ruthenium
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
|
 p.37 #1 · Official: Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD (Model A058) | |
j4nu wrote:
@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)  ....Show more →
First, off-topic, then on-topic. I went through two copies of the 16-35GM; yes, it is a gamble regarding sharpness. The one I keep performs very satisfactorily, even at the long end where according to Roger Cicala the lens should not be at its best. I would not hesitate to use this lens at F2.8 in low-light. The near absence of chromatic aberrations/color fringing (in the RAW) is a strong feature of the 16-35GM, and it does not seem to be prone to ghosting, flare and veiling. Using this lens made me realize how I like the 24-35 mm range. Going wider is tricky; it is often tempting but when the subject is not right it is easy to end up with the images which look better when cropped.
On-topic: the reviews of the Tamron 35-150 are glowing - I am pleased they are! They addressed my concerns regarding the sharpness and especially contrast. The reviewers noted little to none chromatic aberrations (I hope they were looking at uncorrected RAW). Having said this, one area remains a concern: ghosting, flare, and especially veiling. The first can be patched, the extensive veiling is more difficult to deal with in post. The examples I have seen were all shot against the sun, which is not surprising or troubling. However, I don't remember seeing examples of images of relatively dark scenes lit by singular sources of light. For example, a street view or general city scenery after sunset where there is one or more bright lampposts in the background. Or, a venue (a hall, arena, restaurant, etc.) with subdued overall light and relatively bright lights in the background (on the walls or ceiling). It is for the relatively poor performance in these settings, I could not fall in love with the "Bigma" (Sigma 35 F1.2). Thus, I wonder how the Tamron would perform? I suspect I might be associating the Tamron with the Bigma simply because they look so much alike, the Tamron being slightly longer and heavier. Nevertheless, it would be nice to get more testing, of the kind Christopher Frost is doing in his lens reviews.
|
. I decided to go for a dedicated ultra-wide solution, but for "regular" shooting I'd definitely prefer something that ends at 35mm... I think I'll patiently wait and see new developments in that area though, as your observation for 24-35 range, applies more or less to anything visibly wider than 35mm for me (i.e. I tried using 24GM for a couple of years now and I'm still not really happy with what *I* can do with it).
