow only on the highest peaks.
I have equipment to shoot. I take reasonable protections for it like rain covers when needed. But I am willing to shoot and mitigate with insurance. Life is too short to let risk aversion run it....Show more →
The risk is not using your equipment in harsh conditions (my a9 feels nicely deep underwater, it is protected by the box)))), but to change lenses in harsh conditions.
Again, with all my due respect, cudos for you if you like to change lenses during the wind in the cold with extra elements, but majority of people prefer to avoid the hassle and use zoom.
I had taken nice photos in winter mountains (Caucases and Alps) during 50 knts wind and -30C temperatures on A9 with 1635GM, my partner had done the same on 100400GM (8-10 hours of bloody cold hiking up the ridge with 2000 vertical meters of the deep powder skiing thereafter is a typical day) and I can not imagine The One who would prefer changing primes in such conditions.
Another example is typical Scotland winter - bloody windy and rainy/snowy with temperatures around 0C, all your goretex is covered with thin ice...
Is it technical possible to change lenses in conditions? Yes.
Would you be crazy enough to do it? No.
Amen))))
P.S. Gentlemen, nobody is against primes in normal life. But this thread is about 35150 zoom.
p.18 #3 · Official: Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD (Model A058)
IslandMed wrote:
The risk is not using your equipment in harsh conditions (my a9 feels nicely deep underwater, it is protected by the box)))), but to change lenses in harsh conditions.
The a1 does have protection for the sensor when changing lenses. But of course that is limited at some point. I am not sure where that is.
Yes, we should et back to the original topic of this thread, The new Tamron 350150 lens.
p.18 #5 · Official: Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD (Model A058)
"I prefer primes" does not logical enough against Tamron's "the ultimate travel lens".
35150 is quite interesting lens from all points of view. It might not suit your personal style of shooting - it is perfectly ok.
One day in future, when curved sensors will be ancient))), we might have the same discussion about new zoom 20-200 with 1,..-2 variable apperture which weight 500gr and arguments from all sides will be the same))))
IMO, cudos for Tamron for trying to give us something new. Cudos for Canon for their bloody heavy and expensive 2.0 zoom. Cudos for Sony for breaking the huge mental barrier with mirrorless. Cudos for Sigma for their 105 1.4 "bokeh monster brick". Etc.
All innovations deserve applauds.
p.18 #13 · Official: Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD (Model A058)
It's probably going to be an exceptional zoom for Storm Chasing, which is in a lot of ways like wedding photography strangely enough. Fast pace, need to go from wide to zoomed in, need good low light shooting/fast shutter speeds.
Probably going to pick this lens up as soon as possible.
p.18 #14 · Official: Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD (Model A058)
bjornthun wrote:
Lots of small, lightweight and good primes to choose from for Sony E-mount, or use via an adapter.
(1) Yes, you are right.
(2) Can harly see connection with 35150.
(3) Have YOU ever try to change lenses during harsh conditions in the mountains? Have you ever try to capture fast changing "decisive moments" in Indian bazar "with just one prime" (because you do not have time to change)?
It seems really enough "ultimate travel primes" comments in 35150 thread.
Get out of your computer and have a good day in bad weather with your primes climbing above 3000m in the mountains in winter. I have had enough such days to get my hands uncritically frostbiten twice even using zooms.
Just give it try))) it might change your opinion forever
p.18 #15 · Official: Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD (Model A058)
IslandMed wrote:
(1) Yes, you are right.
(2) Can harly see connection with 35150.
(3) Have YOU ever try to change lenses during harsh conditions in the mountains? Have you ever try to capture fast changing "decisive moments" in Indian bazar "with just one prime" (because you do not have time to change)?
It seems really enough "ultimate travel primes" comments in 35150 thread.
Get out of your computer and have a good day in bad weather with your primes climbing above 3000m in the mountains in winter. I have had enough such days to get my hands uncritically frostbiten twice even using zooms.
Just give it try))) it might change your opinion forever
Been there, done that with primes. What's your point exactly? You are assuming that people who shoot primes don't shoot in bad weather or somehow can't shoot at an Indian bazar. Should I assume that people who shoot with zooms just plant their feet in one spot and let their zoom do all the composing for them.
You seem to get upset when people have a different view than yours...maybe just accept people shoot differently and live with it.
p.18 #16 · Official: Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD (Model A058)
Jacknut16 wrote:
It's probably going to be an exceptional zoom for Storm Chasing, which is in a lot of ways like wedding photography strangely enough. Fast pace, need to go from wide to zoomed in, need good low light shooting/fast shutter speeds.
Probably going to pick this lens up as soon as possible.
I used my Tamron 28-200 for some lightening the other week...thought later that it'd be a great storm lens, but you're right, the extra low-light shooting of this would be great for storm chasing when you don't have the luxury of a tripod & long shutter times.
p.18 #17 · Official: Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD (Model A058)
chez wrote:
Been there, done that with primes. What's your point exactly? You are assuming that people who shoot primes don't shoot in bad weather or somehow can't shoot at an Indian bazar. Should I assume that people who shoot with zooms just plant their feet in one spot and let their zoom do all the composing for them.
You seem to get upset when people have a different view than yours...maybe just accept people shoot differently and live with it.
My point seems to be quite clear: versatility of zoom occasionaly is game changer.
Just to be clear -
I personaly own full range of primes and prefer them to zooms for portraits, weddings receiptions (not the dance hall or the wild party) and when I do not need need to carry them long. All primes are GMs or similar level (Zeiss 50 1.4; Sigma 105 1.4);
I collect nice MF primes for fun with MO Trioplan 100 and Helios 44-2 being my favorites;
I am doing all sorts of film photography with Minolta CLE and Mamya 645;
Of cource I have holy trinity of GM zooms plus 100400gm.
And - what is important - I fund all my non-fun gear from photography income. I do weddinds, parties and families professionaly; I sell my backcountry skiing, rock-climbing and windsurfing photos; and I have accreditation in REUTERS.
I used to travel extensively for fun and shooting extreme sports - roughly 10 to 20 trips per year to destinations I love: Alps, Caucases, Egypt, Morocco, India, China, Russian Far East, etc.
Based on above I have the right to assume I have enough experience from both prime- and zoom-worlds. My opinion is based on experience and money earned.
Based on this experience I am risking to make an assumption that 35150 might be really "the ultimate travel lens".
Moreover, without trying to hurt ego of any of forum members I assume that DENIERS (primes forever! zooms sucks!)))) have never been shooting in stressful environments/assignments like fast shooting of numerous decisive moments or in extreme environments. And it might be the case that their real life experience is not enough to issue judgements about Tamron 35150.
I would not mind if you jugde 2875v2 without even trying it.
But, pleeeease, do not judge 35150 - this is INNOVATIVE lens.
My Canon buddy - despite the fact that he is beatifull and respected wedding photographer - was to fast to judge Canon 2.0 zoom as expensive and bloody heavy. It is his main working house now.))))
I hope you appreciate the time of making my point clear and spend some time in the high mountains in winter or time-stressed shooting of decisive moments.)))))
p.18 #18 · Official: Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD (Model A058)
IslandMed wrote:
My point seems to be quite clear: versatility of zoom occasionaly is game changer.
Just to be clear -
I personaly own full range of primes and prefer them to zooms for portraits, weddings receiptions (not the dance hall or the wild party) and when I do not need need to carry them long. All primes are GMs or similar level (Zeiss 50 1.4; Sigma 105 1.4);
I collect nice MF primes for fun with MO Trioplan 100 and Helios 44-2 being my favorites;
I am doing all sorts of film photography with Minolta CLE and Mamya 645;
Of cource I have holy trinity of GM zooms plus 100400gm.
And - what is important - I fund all my non-fun gear from photography income. I do weddinds, parties and families professionaly; I sell my backcountry skiing, rock-climbing and windsurfing photos; and I have accreditation in REUTERS.
I used to travel extensively for fun and shooting extreme sports - roughly 10 to 20 trips per year to destinations I love: Alps, Caucases, Egypt, Morocco, India, China, Russian Far East, etc.
Based on above I have the right to assume I have enough experience from both prime- and zoom-worlds. My opinion is based on experience and money earned.
Based on this experience I am risking to make an assumption that 35150 might be really "the ultimate travel lens".
Moreover, without trying to hurt ego of any of forum members I assume that DENIERS (primes forever! zooms sucks!)))) have never been shooting in stressful environments/assignments like fast shooting of numerous decisive moments or in extreme environments. And it might be the case that their real life experience is not enough to issue judgements about Tamron 35150.
I would not mind if you jugde 2875v2 without even trying it.
But, pleeeese, do not judge 35150 - this is INNOVATIVE lens.
My Canon buddy - despite the fact that he is beatifull and respected wedding photographer - was to fast to judge Canon 2.0 zoom as expensive and bloody heavy. It is his main working house now.))))
I hope you appreciate the time of making my point clear and spend some time in the high mountains in winter or time-stressed shooting of decisive moments.)))))...Show more →
I'm not judging the lens...it might be a gem. I'm judging Tamron calling the lens the ultimate travel lens which from my viewpoint, it's way to heavy to lug around all day long. I believe even you stated you don't take many of your lenses too far out of the house because they weigh too much. Well this Tamron weighs pretty damn close to the Sony 70-200 2.8 which you claimed was too heavy to carry very far. So from your viewpoint, if one lens weighing basically the same as the Tamron is too heavy to wander away from the home, how can this Tamron be the ultimate travel lens? Isn't it too heavy as well...or were you wrong in the other thread?
p.18 #19 · Official: Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD (Model A058)
Frankly I'm incensed that Tamron is calling this the ultimate travel lens. (I'm not.....marketing is marketing.) Sort of along the lines of separating judging the lens vs the marketing spiel.
So let's play this out. He's going to say it's 10 ounces lighter and an inch and a half shorter. You're going to say that given his build and height that it is close enough to where he will absolutely have to think it's too heavy. And you'll throw in that metric system is much better. And he'll come back saying that at a higher altitude it actually becomes less heavy, and might agree that the metric system is better. You'll say it's such a small difference, that no one could possibly notice, you'd have to be almost in space.
No one is going to align everyone's opinion to exactly the same....give each other a break. Everyone is different, has different needs and priorities. Sounds like one of you is interested, the other not. Doesn't mean the lens is great or bad, to your point. You both have valid points from your perspective (whether or not you both agree they are valid), otherwise you wouldn't be arguing so passionately.
This is kind of getting a little silly isn't it? Can't we go back to arguing whether the Sigma 35/1.2 Art is too big and heavy or not too big and heavy? Did we ever get the official answer on that one? The names change, but it seems like this argument seems to spark fireworks.
BTW this is not directed to one individual, more just a general observation.
chez wrote:
I'm not judging the lens...it might be a gem. I'm judging Tamron calling the lens the ultimate travel lens which from my viewpoint, it's way to heavy to lug around all day long. I believe even you stated you don't take many of your lenses too far out of the house because they weigh too much. Well this Tamron weighs pretty damn close to the Sony 70-200 2.8 which you claimed was too heavy to carry very far. So from your viewpoint, if one lens weighing basically the same as the Tamron is too heavy to wander away from the home, how can this Tamron be the ultimate travel lens? Isn't it too heavy as well...or were you wrong in the other thread? ...Show more →
p.18 #20 · Official: Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD (Model A058)
tsdevine wrote:
Frankly I'm incensed that Tamron is calling this the ultimate travel lens. (I'm not.....marketing is marketing.) Sort of along the lines of separating judging the lens vs the marketing spiel.
So let's play this out. He's going to say it's 10 ounces lighter and an inch and a half shorter. You're going to say that given his build and height that it is close enough to where he will absolutely have to think it's too heavy. And you'll throw in that metric system is much better. And he'll come back saying that at a higher altitude it actually becomes less heavy, and might agree that the metric system is better. You'll say it's such a small difference, that no one could possibly notice, you'd have to be almost in space.
No one is going to align everyone's opinion to exactly the same....give each other a break. Everyone is different, has different needs and priorities. Sounds like one of you is interested, the other not. Doesn't mean the lens is great or bad, to your point. You both have valid points from your perspective (whether or not you both agree they are valid), otherwise you wouldn't be arguing so passionately.
This is kind of getting a little silly isn't it? Can't we go back to arguing whether the Sigma 35/1.2 Art is too big and heavy or not too big and heavy? Did we ever get the official answer on that one? The names change, but it seems like this argument seems to spark fireworks.
I don't think we've even settled on a name for the 35/1.2. Slogma? Big Siggy? Sigmanchor? The only thing we established is that Bigma is already taken.
