p.32 #1 · Official: Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD (Model A058)
photosbyjaron wrote:
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.
Thanks, but nah - don't bother. In the end it's how the lens is used what matters. I also always use UV filters (for peace of mind I guess), but I noticed that the better flare-resisting lenses seem to suffer more from those (as I mentioned I got some pretty nasty ghosts on 35GM), or at least their effect is more visible.
The worst part is that I think your mini review convinced me fully to give the Tamron a try (especially after today I had 35mm on cam, 135mm in the bag and I stumbled upon an impressive peacock in the park, posing in the sun, alas no time to change lenses ). My only hope is that there will still be no new shipment in shops this week, so the GAS might subside on its own over time .
p.32 #2 · Official: Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD (Model A058)
I cannot help thinking how this new lens compares to the existing walkabout/travel lens: the 24-105 F4 G?
1) I know that the Tamron is priced as the GM glass (e.g. the same as Sony 24-70 F2.8GM); it is Canadian $2,600 vs 1,550 for the 24-105 F4 G.
2) The Tamron is not wide enough: 35 vs 24 mm at the widest
3) The Tamron is much heavier: 1165 g vs 663 g
4) The Tamron is considerably longer: 158 vs 113 mm
5) The Tamron is not stabilized
6) I don't believe that Tamron can be sharper than the 24-105 F4 G in the F5.6 - 16 range.
The only considerable advantage on the Tamron side is the F2-2.8 aperture. Which promises bokeh. However, why would a bokeh enthusiast use the walkabout lens? What are the typical F/stops used on a walkabout lens >80% of the time?
The remaining questions:
How the contrast of the Tamron compares with the contrast of the 24-105 F4 G?
How the color fringing of the Tamron compares with that of the 24-105 F4 G?
Ghosting and flare?
The final thought: if the rumors of the Sony 24-70 F2.8 GM II are correct, and if this is going to be priced like the existing mark I lens, wouldn't it make more sense to spend CAD$2,600 on the Sony vs. the Tamron?
p.32 #3 · Official: Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD (Model A058)
ruthenium wrote:
I cannot help thinking how this new lens compares to the existing walkabout/travel lens: the 24-105 F4 G?
The final thought: if the rumors of the Sony 24-70 F2.8 GM II are correct, and if this is going to be priced like the existing mark I lens, wouldn't it make more sense to spend CAD$2,600 on the Sony vs. the Tamron?
Hm, I would never compare the 35-150 to the 24-105F4 G lens. Maybe it‘s because I‘m still not sure if it really is a travel lens that fits a lot of people‘s needs (due to its weight). I don‘t say that it‘s not possible. But well, for a travel lens it‘s rather heavy.
Then again, I would not see it as a direct competition to the 24-70mm. As someone else has already mentioned. I also have the 24-70mm (Sigma) and I‘m still undecided of whether I will sell it now. Two different lenses for maybe two different fields of use.
If you cannot see straight away what a 35-150mm 2.0-2.8 lens is for and why it‘s unique, you most likely have no need for it.
As a portrait lens for events it seems almost perfect. Maybe in addition another 16-35 f2.8 or a 24 1.4 and you are set.
But if a 24-105 F4 is good enough for you and if you want a walkabout/travel lens, then I would rather pick a Tamron 28-200mm. It has got a lot of praise and it seems to be what you are looking for.
As stated above. I sold my 70-180 Tamron already. Might sell my 24-70mm as well. Then, I will ad the 17-28 Tamron or a 16-35. But we will see. If the focus is not on portraits, I might still use the 24-70mm. I sometimes shoot café interiors for my family. There the 24-70mm is more helpful than the 35-150 because of its wide angle capabilities. But then again, 24 often isn‘t enough.
I mean, of course you can compare every lens to every lens, but nevertheless I see no really point in comparing the 24-105 (F4!) to the new Tamron 35-150. But that‘s just me.
To answer your question: Well, it might make sense for you to buy a 24-70 f2.8. Then you have to buy a 70-180/200 as well, if you want to compare this solution to the 35-150mm Tamron. But maybe the really good Tamron 28-200 is the real answer to your question?
p.32 #4 · Official: Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD (Model A058)
Well, I don't have one yet (no stock) but for me this would be the perfect "people/portrait" zoom lens.
35mm is my favorite focal length, especially for people. Everything visibly wider I consider a special case, not a bread & butter portrait focal length. On the other end, 150mm at f2.8 gives you pretty nice compression and separation. For this kind of usage a (very, for a zoom) fast 35-150 range gives *me* a lot more opportunities than 24-70 or 70-200...
As you say, for walkabout/travel/landscape, there are probably better options as you don't need the wide aperture too much (and you would probably miss the wide end at least a bit)...
Size/weight wise it's manageable I think, given that I use Sigma 35mm f1.2 from time to time .
p.32 #5 · Official: Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD (Model A058)
I tried out this Tamron 35-150 for a bit yesterday. It is a nice lens and I am sure it will have its use cases. For me it is not the right form factor, too large and heavy.
I will keep using my Sony 24-105 f/4 for this use case.
I shoot an a1 with 50mp.
In the types of shooting I do, I value the short end more and do not want to give up 24-35mm FLs.
At the longer end the Tamron is only 1 stop faster. The lighter weight of the Sony, and built in OSS more than makes up for the 1 stop in low light when hand held.
I can step in a few steps and get very similar background blur.
I can instantly switch to APS-C mode when I want a longer field of view.
In the end I can get close to the same result with the 24-105 at the medium and long end. There is nothing I can do to get the wide end back when shooting the Tamron 35-150.
The Tamron 35-150 feels well built, is nice and sharp. For anyone who has a need for a responsive portrait lens in this FL range it will create beautiful images, and be a good addition to their kit.
p.32 #6 · Official: Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD (Model A058)
1bwana1 wrote:
I can step in a few steps and get very similar background blur.
I can instantly switch to APS-C mode when I want a longer field of view.
This is a slippery slope ... but I agree with @zeitlos, if you don't "feel" this range&aperture combo than I guess you will not find this lens special (I haven't held one yet but I do ).
p.32 #7 · Official: Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD (Model A058)
if the 35-150 has reliable autofocus, i can see a lot of sports photogs use it in replacement of two lenses the 24-70 and 70-200 on some assignments. for MMA it would be the perfect focal length, same for boxing. currently i have to use 3 lenses for combat sports, an ultra wide, a 24-70 and 70-200. if the 35-150 is on par with any of the 2 lenses im set.
For conventions, i no longer have to carry a third lens either. normally i carry around the trifecta. 12*24, 24*70, 70*200. Now i could just bring the 12-24 and 35-150 and ill be set.
And for hockey, it could very well be the perfect length if youre on the hole on the goal line. i cant tell you how many images ive lost when a player comes at me after a goal because 70mm was too long.
p.32 #8 · Official: Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD (Model A058)
zeitlos wrote:
Hm, I would never compare the 35-150 to the 24-105F4 G lens. Maybe it‘s because I‘m still not sure if it really is a travel lens that fits a lot of people‘s needs (due to its weight). I don‘t say that it‘s not possible. But well, for a travel lens it‘s rather heavy.
Then again, I would not see it as a direct competition to the 24-70mm. As someone else has already mentioned. I also have the 24-70mm (Sigma) and I‘m still undecided of whether I will sell it now. Two different lenses for maybe two different fields of use.
If you cannot see straight away what a 35-150mm 2.0-2.8 lens is for and why it‘s unique, you most likely have no need for it.
As a portrait lens for events it seems almost perfect. Maybe in addition another 16-35 f2.8 or a 24 1.4 and you are set.
But if a 24-105 F4 is good enough for you and if you want a walkabout/travel lens, then I would rather pick a Tamron 28-200mm. It has got a lot of praise and it seems to be what you are looking for.
As stated above. I sold my 70-180 Tamron already. Might sell my 24-70mm as well. Then, I will ad the 17-28 Tamron or a 16-35. But we will see. If the focus is not on portraits, I might still use the 24-70mm. I sometimes shoot café interiors for my family. There the 24-70mm is more helpful than the 35-150 because of its wide angle capabilities. But then again, 24 often isn‘t enough.
I mean, of course you can compare every lens to every lens, but nevertheless I see no really point in comparing the 24-105 (F4!) to the new Tamron 35-150. But that‘s just me.
To answer your question: Well, it might make sense for you to buy a 24-70 f2.8. Then you have to buy a 70-180/200 as well, if you want to compare this solution to the 35-150mm Tamron. But maybe the really good Tamron 28-200 is the real answer to your question? ...Show more →
For "Well, it might make sense for you to buy a 24-70 f2.8. Then you have to buy a 70-180/200 as well"
I already have the 100 - 400 GM, which I use heavily.
p.32 #9 · Official: Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD (Model A058)
ruthenium wrote:
For "Well, it might make sense for you to buy a 24-70 f2.8. Then you have to buy a 70-180/200 as well"
I already have the 100 - 400 GM, which I use heavily.
Which raises the next question: Is a 100-400GM comparable to a 70-180/200? I'm not the one to answer it profoundly. For me this again doesn't sound like a portrait glass (which a 70-180/200 does to me). But again, this is just my take. Different people, different solutions
p.32 #10 · Official: Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD (Model A058)
turbodude wrote:
if the 35-150 has reliable autofocus, i can see a lot of sports photogs use it in replacement of two lenses the 24-70 and 70-200 on some assignments. for MMA it would be the perfect focal length, same for boxing. currently i have to use 3 lenses for combat sports, an ultra wide, a 24-70 and 70-200. if the 35-150 is on par with any of the 2 lenses im set.
For conventions, i no longer have to carry a third lens either. normally i carry around the trifecta. 12*24, 24*70, 70*200. Now i could just bring the 12-24 and 35-150 and ill be set.
And for hockey, it could very well be the perfect length if youre on the hole on the goal line. i cant tell you how many images ive lost when a player comes at me after a goal because 70mm was too long. ...Show more →
I'm afraid the AF won't be that good, but let's hope for the best ...
p.32 #11 · Official: Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD (Model A058)
zeitlos wrote:
Hm, I would never compare the 35-150 to the 24-105F4 G lens. Maybe it‘s because I‘m still not sure if it really is a travel lens that fits a lot of people‘s needs (due to its weight). I don‘t say that it‘s not possible. But well, for a travel lens it‘s rather heavy.
Then again, I would not see it as a direct competition to the 24-70mm. As someone else has already mentioned. I also have the 24-70mm (Sigma) and I‘m still undecided of whether I will sell it now. Two different lenses for maybe two different fields of use.
If you cannot see straight away what a 35-150mm 2.0-2.8 lens is for and why it‘s unique, you most likely have no need for it.
As a portrait lens for events it seems almost perfect. Maybe in addition another 16-35 f2.8 or a 24 1.4 and you are set.
But if a 24-105 F4 is good enough for you and if you want a walkabout/travel lens, then I would rather pick a Tamron 28-200mm. It has got a lot of praise and it seems to be what you are looking for.
As stated above. I sold my 70-180 Tamron already. Might sell my 24-70mm as well. Then, I will ad the 17-28 Tamron or a 16-35. But we will see. If the focus is not on portraits, I might still use the 24-70mm. I sometimes shoot café interiors for my family. There the 24-70mm is more helpful than the 35-150 because of its wide angle capabilities. But then again, 24 often isn‘t enough.
I mean, of course you can compare every lens to every lens, but nevertheless I see no really point in comparing the 24-105 (F4!) to the new Tamron 35-150. But that‘s just me.
To answer your question: Well, it might make sense for you to buy a 24-70 f2.8. Then you have to buy a 70-180/200 as well, if you want to compare this solution to the 35-150mm Tamron. But maybe the really good Tamron 28-200 is the real answer to your question? ...Show more →
Sorry, I did not realize this is a dedicated portrait lens for events and people/portrait zoom.
Tamron markets this lens in the terms the 24-105 F4 G can be described (except the f/stop difference of course):
"For dramatic tales of your travels"
"From expansive scenery to magnificent cityscapes—you can capture it all"
"This versatile all-in-one zoom enables photography of beautiful natural scenery, urban landscapes, impressive buildings, restaurant interiors, city night views and more while traveling"
"The 35-150mm F2-2.8 allows photographers to shoot at the common focal lengths frequently used when creating art while traveling, from the wide angle to normal, semi-telephoto, and telephoto—and anything in between"
p.32 #12 · Official: Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD (Model A058)
ruthenium wrote:
I cannot help thinking how this new lens compares to the existing walkabout/travel lens: the 24-105 F4 G?
1) I know that the Tamron is priced as the GM glass (e.g. the same as Sony 24-70 F2.8GM); it is Canadian $2,600 vs 1,550 for the 24-105 F4 G.
2) The Tamron is not wide enough: 35 vs 24 mm at the widest
3) The Tamron is much heavier: 1165 g vs 663 g
4) The Tamron is considerably longer: 158 vs 113 mm
5) The Tamron is not stabilized
6) I don't believe that Tamron can be sharper than the 24-105 F4 G in the F5.6 - 16 range.
The only considerable advantage on the Tamron side is the F2-2.8 aperture. Which promises bokeh. However, why would a bokeh enthusiast use the walkabout lens? What are the typical F/stops used on a walkabout lens >80% of the time?
The remaining questions:
How the contrast of the Tamron compares with the contrast of the 24-105 F4 G?
How the color fringing of the Tamron compares with that of the 24-105 F4 G?
Ghosting and flare?
The final thought: if the rumors of the Sony 24-70 F2.8 GM II are correct, and if this is going to be priced like the existing mark I lens, wouldn't it make more sense to spend CAD$2,600 on the Sony vs. the Tamron?
If I had the 24-105, I'd be happy to do a comparison of the two lenses for you, but alas, I never bought that one. I don't know honestly what would be a comparable lens, since this 35-150 is so different from anything else out there. Clearly the unique focal range didn't sell like hotcakes enough in EF or Nikon F mount for other manufactures to mimic Tamron. Based on the 28-75G1 being the top selling lens, probably safe to say that most zoom users want a lens that reaches down to at least the high 20s on the wide end. And if someone needs their mid-range zoom to have 24mm, that makes it an easy decision to pass on this one and get a 24-70 or the 24-105. That being said, I'd wager that Tamron is unlikely to have invested and manufactured this lens if they didn't have solid sales research based on their EF/F mount versions that there will be enough sales to make the venture worthwhile. Or perhaps they don't expect high volume and priced it with a high return per item. I would agree though that I think it is weird that they are marketing it as a travel lens when it is clearly more suited for event and portrait photography.
I would say, without having owned it, that the 24-105 is likely a better "walkabout" lens in the sense of carrying a lens all day around your neck when you don't know what you'll be shooting ahead of time. I feel like that term is usually described as a lens/camera combo people use while on vacations or excursions with the camera in hand while visiting locations where they may be shooting architecture one second, then a portrait, maybe some street photography, and then a landscape the next. I think the Tamron lens that is more comparable with the Sony 24-105G for that purpose is the 28-200.
I see this generally geared more for the niche of event photography. I'm not using it for that, but I think that is really what the lens is best suited for if an event photographer wanted to go wider than the typical 24-70/70-200 with a 16-35/35-150. My main interest in it is to be able to have a 2 lens kit while backpacking that covers 16-35/35-150 and a three lens kit when closer to the truck that covers 16-35/35-150/200-840.
Edited to add: Regarding the rumored 24-70II, all of our financial situations are different, and while I applaud those that can easily purchase the new 70-200II and rumored 24-70II for the penultimate IQ from those zooms, my wife can see the value in a lens with a different focal range - I'd be sleeping in the back lawn if I tried to replace my perfectly good Sigma for a lens with the same focal range and undoubtedly marginally better attributes. I'm sure it's going to be a phenomenal lens with record breaking sharpness etc., but I don't think my wife would ever agree with that expenditure when the Sigma 24-70 and Tamron 28-75G2 are already so capable.
p.32 #13 · Official: Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD (Model A058)
ruthenium wrote:
Sorry, I did not realize this is a dedicated portrait lens for events and people/portrait zoom.
No problem. I wouldn’t pay too much attention to marketing. The lens‘ specs (for me) clearly reveal what it might be best suited for.
But if you don‘t mind its weight/size, it can still be a perfect travel zoom for you. 35 is a classical focal length for photojournalism, so one can do without more wide angle. But if you can? Only you can tell. If you can, and as stated before, don‘t mind the extra weight/size, it might be a nice travel lens as well.
photosbyjaron has described it quite comprehensively, I‘d say.
p.32 #14 · Official: Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD (Model A058)
photosbyjaron wrote:
If I had the 24-105, I'd be happy to do a comparison of the two lenses for you, but alas, I never bought that one. I don't know honestly what would be a comparable lens, since this 35-150 is so different from anything else out there.
i do, ill compare them for you guys. let me know what you want me to do, im not good at tests and what not, but ill give it my best go.
i have the
35GM
24*70GM
24*105G
70*200GM
100*400GM
and on thursday ill have the 35*150
p.32 #15 · Official: Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD (Model A058)
photosbyjaron wrote:
Regarding the rumored 24-70II, all of our financial situations are different, and while I applaud those that can easily purchase the new 70-200II and rumored 24-70II for the penultimate IQ from those zooms...
Even if the new GMs were completely superior in IQ (which does not seem to be exactly the case with 70-200), the range coverage in one lens would still be a major factor for me. Plus the faster aperture of course .
p.32 #16 · Official: Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD (Model A058)
zeitlos wrote:
No problem. I wouldn’t pay too much attention to marketing. The lens‘ specs (for me) clearly reveal what it might be best suited for.
But if you don‘t mind its weight/size, it can still be a perfect travel zoom for you. 35 is a classical focal length for photojournalism, so one can do without more wide angle. But if you can? Only you can tell. If you can, and as stated before, don‘t mind the extra weight/size, it might be a nice travel lens as well.
photosbyjaron has described it quite comprehensively, I‘d say.
That's why I asked the questions in the first place. Would it make sense to sell my 24-105 F4 G and replace it by the Tamron for travel/walkabout use?
To answer this questions, we go back to whether the Tamron offers a better contrast and less color fringing? If not, then I know the answer.
p.32 #17 · Official: Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD (Model A058)
turbodude wrote:
i do, ill compare them for you guys. let me know what you want me to do, im not good at tests and what not, but ill give it my best go.
i have the
35GM
24*70GM
24*105G
70*200GM
100*400GM
and on thursday ill have the 35*150
It would be useful to see equivalent straight-out-of camera JPGs at 35 mm and 105 mm, at F5.6 or 8 of a general scene focused some 10 m (or longer) away from the camera. If possible, uncorrected RAW images with some features which tend to produce color fringing. Indoors, a low-light scene with a bright compact sources of light in the background, to see the extent of veiling produced by the lights.
Sorry, this is probably too much to ask.
p.32 #18 · Official: Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD (Model A058)
turbodude wrote:
i do, ill compare them for you guys. let me know what you want me to do, im not good at tests and what not, but ill give it my best go.
i have the
35GM
24*70GM
24*105G
70*200GM
100*400GM
and on thursday ill have the 35*150
I'd be very interested in seeing this comparison. I'm not great with tests either, but what I did to test sharpness is find a local place where I could focus at infinity with buildings and structures with detail across the frame from corner to corner. Then set up the camera on a tripod with a tilt with the horizon slanted from corner to corner. I'll attach one lens, set the focal length, shoot 3 images on a timer for each full aperture (2.8, 4, 5.6, 8) while adjusting shutter speed to maintain the same meter exposure, then move to the next focal length. The triplicate is to make sure you get a sharp image. First time I did it, a few images were blurry, so there must've been a vibration that IBIS/OSS didn't account for.
I'd also be interested in seeing the sun flare comparison with the 24-105/70-200/35-150.
p.32 #19 · Official: Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD (Model A058)
ruthenium wrote:
That's why I asked the questions in the first place. Would it make sense to sell my 24-105 F4 G and replace it by the Tamron for travel/walkabout use?
To answer this questions, we go back to whether the Tamron offers a better contrast and less color fringing? If not, then I know the answer.
I think if you want to have a one lens solution and find yourself using the 24-34mm range often when out and about, this would probably not be the route you'd want to go. My wife and I are keeping one of our copies of the Sigma 24-70, and if we were going somewhere where we could only take one lens, we'd probably still take that one over this just for that extra bit on the wide end. That being said, I haul all my gear in one pack, so I already have a 14-24 on hand to cover the wide end if I need it.
In summary, for a one lens walkabout solution, based on some of your other comments I think that this lens would probably leave you frustrated with the loss of the 24-34mm range.
p.32 #20 · Official: Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD (Model A058)
photosbyjaron wrote:
If I had the 24-105, I'd be happy to do a comparison of the two lenses for you, but alas, I never bought that one. I don't know honestly what would be a comparable lens, since this 35-150 is so different from anything else out there. Clearly the unique focal range didn't sell like hotcakes enough in EF or Nikon F mount for other manufactures to mimic Tamron. Based on the 28-75G1 being the top selling lens, probably safe to say that most zoom users want a lens that reaches down to at least the high 20s on the wide end. And if someone needs their mid-range zoom to have 24mm, that makes it an easy decision to pass on this one and get a 24-70 or the 24-105. That being said, I'd wager that Tamron is unlikely to have invested and manufactured this lens if they didn't have solid sales research based on their EF/F mount versions that there will be enough sales to make the venture worthwhile. Or perhaps they don't expect high volume and priced it with a high return per item. I would agree though that I think it is weird that they are marketing it as a travel lens when it is clearly more suited for event and portrait photography.
I would say, without having owned it, that the 24-105 is likely a better "walkabout" lens in the sense of carrying a lens all day around your neck when you don't know what you'll be shooting ahead of time. I feel like that term is usually described as a lens/camera combo people use while on vacations or excursions with the camera in hand while visiting locations where they may be shooting architecture one second, then a portrait, maybe some street photography, and then a landscape the next. I think the Tamron lens that is more comparable with the Sony 24-105G for that purpose is the 28-200.
I see this generally geared more for the niche of event photography. I'm not using it for that, but I think that is really what the lens is best suited for if an event photographer wanted to go wider than the typical 24-70/70-200 with a 16-35/35-150. My main interest in it is to be able to have a 2 lens kit while backpacking that covers 16-35/35-150 and a three lens kit when closer to the truck that covers 16-35/35-150/200-840.
Edited to add: Regarding the rumored 24-70II, all of our financial situations are different, and while I applaud those that can easily purchase the new 70-200II and rumored 24-70II for the penultimate IQ from those zooms, my wife can see the value in a lens with a different focal range - I'd be sleeping in the back lawn if I tried to replace my perfectly good Sigma for a lens with the same focal range and undoubtedly marginally better attributes. I'm sure it's going to be a phenomenal lens with record breaking sharpness etc., but I don't think my wife would ever agree with that expenditure when the Sigma 24-70 and Tamron 28-75G2 are already so capable. ...Show more →
You might be very mistaken about the different financial situations. There are reasons for buying the best cameras and glass other than "I can easily afford that." For some, this might be a matter of principle ("I am not rich enough to buy cheap"). It does help a lot to fight GAS, and the possible nagging sorry feeling that this my non-Sony lens has a slow/erratic AF, more ghosting, etc. name it. This is obviously a subject mostly unrelated to the thread (except that the Tamron is priced as some GM glass, and should better perform likewise). Nevertheless, the bottom line, I doubt that the members on this forum who buy expensive cameras and lenses are all, or mostly, can spend the money without giving it much thought.
). My only hope is that there will still be no new shipment in shops this week, so the GAS might subside on its own over time 
.
.
... but I agree with @