p.36 #1 · Official: Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD (Model A058)
photosbyjaron wrote:
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....Show more →
Roger Cicala with LensRentals seems to have stopped publishing lens tests, but when he did, he used sample sizes of a minimum of ten lenses. His mean-deviation graphs of sample variation could sometimes be startling. The best copy of a lens could be excellent, while the worst copy could be really poor. Fortunately for the manufacturers, most photographers aren't as picky as many of us on FM are, and are therefore generally happy with their lenses. I have sold below average copies of lenses fully prepared to refund the buyer's money and pay for return shipment, when I receive a message from the buyer exclaiming how thrilled they are with the lens.
I have read many reviews of the Sigma 100-400 where the reviewer said it can't touch the GM 100-400mm. This lens does not get a lot of love from many on these forums. I have both lenses. Two weeks ago I took some bird shots with the Sigma lens, mostly at 400mm. When I got home, I couldn't believe how incredibly sharp the eyes were on the birds (shot with A1); so, I did a test against my GM lens. I think my GM lens is a fairly good copy (2nd one), but the Sigma lens was noticeably sharper in the center at 400mm. Dustin Abbott experienced the same, in his review. I'm not saying that Sigma lens is better than the Sony lens, as the GM lens has its strengths, but generalizations can certainly be misleading.
In summary, sample variation can make any lens review, or prevailing opinion, suspect, depending on actual lens samples tested. I almost passed on the 35-150mm, based upon some reviews and samples. I'm glad I didn't.
p.36 #2 · 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.
I would wager that Sony wouldn't release a mark II 24-70 unless it provided significant AF/size/weight/sharpness advantages over the Sigma or Tamron 28-75G2, so safe to say they'll probably pull all the stops to try to produce the best or one of the best 24-70 2.8s ever made. I would imagine it will follow the same vein of price increase as we saw with the 70-200II which matched the price of the Canon RF70-200, so as others have estimated, I wouldn't be surprised if it was listed at the same MSRP as the Canon RF24-70: $2399.
I think there is likely value for those that aren't sure whether the 35-150 is "the lens" for them in waiting to see 1) what the 24-70II promises and at what price, and 2) to see how quickly Tamron/Sony offers discounts/EDU pricing for each. The 35GM is now available at EDU prices less than a year after release, so there are definitely dollars to be saved and information to be gained for those willing to wait.
As for me, I knew I wanted to move to a 16-35/35-150/200-840 setup the moment this was announced. The more I shoot with it, the more I'm glad I preordered it. But as with any lens, each person's uses and needs may require something different. I don't think there is any harm in waiting to see additional results from end users. I'd love to see how the lens AF handles moving targets on an A1/A9/A7IV.
p.36 #3 · Official: Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD (Model A058)
Excited to hear this! This lens fit right in a place for me. I still need a wide on a second body but this coverage on the Tamron is unreal. Why not take the 20 & 35-150?
Thanks for the details!
-Dave
InFocus2014 wrote:
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. ...Show more →
p.36 #4 · Official: Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD (Model A058)
DFason wrote:
Excited to hear this! This lens fit right in a place for me. I still need a wide on a second body but this coverage on the Tamron is unreal. Why not take the 20 & 35-150?
Thanks for the details!
-Dave
To answer your question, 12mm on the 12-24mm can be fun and addicting.
p.36 #6 · Official: Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD (Model A058)
InFocus2014 wrote:
To answer your question, 12mm on the 12-24mm can be fun and addicting.
zeitlos wrote:
Which wide angle lens would you see as the best addition to the Tamron 35-150 ? And why?
(Of course this depends on the user case).
I'd imagine for ultimate IQ, the 12-24GM would be the best zoom option. For premium AF primes, any single or combo of: 14GM, 20G, 24GM, or Batis 18. Manual primes would include favorites like the CV21, Loxia 21, etc. Budget/value AF primes would likely be Tamron 20 and 24 f/2.8, Samyang 24 1.8, or Sigma i24 f/2 or f/3.5,
Budget zooms would include the Sigma 14-24 and Tamron 17-28.
I'm planning to purchase and compare the 16-35GM, and if I can find a copy that is as sharp as my Sigma 14-24, I'll switch to the GM and sell the Sigma. Main reason I'm hoping to switch to the 16-35GM is because I'd like to only have to carry one set of 82mm filters. I'd either stick with my B+W or maybe try the Kase magnetic 82mm filters.
The Sigma currently requires either 150mm filters or internal clip filters. I've been using the Kase clip filters, which work admirably, but there have been a growing number of times when I'd like to switch filters without having to take the lens off and deal with juggling things around with the sensor exposed. I'd also like to further reduce things down to just one filter set that will work with the 82mm diameter of both the 16-35GM and T35-150. So for me and my goals, a 16-35GM that is as sharp as my Sigma through the 16-24 range is what I'm hoping for.
Honestly, I'd LOVE for Tamron to release an 82mm filter thread 15-30 or 15-35 designed for mirrorless but with the same quality and build of this 35-150 and the new 28-75 G2. I loved my Tamron 15-30 when I had my D810.
p.36 #7 · Official: Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD (Model A058)
onthebeam wrote:
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.
If buying new. However, we are on the very forum that has some of the best deals on used gear around. The 28-75 can be had here for $500 and the 70-180 for under $900. So then it becomes $1400 or less for the 28-75/70-180 vs $2,100 (after tax) for the 35-150. Huge difference.
p.36 #8 · Official: Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD (Model A058)
zeitlos wrote:
Hes a reviewer I like and trust. Im interested to see how it compares to the 28-75 and 70-180 when he puts that video out. That combo is a good $700 cheaper than the 35-150 if you buy used.
p.36 #9 · Official: Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD (Model A058)
zeitlos wrote:
Which wide angle lens would you see as the best addition to the Tamron 35-150 ? And why?
(Of course this depends on the user case).
I was wondering the same for a time few months back. Wanted something to pair with my 28-200 and the 35-150, so i started to think about: Tamron 17-28, Sony G 20 mm, Sony GM 24 mm and Sony GM 16-35 mm.
First i rented the Tamron 17-28/F2.8 and while it was pretty decent at everything it didnt excel at anything, not to mention that past like 22 mm the sharpness in the copy i had was dropping pretty fast and at 28 it was a bit soft even without pixel peeping. So no Tamron 17-28 for me.
Next i rented Sony G 20/F1.8 and GM 24/F1.4 at the same time. This one was tough coz i liked both lenses very much. Super sharp wide open, great color rendition, nice oof, pretty light and compact. In the end for me 24 was to close to my 28-200 (and in APSC it was the at 36 so just like the 35-150) that is why G 20 mm suited me better out of these two lenses. Worth mentioning that G 20 mm is in reality a 19 mm.
Last stop was the GM16-35 which i borrowed from my friend and had a lot of time with it. Obviously this one was perfect for T35-150 two lens combo and not so much with 28-200. In general i liked it quite a lot. It was sharper than T17-28 and even more versatile; however it also is pretty bulky and not as sharp as G 20 mm or GM 24.
For a second i also thought about Sony GM 12-24/F2.8 but quickly rejected it coz of the price and size/weight. I didn't want to have two big and heavy lenses.
In the end i bought Sony G 20 mm/F1.8 and honestly i couldn't be happier. It's such a good lens and goes very well with T35-150. It has pretty much no weak points and i can always use it in APSC mode for 27-28 mm eq if i need to. So for anybody thinking about a wide lens to pair with T35-150 (and/or 28-200) i can wholehearthy recommend Sony G 20/F1.8 mm - it's a killer combo.
Also nice to see you again Dexter, looking forward to more of your honest takes. I see you're not giving up....
p.36 #10 · Official: Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD (Model A058)
Immortal wrote:
In the end i bought Sony G 20 mm/F1.8 and honestly i couldn't be happier. It's such a good lens and goes very well with T35-150. It has pretty much no weak points and i can always use it in APSC mode for 27-28 mm eq if i need to. So for anybody thinking about a wide lens to pair with T35-150 (and/or 28-200) i can wholehearthy recommend Sony G 20/F1.8 mm it's a killer combo.
No doubt the 20G would also be better for astro landscapes as well. I'm torn on the 20G and every time I see someone post about it I second guess which path I should take. We're so spoiled as e-mount users that it is almost a curse having this many viable options.
p.36 #11 · Official: Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD (Model A058)
Dexter75 wrote:
Hes a reviewer I like and trust. Im interested to see how it compares to the 28-75 and 70-180 when he puts that video out. That combo is a good $700 cheaper than the 35-150 if you buy used.
there's going to be a few here that will sell off the 35-150 come march....... going to be interesting to see where the price lands.
p.36 #12 · Official: Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD (Model A058)
zeitlos wrote:
Which wide angle lens would you see as the best addition to the Tamron 35-150 ? And why?
(Of course this depends on the user case).
1635GM
Same filters diameter, 82mm. One set of filters for both lens.
16mm is crasy enough and is wide enough (for me).
Flat (= always protected by the filter) front element.
Beatifull weather protection.
Typical GM quality. Reasonable size and weight.
p.36 #13 · Official: Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD (Model A058)
Thanks for the suggestions and reasons. Very interesting. I have to go through it all again in my head. And also whether the 24-70 Sigma will have had its day or not.
p.36 #14 · Official: Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD (Model A058)
This is a bit off-topic, so sorry for that, but the concerns, because of which I never got to buy 16-35GM in the end, are the same as those raised against the Tamron here: high price and not-as-high IQ (on the long end) (+ copy variation, but that applies to all lenses) ...
p.36 #15 · Official: Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD (Model A058)
j4nu wrote:
This is a bit off-topic, so sorry for that, but the concerns, because of which I never got to buy 16-35GM in the end, are the same as those raised against the Tamron here: high price and not-as-high IQ (on the long end) (+ copy variation, but that applies to all lenses) ...
Don't forget size and weight! Another bad lens. Ha ha
p.36 #16 · Official: Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD (Model A058)
j4nu wrote:
This is a bit off-topic, so sorry for that, but the concerns, because of which I never got to buy 16-35GM in the end, are the same as those raised against the Tamron here: high price and not-as-high IQ (on the long end) (+ copy variation, but that applies to all lenses) ...
I am using this lens for few years and fully agree with you re high price. But if I use ratio USD per excellent shot - for me this is the best wide zoom money can buy.
As for image quality... for me (two main bodies are A9, also A7R2 for landscapes) it is absolutely ok.
The real drawback of this lens (for me personally) is lack of fun and character. But it delivers exactly what I want to get, proper workhorse lens with widest variety of applications (wedding dance-hall, crazy 16mm shots, beautiful travel lens, astro, etc.).
I have no personal experience using it on the A1, but this link might be usefull:
All is just my personal opinion of heavy user of 1635GM in different conditions.)))
As always, it is better to rent the lens for few days and give it a ride: either you are in love (or at least in arranged marriage))), or not.
Am I in love? No, my heart is broken by 85GM))). But my marriage with 1635GM is very happy relationship.))))
P.S. Total off-topic.
Scroll through this gallery, all crazy shots mainly done on 1635GM:
p.36 #17 · Official: Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD (Model A058)
Problem with GM 16-35 and some other other lenses is copy variation, my friend from whom i rented it went throu 4 copies before he had one good one, so that is something to consider.
Anyway todays lenses are all good honestly, we're just spoiled with choice and some of us pixel peep like crazy, doesn't change the fact that all of these lenses will do the job just fine.
p.36 #18 · Official: Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD (Model A058)
Immortal wrote:
Anyway todays lenses are all good honestly, we're just spoiled with choice and some of us pixel peep like crazy, doesn't change the fact that all of these lenses will do the job just fine.
Couldn’t agree more. A real photographer wouldn’t pixel peep. He’d care about his timing and perception/eye. All our equipment is far more sophisticated than our talent.
P.S. Fun fact: The largest German photography internet forum (dslr forum) attaches great importance to the fact that they are not a photo forum, but a technology forum. And any reference to the actual purpose of the equipment is kicked back with a reference to it… speaks volumes. One always has to keep that in mind, I suppose.
p.36 #20 · Official: Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD (Model A058)
@IslandMed: I can only say exquisite! Amazing photos!
Never tried itself, but I lean towards the opinion that 16-35GM is worth its price (as you say, it's not only the price but the actual use/results one gets out of it). Maybe I'll try it one day, maybe I'll wait for smaller, lighter, sharper,... GMII .
Related to the discussion above, as it was mentioned before, current lenses are so good that I think it's the definition of a Pro to be able make any lens work .To be honest, I think most pros simply laugh when they see pixel-peepers discussing lenses in such detail, because so much can be done today in post...
I don't like it, but I'm definitely in the pixel-peepers group, but I don't claim to be a "true" photographer (I admit I enjoy the technical aspect of digital photography a bit too much) .
