j4nu
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.23 #16 · Official: Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD (Model A058) | |
1bwana1 wrote:
I guess that depends on how you approach lens choices. For me it is based on use cases. I se both the Tamron 35-150mm and the Sony 70-200mm as fitting into the event portraiture space. The Tamron biases to the wide end, and the Sony biases to the long end. In this use case that is the primary difference. However, outside this use case the Tamron is extremely limited because of its slower fps speed, and less capable AF. In this use case the AF performance of the Sony is way ahead from all the reviews I have seen. The Sony also has a much broader use case capability. Sports, wildlife, any action based activity.
The Tamron is only 1/3 less (funny how numbers work). $1,000 is not a lot in the World of photography. I would find the 35-150 a much more interesting proposition if it were priced in the $1200 range like the other Tamron zooms.
The AF in the 70-200 is World class. It is my experience that lenses with its capabilities will also likely get a higher hit rate at all speeds. Speed is not just about FPS. It is about focus acquisition speed, racking near to far, tracking, and low light situations. These and other AF challenges that one will encounter in event portrait shooting are also likely much better in the 70-200.
No one is trying to make a fail out of the Tamron lens. Everyone will choose for himself what is important. The Sony is an industry leading lens in all areas of performance, features, and build. The Tamron just seems to me to have more compromises than the price differential justifies.
By the way, I am a Tamron fan, and have three of their excellent zooms in my Sony kit. You can see images of mine posted in their forum threads. I would still choose the Tamron 28-75/70-180 lens pair over this new lens. About the same price for that solution, with better IQ, lighter weight when on the camera, better AF it seems, and higher hit rate.
Of course, my opinion only.
...Show more →
All personal, but (to me) there is a huge difference on the pictures I can take with 35mm compared to 70mm.
70-200 is "just" tele, while 35-150 is really versatile (again, to me).
Regarding the price, the GM is 1.63x of the Tamron's price around here, compared to only 1.47x in the US, if I got it right. I agree, that the absolute difference is not that that big in photography world (wink, wink - Leica), as you mention, Relatively though, it's quite substantial. Also, I prefer ~5cm less on the length of the Tamron, as opposed to ~100g weight reduction on the GM.
The biggest downside of the Tamron seems to be AF tracking, but as I mentioned 85DN is also rather bad on that front and I still like using it on my rather active kids  .Still, depending on how bad it is, it might indeed make or brake this lens. As for fps, I find 15 fps enough for "casual" shooting, but again that's personal and depends on your intended usage (definitely a major differentiator when it comes to BIF/sports/action) . I rarely move the wheel to Hi+ as I hate the culling that inevitably happens afterwards  .
I'm also wondering about both (and not only these unfortunately) lenses, but I was supposed not to buy lenses I don't really need any more (I guess I should get rid off: 135GM, 100-400GM or 24-70DN if that happens )
|
