p.31 #2 · Official: Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD (Model A058)
photosbyjaron wrote:
**[Edited to add]** Now that I've slept and thought about it further, that initial disappointment is tampered a bit given that I must acknowledge that I likely had overly ambitious and unrealistic expectations/hope that an <$2k third party zoom would completely trounce a traditional 24-70 (my copy is excellent in its own right) as well as one of the best GM zooms. The fact that a lens with this focal range even trades blows and bests the 24-70 and 100-400 in some areas and at some focal lengths is itself quite impressive. Also, the sun flare/ghosting issue is actually quite well handled at wide aperture, so it may just be that I will have to dedicate f/16 sunstar shots to my 35GM. It may also turn out to actually be an ideal lens for my wife's uses, but I'm still torn on this lens and will probably change my mind several times within the return window between a 16-35GM/35-150 setup versus a holy trinity of GM (mk2) zooms.
Once I wrap up work today, I'll try to head back up the hill in brighter conditions, verify that my copy is centered, and redo the same tests with better light in triplicate to make sure that frames don't suffer from camera shake etc. ...Show more →
The 24-70mm 2.8 Sigma is known for its excellent sharpness. And it's "only" a 24-70 f2.8. The Tamron has to accomplish a lot more so it might not be the absolut best at every focal length. I mean, this lens is about versatility while still upholding very good quality. That at least is my expectation.
p.31 #3 · Official: Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD (Model A058)
im getting this and selling my 24-105G. i use that lens a lot of events and i think this replaces it with a much better range and better sharpness. especially when paired with my 12-24G.
p.31 #4 · Official: Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD (Model A058)
Okay I've revised my post on the previous page with new info regarding the sharpness comparison of the Tamron with the Sigma 24-70 and 100-400GM, along with a link to jpegs taken straight from the RAW files without any editing.
We're using it later today and tomorrow to take some social media type images, so I'll try to test some other attributes of it as well, such as bokeh, and post those also. Overall, I'm warming up to thinking that it will be able to give me a 2 lens backpacking solution with the 16-35. Might then sell the 100-400 and get the 200-600 for when we aren't going far from the truck.
p.31 #5 · Official: Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD (Model A058)
photosbyjaron wrote:
Okay I've revised my post on the previous page with new info regarding the sharpness comparison of the Tamron with the Sigma 24-70 and 100-400GM, along with a link to jpegs taken straight from the RAW files without any editing.
We're using it later today and tomorrow to take some social media type images, so I'll try to test some other attributes of it as well, such as bokeh, and post those also. Overall, I'm warming up to thinking that it will be able to give me a 2 lens backpacking solution with the 16-35. Might then sell the 100-400 and get the 200-600 for when we aren't going far from the truck. ...Show more →
Thanks! That's what I wanted to hear .
I might trade my 100-400GM for it too, a completely different lens but I simply don't see myself using the GM often...
In 24-70DN on the other hand, I like the wide end but I do have a prime for that too .
p.31 #6 · Official: Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD (Model A058)
B&H emailed me letting me know they believe the lens will be in-stock and shipped on November 9th. That's an unusually long delay for such a leading retailer when comparing to their competitors who already have or had it in stock. For reference, I ordered in the first minute of pre-orders. Means I won't likely get any fall shots in with it this year.
p.31 #7 · Official: Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD (Model A058)
j4nu wrote:
In 24-70DN on the other hand, I like the wide end but I do have a prime for that too .
I agree, both my wife and I love the Sigma 24-70. I think it would be a harder decision whether to replace the Sigma with the 35-150 if we didn't have two copies of the Sigma. I really like the idea of just having the 16-35 and 35-150 for long backpacking trips. 70mm just isn't long enough, so I've been backpacking with the 100-400. Of course, a 24-70 with the new 70-200 + 1.4TC would be a great too, but that $2,700 price tag for the new 70-200 is a difficult ask with the wife.
p.31 #8 · Official: Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD (Model A058)
Interesting. I also have the Sigma 24-70mm f2.8. Haven‘t really used it a lot, but when I do, the focal range comes in handy. But personally I don‘t see it as much as a portrait glass than I see the Tamron 35-150mm.
Haven‘t made up my mind whether I will sell it now. Maybe I will keep it and just use in different situations. But maybe I will add a 24mm (this provides new “artistic benefits“ in terms of extraction“) or a 16-35 2.8? Maybe a 16-35 F4. But most likely the Tamron 17-28. I‘m not that much of a wide angle photographer and the Tamron (again) is comparatively small and light.
What I know is that I sold my 70-180mm Tamron already. And my Zeiss Planar 50mm 1.4 is up for sale as well. I‘m still struggling with the Batis 40mm 2.0. It‘s such a different lens for many reasons. Close focusing, bokeh balls (which I like a lot => https://flic.kr/p/2k3B9zU). And whenever I used it I was please with the results. In addition it‘s really a lightweight. But then again, let‘s face it… 40 f2 is something I can cover with the 35-150mm as well. And I‘m more a zoom shooter I find out more and more. Except for portraits in a specific situation that I can control right from the beginning. For this, I still have the Sigma 105 1.4 and quite new the Sigma Contemproray 65mm f2.0.
But interesting. This Tamron made me sell and think about selling more lenses then any lens has ever done before. Which means (for me) it‘s even more versatile than I had hoped for.
p.31 #9 · Official: Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD (Model A058)
We are truly lucky as Sony e-mount users in 2021 with this abundant array of extremely capable lenses to suit every fancy. (I know I know, some of y'all want to mention 28mm, 200mm, and 300mm primes. )
As a hobbyist, most of my photographic usage is landscapes since hiking in the Colorado mountains or Utah desert is how my wife and I like to spend our free time. I also sometimes shoot some of that semi-environmental portrait stuff of her for her collaborations with brands etc., so I'd say I probably shoot 80/20 landscape vs environmental portraits. I love the rendering and look of the Sigma 24-70 and 24mm in portrait orientation was my most used focal length for my stitched panoramas before I got my 35GM. But after directly comparing the 24-70 with the 14-24, my Sigma 14-24 is sharper at 24mm than my Sigma 24-70, so whenever I wanted to shoot at 24mm, I'd switch lenses to the 14-24 to get the best IQ. And then when I shoot at 35mm, now I'll switch to the 35GM for the best IQ. And then if I want something at 50, then I have to switch over to the 24-70, etc. etc. This last fall, I was constantly switching lenses back and forth among the 14-24, 24-70, 35GM, 85DGDN, and 100-400, and I just got really tired of constantly changing lenses.
If I have enough time to change lenses without any rush, I'll probably always revert to using the 35GM for any 35mm shot because that lens is just too good not to use, but being able to primarily use the 35-150, and then have the 16-35 for when I need to go wider, seems like it will really simplify things. There have been more than one occasion when my wife will capture light just right on a landscape, some unique instance with fog or a light ray or something, that I missed because I was too preoccupied with switching lenses to get the "best" IQ.
p.31 #10 · Official: Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD (Model A058)
I share your pain
I also want to simplify. This will help in many situations. And as you said, the best picture is the one you got.
Yep, too many options. I came from Pentax. I never had the feeling that I miss a certain lens. Was always satisfied, which made life easier and made me focus on taking picture instead on pondering about gear. Which one to buy? Which one to take with me? Which one to mount? Which one to leave behind… I went out and took pictures That‘s pretty much what I hope the 35-150 will enable me. However, to be honest, I admire your willingness to use it as a hiking lens. I mean, it‘s not a lightweight (even though I think it‘s still perfectly manageable). But then again, if you take three other lenses with you, it‘s not lighter…
And yes, there‘s always a lens that a photographer loves. When I shot with Pentax it was the FA77 1.9 in full frame and the FA43 1.9 when using APS-C. For Sony, so far it has only been the Samyang 85 1.4 AF (which I sold) and a bit the Batis 40 f2.0 for it’s character. But I see much potential with the Tamron. So far I like everything I get, also f2.0 at 35mm comes in handy.
One OT question: What is so good about the 35mm GM? The rendering? The bokeh? The sharpness?
p.31 #11 · Official: Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD (Model A058)
For me I have the Nikkor Z 24-70mm f/2.8, and it is spectacular. I find my copy sharper @ far edge/corners than 35-150 wide open (Although Tamron opens wider). I don't have high MP body so Nikkor is perfect for me.
It can be tricky for me whether or not to keep Nikkor. I am getting Z9 as well, If Z9 can adapt this lens comfortably, I'll have the options to get rid of SONY A9, or SELL the Z9 at a gain (highly demanded) and grab an A1.
zeitlos wrote:
The 24-70mm 2.8 Sigma is known for its excellent sharpness. And it's "only" a 24-70 f2.8. The Tamron has to accomplish a lot more so it might not be the absolut best at every focal length. I mean, this lens is about versatility while still upholding very good quality. That at least is my expectation.
p.31 #12 · Official: Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD (Model A058)
zeitlos wrote:
One OT question: What is so good about the 35mm GM? The rendering? The bokeh? The sharpness?
Not to get too sidetracked from the main topic, but for me, I think I love it for what I view as the perfect balance among compromises for size, rendering, and especially sharpness. The fact that it essentially is as sharp for landscapes as a voigtlander 35 but with autofocus to take portraits of my wife, friends, and dogs, in a fairly compact size. Does the Sigma 1.2 render slightly better? Sure, but it's huge. Does the Voigt provide more sharpness and better sunstars? Subjectively many would say yes, but it doesn't have AF. Does the Sigma 35 f/2 have smoother bokeh/rendering? Yeah maybe, but it isn't as sharp or as responsive with AF. It may be that it isn't the "best" 35mm at any one thing, but for me, it is the best compromise of everything.
I generally find that my favorite lenses tend to be in the "best collection of compromises" category. It's also why I love the Sigma 24-70, the 85DGDN, and now, the Tamron 35-150. This new Tamron also seems to be an excellent best collection of compromises.
p.31 #13 · Official: Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD (Model A058)
I observed that @150mm if you have sun hit the lens at an angle, opposite side corner will show bright corner and maybe some effect. See attached (bottom right corner).
This is more obvious than other modern lenses I think.
p.31 #14 · Official: Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD (Model A058)
photosbyjaron wrote:
I generally find that my favorite lenses tend to be in the "best collection of compromises" category. It's also why I love the Sigma 24-70, the 85DGDN, and now, the Tamron 35-150. This new Tamron also seems to be an excellent best collection of compromises.
Thank You for your elaborated answer! Appreciate it!
p.31 #15 · Official: Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD (Model A058)
gordonyz wrote:
I observed that @150mm if you have sun hit the lens at an angle, opposite side corner will show bright corner and maybe some effect. See attached (bottom right corner).
This is more obvious than other modern lenses I think.
Thanks I haven't noticed this yet, but I'll try to test to recreate it this evening or tomorrow. Did this occur with the lens hood on?
I can definitely confirm that flare resistance and ghosting are not a strength with this lens. Flare is definitely more obtrusive than the Sigma 24-70, though less than the 100-400 when pointed directly with the sun in view. Below are some comparisons against the Sigma and the 100-400GM, as well as the 35GM. (The sun flare comparison was an afterthought, so I don't have them exactly matching between the 100-400 and the 35-150. I can do so though if requested.)
p.31 #16 · Official: Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD (Model A058)
photosbyjaron wrote:
Not to get too sidetracked from the main topic, but for me, I think I love it for what I view as the perfect balance among compromises for size, rendering, and especially sharpness. The fact that it essentially is as sharp for landscapes as a voigtlander 35 but with autofocus to take portraits of my wife, friends, and dogs, in a fairly compact size. Does the Sigma 1.2 render slightly better? Sure, but it's huge. Does the Voigt provide more sharpness and better sunstars? Subjectively many would say yes, but it doesn't have AF. Does the Sigma 35 f/2 have smoother bokeh/rendering? Yeah maybe, but it isn't as sharp or as responsive with AF. It may be that it isn't the "best" 35mm at any one thing, but for me, it is the best compromise of everything.
I generally find that my favorite lenses tend to be in the "best collection of compromises" category. It's also why I love the Sigma 24-70, the 85DGDN, and now, the Tamron 35-150. This new Tamron also seems to be an excellent best collection of compromises. ...Show more →
Man, we should really call it a "Sony privilege" when we're calling 35GM a "compromise". I get what you mean though, that's exactly what I think about it too (though after seeing Fred's test I think it's at worse tied with CV35APO when it comes to sharpness ).
To be a bit more on topic, did you shoot these flare shots with a UV filter on? I noticed they can degrade flare resistance quite a bit (i.e. they seem to produce some additional reflections, I get weird sensor patterns on A1).
p.31 #18 · Official: Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD (Model A058)
photosbyjaron wrote:
I forgot to first test whether the copy I received is centered, so I'll have to do that tomorrow. I'll also retest all of this at mid day to see whether my initial impressions are consistent with tomorrow's result. I went up the hill and took some comparison shots this evening against my Sigma 24-70DGDN, 35GM, and 100-400GM and have some initial first impressions about sharpness (though I'll test more tomorrow. Apologies that I don't have time right now to crop and upload everything, but I'll try to when I have time)
[Okay, my copy is just slightly decentered, but probably not enough to worry about. I've retested nearly all of these shots to make sure camera shake wasn't an issue, taking 3 of each shot and picking the best of the three. But you don't have to take my word for it. All of my test shots are available here: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/s5qyefoat8yw8aj/AADtwwpuKQOh3o9jbpe7hSgYa?dl=0 ]
Obviously the 35GM is by far the best of the three lenses. The GM at f/2 is sharper than either zoom at any aperture (no surprise there).
@f/2.8: The 24-70DGDN and 35-150 appear equal in the center. The Sigma a smidge sharper at mid image. The Tamron is noticeable sharper and with more contrast in the corners.
@f/4: Both appear equal in the center. Sigma noticeably sharper mid frame. Tamron noticeably sharper corners.
@f/5.6: Both appear equal in the center. Sigma noticeably sharper mid frame. Tamron noticeably sharper corners.
@f/8: Diffraction starts and IQ suffers compared to f/5.6. Tamron just a smidge sharper in the center and corners. Sigma a smidge sharper mid frame.
@50mm@:
@f/2.8: Sigma is a smidge sharper in the center and mid frame. Tamron noticeably sharper in the corners.
@f/4: Sigma still barely leads in the center and mid frame, but the Tamron is catching up and still clearly sharper in the corners.
@f/5.6: Both appear equal in the center. Sigma just a smidge sharper mid frame. Tamron still noticeably sharper in the corners.
@f/8: Just like at 35mm, diffraction starts and IQ suffers compared to f/5.6 on both but appears to affect the Sigma more and earlier. Tamron becomes sharper in the center and corners and matches mid frame.
@70mm:
@f/2.8: Both are equally sharp in the center. Tamron is a smidge sharper in mid frame and noticeably sharper in corners.
@f/4: Both equally sharp in the center. Tamron is sharper in mid frame and corners.
@f/5.6: Tamron is sharper across the frame.
@f/8: Diffraction starts and IQ suffers compared to f/5.6 on both. Tamron sharper across the frame.
Sigma/Tamron Sharpness Comparison Summary: Both the Sigma and Tamron appear to be equal in the center of the frame except for a slight edge to Sigma at 50mm. Sigma 24-70 is generally a smidge sharper mid frame than the Tamron at most focal lengths, but the Tamron is significantly sharper in the corners at all focal lengths.
@100mm: Sony 100-400GM/Tamron 35-150:
@f/4.0 (Tamron) & f/4.5 (GM): Tamron sharper with more contrast center and mid frame. GM sharper in the corners.
@f/5.6: Tamron is just a smidge sharper in the center and mid frame. GM sharper in the corners.
@f/8: Both appear equal across the frame.
@135mm (133mm for the GM):
@f/4 (Tamron) & f/5 (GM): Tamron sharper in the center and mid frame. GM sharper in the corners.
@5.6: Tamron sharper in the center. Both are equal mid frame. GM is sharper in the corners.
@f/8: Tamron sharper in the center. Both are equal mid frame. GM is sharper in the corners.
@150 (160mm for GM - hard to nail 150 without a mark on the zoom):
@f/4 (Tamron) & f/5 (GM): Tamron just a smidge sharper in the center and mid frame. Equal in the corners.
@f/5.6: Both appear equal across the frame.
@f/8: Both appear equal in the center. GM a smidge sharper mid frame and visibly sharper in the corners.
GM/Tamron Sharpness Comparison Summary: The Tamron is generally sharper in the center at all overlapping focal lengths. They are equal mid frame, and the GM is better in the corners at all focal lengths.
Regarding sun flare and ghosting: although the Tamron is much better than the 100-400GM at controlling flare, it is significantly worse than the Sigma 24-70 (when at f/16). (and obviously the 35GM is great at controlling flare)
[**Revised Conclusion**] My overall initial impression was disappointment and that it probably wouldn't work for me as a replacement for my current three lens setup of 14-24/24-70/100-400 for a two-zoom backpacking landscape setup of 16-35/35-150. The flare and ghosting is prominent, and sunstars aren't exceptional. So it isn't an ideal lens for sunrise/sunset images at f/16.
That being said, after sleeping on it for a couple nights now and with the additional testing, my initial disappointment is gone, and I am beginning to think that it is actually pretty extraordinary for a lens with this range to be trading blows with two of the sharpest zooms on the market. There may be shots here or there where the Sigma or GM would provide a sharper section of an image, but what the Sigma can't do is get a sharp image at 35mm and then immediately crank up to 150mm for a shot without a lens change. I'm now beginning to think Tamron really pulled off something pretty incredible with this lens.
**[Edited to add]** Now that I've slept and thought about it further, that initial disappointment is tampered a bit given that I must acknowledge that I likely had overly ambitious and unrealistic expectations/hope that an <$2k third party zoom would completely trounce a traditional 24-70 (my copy is excellent in its own right) as well as one of the best GM zooms. The fact that a lens with this focal range even trades blows and bests the 24-70 and 100-400 in some areas and at some focal lengths is itself quite impressive. Also, the sun flare/ghosting issue is actually quite well handled at wide aperture, so it may just be that I will have to dedicate f/16 sunstar shots to my 35GM. It may also turn out to actually be an ideal lens for my wife's uses, but I'm still torn on this lens and will probably change my mind several times within the return window between a 16-35GM/35-150 setup versus a holy trinity of GM (mk2) zooms.
**Additional edit to add info for 100mm, 135mm, and 150mm**...Show more →
Thanks for this. So essentially what you are doing is sacrificing image quality for convenience, you are settling basically. Trying to convince yourself its better because you only need one lens now instead of three. I think your initial reaction was the correct one, but only you can decide if sacrificing image quality for convenience is worth it. I'll rent one of these when available.
p.31 #19 · Official: Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD (Model A058)
j4nu wrote:
To be a bit more on topic, did you shoot these flare shots with a UV filter on? I noticed they can degrade flare resistance quite a bit (i.e. they seem to produce some additional reflections, I get weird sensor patterns on A1).
Yes, these are all with a UV filter on. I would imagine that each lens may handle flare slightly better without the filter, but I always test it with them on since I always use them. I can go back up the hill later this week and test without any UV filters to see if it makes any substantial difference.
p.31 #20 · Official: Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD (Model A058)
Dexter75 wrote:
Thanks for this. So essentially what you are doing is sacrificing image quality for convenience, you are settling basically. Trying to convince yourself its better because you only need one lens now instead of three. I think your initial reaction was the correct one, but only you can decide if sacrificing image quality for convenience is worth it. I'll rent one of these when available.
I think you're correct that this is certainly a case of sacrificing image quality for convenience, but I would say I agree with the content of what you are saying but without perhaps the negative connotation I sense you may be implying (or I could be mistaken and maybe you aren't implying it negatively).
Ultimately, any zoom lens, with few exceptions, is inherently a sacrifice in image quality for convenience. No doubt the 24GM or 35GM or 50GM all far surpass the image quality of my Sigma 24-70 or any 24-70, not to even mention the various excellent Voigtlander and Loxia lenses that are pinnacles of IQ. Except for perhaps the 12-24GM and maybe the 70-200II, I'm not aware of any e-mount zoom lens that doesn't sacrifice image quality for convenience over what one might achieve with a set of prime lens.
However, I think there is also another aspect that we don't often consider with respect to this sacrifice in ultimate image quality - and that is getting the image in the first place, especially if it is an image that can capture a moment that is fleeting. Sure, with a sharp 24-70 on hand, I might see something grab my eye in the distance and go into a 105mm equivalent crop mode to capture something that momentarily and randomly arises, but that itself is a sacrifice I'm making in IQ over having a lens that would not require crop mode. Probably didn't make that point as well as someone else could, but the point is that a wider focal range might allow me to get an image that I might not have otherwise captured, and in that scenario, a slight loss in IQ is a small sacrifice for capturing an otherwise irretrievable moment. Of course, this lens is also sacrificing 24-34mm.
One could carry that argument to the full extent and say, well then the 28-200 seems like the most reasonable lens solution, and I think that's a fair point. And I might consider that lens if I wasn't so adverse to high ISO. The fact that this is f/2-2.8 does carry a lot of value to me in being able to keep my ISO lower than I otherwise might have to with a slower zoom. Every lens is the product of a series of decisions on where to compromise, and every purchasing decision of a lens is the same series of decisions on what aspects weigh more than others. Ultimately, a lens either works for someone or it doesn't. And I think we all can agree that it is a fun process to figure out what works best for each of us.
.
.
)
