j4nu
Online
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.39 #4 · Official: Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD (Model A058) | |
photosbyjaron wrote:
Alright here is the redo of my sharpness comparison against my Sigma 24-70DGDN and 100-400GM now that I have a 2nd copy. This second copy fits the camera body mount much tighter than the first and does not display the weird haze issue at 150mm @f/2.8 that the initial copy showed, which I'll be returning to the retailer I preordered it from. Although the new one is also not perfectly centered, it appears within the margin of reasonableness. I went up the hill again and took some comparison shots with all three lenses around noon today, low 70s, with a slight breeze, to compare sharpness. Given the atmospheric conditions, it is possible that some differences may be due to atmospheric conditions. Hard to avoid that under the midday sun. I should mention, this is with an A7RIV.
I've retested all of these shots (except the 35GM) 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 175 of the test shots are available here: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/s5qyefoat8yw8aj/AADtwwpuKQOh3o9jbpe7hSgYa?dl=0
Without any further ado.
35GM/Sigma 24-70DGDN/Tamron 35-150:
@35mm@:
I didn't retest the 35GM, but needless to say, the 35GM is by far the sharpest of the three lenses at 35mm. The GM at f/2 is sharper than either zoom at any aperture (no surprise there).
@f/2.8: The 24-70DGDN is a smidge sharper in the center. They appear nearly equal in the mid range, but the Sigma may have a slight lead. The Tamron is noticeable sharper in the corners.
@f/4: As with 2.8, the Sigma keeps a slight sharpness lead in the center, gradually transitioning to being equal in the mid frame until the Tamron becomes noticeably sharper in the corners.
@f/5.6: The Sigma maintains its slight edge in sharpness across the center and regains the lead in the mid frame, with the Tamron remaining slightly sharper in the corners.
@f/8: The Great Equalizer, diffraction, becomes noticeable and IQ suffers compared to f/5.6. It appears to affect the Sigma more, with both lenses becoming essentially equal across the frame.
@50mm@:
@f/2.8: Both lenses appear equal across the center and mid frame. The Tamron maintains more sharpness going into the far corners.
@f/4: The Sigma takes a noticeable lead in the center and mid frame, while the Tamron maintains its lead in the corners. I should note that my copy of the 24-70DGDN is strongest at the 50mm focal length, and it shows starting at f/4.
@f/5.6: The Sigma is still sharper in the center and a smidge sharper mid frame, while the Tamron is still noticeably sharper in the corners.
@f/8: Just like at 35mm, diffraction sets in and affects IQ, and both lenses become essentially equal across the frame.
@70mm:
@f/2.8: The Tamron leads in sharpness across the frame.
@f/4: Both equally sharp in the center. Tamron is sharper in mid frame and corners.
@f/5.6: Both equally sharp in the center. Tamron is sharper in mid frame and corners.
@f/8: Diffraction starts and IQ suffers compared to f/5.6 on both. Tamron marginally sharper in center, becoming increasingly sharper than the Sigma into the mid frame and corners.
Sigma/Tamron Sharpness Comparison Summary - 35-70mm: Interestingly enough, my initial copy was slightly sharper at 35mm and 50mm but significantly worse at 150mm with a weird haze issue when wide open. This 2nd copy loses some of the center sharpness that the initial copy had at 35mm but is stronger in the mid range than the prior copy, which would tie in the center with the Sigma, drop off mid frame, and then regain the lead in the corners. My initial copy was also marginally better in the center at 50mm, but by 70mm and beyond the 2nd copy exceeds the first.
My copy of the Sigma is sharpest at 50mm, where its sharpness is truly impressive for a zoom, and it is also strong at 35mm, being somewhat weaker at 24 and 70 compared to other lenses. I can comfortably say that my copies of the Sigma and Tamron appear to be generally tied in IQ, trading blows across the frame. The Sigma is sharpest in the center at 35mm and 50mm and a smidge sharper mid frame at 35mm and 50mm, but the Tamron is significantly sharper in the corners at all focal lengths. At the long end of the Sigma, we see the Tamron surpass the Sigma’s performance, as the Tamron begins to enter the middle of its focal range. The Tamron’s center sharpness catches up to the Sigma by 70mm, besting it at 70mm wide open and when stopped down at f/8.
Sony 100-400GM/Tamron 35-150 - 100-150mm:
@100mm:
@f/4.0 (Tamron) & f/4.5 (GM): The Tamron is sharper both center and mid frame, but the GM ties it in the corners. The GM’s performance wide open is still impressive.
@f/5.6: Both are incredibly close. The Tamron is just a smidge sharper in the center, but both appear equal across the mid frame and corners. The Tamron shows greater contrast in the center, but I don't necessarily think it provides sharper details.
@f/8: Both appear equal across the frame.
@135: I did not retest at 135mm since it is so close to 150mm, and it is difficult to correctly guess 150mm on the GM. The difference between 135 and 150 are slight enough that I'm comfortable assuming they are generally the same as the performances at 150mm. And in fact, the two comparison tests I've attempted at 150 have both been off, first at 160mm and the second at 139mm.
@150 (139mm for GM):
@f/5.6: Both appear equal across the frame.
@f/8: Both appear equal across the frame.
GM/Tamron Sharpness Comparison Summary: This copy of the Tamron appears every bit as good as the 100-400GM at their shared focal lengths across the frame and is exceptionally sharp even wide open at f/2.8. Although Tamron appears to have more contrast in the center, I’d hesitate to say the extra contrast equates with additional sharpness. Both show excellent details across the frame.
Regarding sun flare and ghosting: although the Tamron is much better at controlling flare and ghosting than the many green blobs produced by the 100-400GM, it is notably worse than the Sigma 24-70 (when at f/16). Obviously the 35GM is much better than both at controlling flare. That being said, my wife actually prefers the Tamron’s flare/ghosting over that of the Sigma, which creates several purple blobs.
Revised Conclusion
My initial impression after the first day was disappointment. My expectations were soaring high at the announcement, and I think I expected it to far surpass my Sigma 24-70, which is itself an incredibly sharp lens. I've also grown used to the jaw dropping results from the 35GM, so that first day of comparing and pixel peeping with the lenses burst that bubble of unrealistic expectations that I had allowed to grow. In my disappointment, I resigned myself to keep the current three lens setup of 14-24/24-70/100-400 instead of switching to a two-zoom backpacking landscape setup of 16-35/35-150. Additionally, 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 (same as the Sigma 24-70).
That being said, after additional testing and a 2nd copy, my initial disappointment is now gone. My wife and I have taken it out several times now, and I have been thoroughly impressed by the capabilities that this lens offers being able to take great images from 35mm f/2 to 150mm f/2.8. That the Tamron bests an extremely sharp copy of the Sigma 24-70DGDN at 70mm and in the corners at all focal lengths and matches the output of the illustrious 100-400GM is remarkable. The lens has definitely taken me on a rollercoaster of emotions. From unrealistic expectations, to disappointment, to measured acceptance and testing, to discouragement of having to find a 2nd copy, to the final satisfaction of seeing great results.
In perspective, 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 would provide a sharper center 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 telephoto shot without a lens change. For example, a bighorn sheep we encountered tonight along the road (taken in crop mode at 150 f/2.8). I'm now beginning to think Tamron really pulled off something pretty incredible with this lens.
Of course, it isn’t the lens for everyone. The holy trinity will likely always be the best path to maximum zoom IQ for those wanting or willing to buy and carry all three, and individual prime lenses will still render the best results in absolute IQ terms, but what this lens does offer is quite unique and extraordinary with a useful range at minimal sacrifice to image quality. Paired with an ultra wide zoom, one could handle anything from 12-150mm with just two zooms. Add in the 200-600 and TC, and a person could be reasonably well covered from 12-840mm (minus the 150-200 gap).
The primary cons are its behavior with sun flare/ghosting, its size and weight, and its cost for a third party lens.
...Show more →
Again, thanks for this!
All this work you put into the comparison against the "excellent" 24-70DN and 100-400GM shows that the Tamron deserves the same rating  . If this doesn't convince the obvious naysayers, then nothing will .
|
.