p.35 #2 · Official: Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD (Model A058)
j4nu wrote:
Hmm, well the nice thing about the truth is that there is only one .
I agree though that what I said might seem a bit unclear, as there was a lot of discussion in this thread. I'll clarify:
by my previous comment, I meant only the blatant and ridiculous trolling attempts to discredit this lens by the "pr0" dex user...
I like to think I succeed at keeping an open mind, so I certainly didn't mean yours (or anyone else) comments about why one would prefer other lens over this one.
Some confusion and differences of opinions here might be due to Tamron's aggressive marketing the 35-150 as an all-in-one travel lens. It is from this point of view, one may start feeling uncomfortable about (1) the size and weight, and (2) why I would need the F2 when Mark Alhadeff noted "For optimum results use F5.6" (for non-portrait work). Someone already wondered (above) as to what this lens might have been if it had the constant F2.8 aperture. Furthermore, the price is confusing. Was it set to be on par with some Sony GM glass because the new lens is of the GM quality? Or, was it decided to be that high on the basis of the idea that this new Tamron lens can replace two other existing Tamron lenses and thus should priced as the two combined?
p.35 #4 · Official: Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD (Model A058)
ruthenium wrote:
Some confusion and differences of opinions here might be due to Tamron's aggressive marketing the 35-150 as an all-in-one travel lens. It is from this point of view, one may start feeling uncomfortable about (1) the size and weight, and (2) why I would need the F2 when Mark Alhadeff noted "For optimum results use F5.6" (for non-portrait work). Someone already wondered (above) as to what this lens might have been if it had the constant F2.8 aperture. Furthermore, the price is confusing. Was it set to be on par with some Sony GM glass because the new lens is of the GM quality? Or, was it decided to be that high on the basis of the idea that this new Tamron lens can replace two other existing Tamron lenses and thus should priced as the two combined? ...Show more →
Haha , I think it's hard to use words " truth" and "marketing" in one sentence, so I won't comment on the latter as it does not impact in any way my planned usage of the lens.
As for your questions, they are all good points (and interesting at that), but we can only speculate. I've already said what I think about the choices made by Tamron and the best usecase I see for this lens.
Personally, I think there's little to no point in paying the "extra" in weight and price (and loss of wide end), if you're not going to be shooting at large apertures often. Well, *maybe* if you like the range, which saves you from swapping lenses or using multiple bodies.
The price is what it is, because (again, that's my point of view) it's a unique lens due to its combination of ~4x zoom range starting from "normal wide" up to medium(?) tele regions. If it wasn't that fast or the range was more "standard", the Tamron would simply not be able to ask so much for it . That's also why I see it as a more "interesting" choice than the new 70-200GMII (which on the other hand will be the workhorse / choice for pros I presume).
To me, this is a lens that could even sway some people from RF's 28-70 f2 appeal...
Tamron says it‘s a travel lens. But basically no-one who bought it and discussed it here ever thought that way. Maybe with the exception of myself who at least thinks it‘s not impossible. I mean, one can go on debating marketing, but it doesn‘t take much to understand that this is not the main purpose of this lens. You just have to take a look at the weight and size and things should be clear. But then again: have you seen guys like Steve McCurry what they shoot while traveling? They use glass like the Leica 24-90mm etc. It‘s a 2,8 - 4.0 btw…. 1140g… for some (I know more) the perfect travel lens. So instead of reiterating a debate that might lead you nowhere I would rather suggest that you give it a try if you are still undecided about it‘s size/weight or whether it’s sharp enough for you in every possible circumstance. It’s highly individual, but you will have your answer within minutes (if not seconds) I suppose.
(2). We are spinning in a circle. As has already been noted here (Dustin Abbott also says this, by the way), it is primarily a lens for portrait and event photography. First and foremost, they are used wide open. If it is a travel lens for you, that’s also fine Give it a go.
3. As stated above: (From my point of view), it’s a reasonably priced lens (to avoid saying cheap) for what it offers. You won’t find a comparable and cheaper one because it simply doesn’t exist.
Let’s see more pictures in the image thread. Way more interesting than debating things for the third (or more) time I suppose
p.35 #6 · Official: Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD (Model A058)
j4nu wrote:
Haha , I think it's hard to use words " truth" and "marketing" in one sentence, so I won't comment on the latter as it does not impact in any way my planned usage of the lens.
As for your questions, they are all good points (and interesting at that), but we can only speculate. I've already said what I think about the choices made by Tamron and the best usecase I see for this lens.
Personally, I think there's little to no point in paying the "extra" in weight and price (and loss of wide end), if you're not going to be shooting at large apertures often. Well, *maybe* if you like the range, which saves you from swapping lenses or using multiple bodies.
The price is what it is, because (again, that's my point of view) it's a unique lens due to its combination of ~4x zoom range starting from "normal wide" up to medium(?) tele regions. If it wasn't that fast or the range was more "standard", the Tamron would simply not be able to ask so much for it . That's also why I see it as a more "interesting" choice than the new 70-200GMII.
To me, this is a lens that could even sway some people from RF's 28-70 f2 appeal......Show more →
I am asking these questions mostly to get my own perspective, rather than to influence others. The last question which I wish I knew the answer to is whether the rumored mark II 24-70 F2.8 GM is going to be a truly outstanding lens, and relatively light and compact at that? If yes, and priced similarly to the Tamron 35-150, I am quite sure I would invest my money into the Sony rather than buy the Tamron.
p.35 #7 · Official: Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD (Model A058)
kenwood wrote:
Good summary, any experience with AF-S and AF-C accurancy in low light? Say with a reading of around Iso6400, f2.8 1/200s at 150mm?
I didn't see any problems with AF-S in low light, almost no speed difference outside the usual which is mostly body related. That being said in AF-C if you want to shoot action - good or low light it's a bit worse than Tamron 70-180. You can do it, just don't expect GM speed and accurancy.
ruthenium wrote:
I am asking these questions mostly to get my own perspective, rather than to influence others. The last question which I wish I knew the answer to is whether the rumored mark II 24-70 F2.8 GM is going to be a truly outstanding lens, and relatively light and compact at that? If yes, and priced similarly to the Tamron 35-150, I am quite sure I would invest my money into the Sony rather than buy the Tamron.
Going by Sony latest GM pricing i would be shocked if the new 24-70 GM II was at "only" 1800-2000$, it will be more likely in line with the new 70-200 GM II. So i expect 2500-3000$ and going by that the Tamron 35-150/F2-2.8 represents great value and is priced way below GM lenses, at their starting price at least.
p.35 #8 · Official: Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD (Model A058)
In comparing the value of the Tamron 35-150:
Version one of the Sony FE 24-70mm f2.8 lists at $2,199 so I would guess the soon to be announced update will cost $200 more, thus in the range of $2,399. That's in line with the $200 price increase for the newest Sony 70-200 f2.8 II, which lists for $2,799.
p.35 #9 · Official: Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD (Model A058)
ruthenium wrote:
I am asking these questions mostly to get my own perspective, rather than to influence others. The last question which I wish I knew the answer to is whether the rumored mark II 24-70 F2.8 GM is going to be a truly outstanding lens, and relatively light and compact at that? If yes, and priced similarly to the Tamron 35-150, I am quite sure I would invest my money into the Sony rather than buy the Tamron.
And I'm sure you will be happy if/when you do .
The thing is, 24-70 f/2.8 lens is not a 35-150 f/2 - f/f2.8 lens (nor is the combo with 70-200).
I guess I just fall into the target audience of this lens, as the focal range and aperture combination appeals to me...
p.35 #10 · Official: Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD (Model A058)
onthebeam wrote:
In comparing the value of the Tamron 35-150:
Version one of the Sony FE 24-70mm f2.8 lists at $2,199 so I would guess the soon to be announced update will cost $200 more, thus in the range of $2,399. That's in line with the $200 price increase for the newest Sony 70-200 f2.8 II, which lists for $2,799.
$2,399 + $2,799 = $5,198
There are voices which speak of the Tamron 35-150 as being expensive.
Anyway, let's be glad that the selection of available lenses is not a problem if you have a Sony FE camera. Everyone will find what he needs. Some (like me) take some more detours. I also think people who say they can replace a 35-150 with a 24-70 don't need a 35-150.
p.35 #11 · Official: Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD (Model A058)
Yes, but an Apples to Apples comparison would be Tamron to Tamron.
Thus:
Tamron 28-75 f2.8 plus Tamron 70-180 f2.8
OR
Tamron 35-150.
The pricing actually works out fairly similar if considering the $1,900 35-150 or the combo of the other two.
Always good to remember that there is of course no one best solution for any given photographer. As Marc points out in his review, although optically not as impressive as the Tamron 70-180, the 35-150 will appeal to those seeking a one lens approach such as some wedding shooters.
I have known a lot of wedding pros and been a juror for several national wedding photography competitions. Those who I know need to go wider than 35mm during the course of a wedding.
I do own both the 28-75 and 70-180 although I prefer to shoot with the Sony 16-35 f2.8, Sony 24mm f1.4, or Sony 35mm f1.4 when shooting widest. Yet the Tamron 28-75 (Gen 1) is a fine lens, too, while the 70-180 is in the minds of many of us, superb.
For my needs shooting with the A7R4, I'm looking for sharpest optics. Marc does point out that some photogs shooting 61MP might want to give pause before ordering the new Tamron 35-150. This is not meant as a slight to it. Good to see so much enthusiasm for it here.
Great photography doesn't often require pixel peeping like we do when ordering a lens. I'm as picky as the next guy when it comes to sharp optics and bet I'd be more than happy to shoot with the 35-150 as I am with my 28-75.
zeitlos wrote:
$2,399 + $2,799 = $5,198
There are voices which speak of the Tamron 35-150 as being expensive.
Anyway, let's be glad that the selection of available lenses is not a problem if you have a Sony FE camera. Everyone will find what he needs. Some (like me) take some more detours. I also think people who say they can replace a 35-150 with a 24-70 don't need a 35-150.
p.35 #12 · Official: Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD (Model A058)
ruthenium wrote:
I am asking these questions mostly to get my own perspective, rather than to influence others. The last question which I wish I knew the answer to is whether the rumored mark II 24-70 F2.8 GM is going to be a truly outstanding lens, and relatively light and compact at that? If yes, and priced similarly to the Tamron 35-150, I am quite sure I would invest my money into the Sony rather than buy the Tamron.
If you look at Sony's latest GM releases, I'd say a definite yes to both your questions, outstanding images at a lighter lens.
p.35 #13 · Official: Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD (Model A058)
zeitlos wrote:
$2,399 + $2,799 = $5,198
There are voices which speak of the Tamron 35-150 as being expensive.
Anyway, let's be glad that the selection of available lenses is not a problem if you have a Sony FE camera. Everyone will find what he needs. Some (like me) take some more detours. I also think people who say they can replace a 35-150 with a 24-70 don't need a 35-150.
To "I also think people who say they can replace a 35-150 with a 24-70 don't need a 35-150"
This is not about people, or what they can, or don't need.
My interest is merely in which of the two (mark II 24-70 GM or Tamron 35-150) would be a better travel lens? By the latter, I imagine the extreme situation when one is travelling far and may want to have one lens on the camera most of the time (with perhaps the 35mmF1.4GM in the backpack, just in case)?
We will probably know more in 2-3 months.
p.35 #14 · Official: Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD (Model A058)
ruthenium wrote:
To "I also think people who say they can replace a 35-150 with a 24-70 don't need a 35-150"
This is not about people, or what they can, or don't need.
My interest is merely in which of the two (mark II 24-70 GM or Tamron 35-150) would be a better travel lens? By the latter, I imagine the extreme situation when one is travelling far and may want to have one lens on the camera most of the time (with perhaps the 35mmF1.4GM in the backpack, just in case)?
We will probably know more in 2-3 months.
Not only is the 24mm really nice for travel, but also the weight difference between the 24-70 versus the 35-150 very significant if you carry the lens with you all day long. Be interesting how much weight Sony will cut off after the redesign of the 24-70.
p.35 #15 · Official: Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD (Model A058)
Man, this really is a cursed thread...
I'm lucky I have a slow day at work :
@ruthenium
but a "a better travel lens" is all about people and what they need in a travel lens. Some people for some locations will gravitate towards greater compression via a longer lens, some or the same people in the same or different location will choose a wide angle (and then there's a lot of other factors too...).
I mean no harm, but maybe you guys could start a new thread on the 24-70GMII?
As really, nothing new is being said about the differences between an unannounced, not even leaked lens with a considerably different focal range and the Tamron which is already in the hands of some people here .
p.35 #16 · Official: Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD (Model A058)
I just received my lens this AM and ran some sharpness tests. Wow! This thing is sharp... all around the frame... on MTF 50 level of detail! And, I am essentially comparing to my GM 135, GM 35 and GM 50mm that I have carefully tested in recent months. The colors, contrast and rendering are also excellent.
I think Marc Aldeheff got a slightly soft copy. My copy is more like Dustin Abbott's. It is only very, very slightly de-centered - not enough to worry about. IBIS doesn't always work well with longer FL's, but it seems to do great with 150mm on this lens. The lens is sharp enough to work well in crop mode on the A7RIV. with loads of detail, so I can shoot 225mm
I purchased this lens with some trepidation and feel a lot better, now. Since I do not shoot a lot of sports, I might cancel my GM 70-200mm f2.8 II preorder, even though this lens seems to be the 'best of the best'. Well, I'll sleep on it, first. I really dislike shooting white lenses on the street, since they always draw so much attention, although I can always put a "skin" or LensCoat on it. Black lenses is one reason I always liked shooting Nikon.
Now, my big travel decision is going to be, go light with the 28-200mm and the 20mm f1.8; or, go 35-150mm with the GM 12-24mm f2.8. I'd better keep working-out at the gym.
p.35 #17 · Official: Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD (Model A058)
InFocus2014 wrote:
I purchased this lens with some trepidation and feel a lot better, now.
That's my main issue with this thread, there's so much misinformation and unwarranted bias here, that people are actually questioning Tamron's IQ (especially considering its price) .
There's one dexterous user we can thank for this...
p.35 #19 · Official: Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD (Model A058)
InFocus2014 wrote:
I think Marc Aldeheff got a slightly soft copy. My copy is more like Dustin Abbott's. It is only very, very slightly de-centered - not enough to worry about.
I'd concur based on some of the images in his review. I'm always extremely appreciative of all the hard work reviewers like Marc invest to provide informational feedback on these products for consumers like ourselves, but unfortunately there is enough sample variation with most lenses that those types of reviews and spreadsheets showing sharpness are only useful up to a point. I know that many here disagree with his test comparisons between the Sigma 14-24 and Sony 16-35 and which is sharper where - mostly based on the fact that there is enough sample variation with both those lenses that a good version of one will exceed the capabilities of a bad or average version of the other.
It appears that Marc has either an exceptional copy of the 70-180 or a poor copy of the 35-150, or that others comparing the two and finding opposite results (like DA) have exceptional copies of the 35-150 and poorer copies of the 70-180. I guess the end conclusion is just that a buyer must be diligent in testing every new lens to ensure that their copy is within an acceptable range of the capabilities of that particular lens.
Similarly, my earlier post directly comparing sharpness against my Sigma 24-70/100-400GM is only useful up to a point. Each of these lenses have enough variation that we just have to individually test them ourselves and either keep them or return them based on our own personal satisfaction with the results.
On another note, I finally connected the lens to my PC to program the custom buttons. I don't take enough video for the Focus A-B to be that useful, though I can certainly see its use there, but I really like the Tamron utility app process and the Focus Preset and zoom/aperture ring customizability. I hope that Sony and Sigma follow suit with this level of user customization.
p.35 #20 · Official: Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD (Model A058)
ruthenium wrote:
To "I also think people who say they can replace a 35-150 with a 24-70 don't need a 35-150"
This is not about people, or what they can, or don't need.
.
I have a totally different opinion on this.
What else should it be if not about people. It's only about people. Person A says this, person B says that. Who's right now?
That's why I kept telling you that the only way to find out which lens is the better one (for you) is trying them out.
.
I also think people who say they can replace a 35-150 with a 24-70 don't need a 35-150. 
:
.