p.40 #2 · Official: Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD (Model A058)
Yup, he is more of a videoghrapher if anything and he made some valid points. His reviews are great for people who do the same thing which again - aren't photographers. His reviews are not a waste of time unless you go and watch them with unrealistic expectations but that's on you not him.
That being said, he mentioned several times throu the review of this Tamron lens that you should go and watch Dustin Abbot photography review if that's your thing.
In the end at this point it's pretty safe to say that Tamron 35-150/F2-2.8 is an amazing and unique lens for what it is. It has some weak points like any lens but overall it's excelent and the price is fair for what it offers.
p.40 #3 · Official: Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD (Model A058)
long end being f/2.8? I mean it's only 150 2.8, 70-180 long end is 180 2.8, so I think the f2 is playing a part on size and weight.
Dave Sanders wrote:
I shoot in A mode with auto ISO so exposure wouldn't change for me. I'm normally only in manual when I'm shooting landscapes and that means I'm already stopped down.
The size of the lens is due to the long end being f/2.8, not the short end being f/2. I think Tamron just did the math and said 'why not?'
p.40 #4 · Official: Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD (Model A058)
That was a horrible review, it was simply made so he could fulfill his sponsored video contract and pay the bills. It’s obvious that he didn’t even want to review the lens.
j4nu wrote:
I think you are too harsh he's not a photographer after all. I like to watch his reviews to learn something different...
p.40 #5 · Official: Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD (Model A058)
Charlie N wrote:
That was a horrible review, it was simply made so he could fulfill his sponsored video contract and pay the bills. It’s obvious that he didn’t even want to review the lens.
Lol, ok...
So what exactly is horrible in this review, where he tests mostly video-centric stuff?
p.40 #6 · Official: Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD (Model A058)
Yes, long end being f/2.8. Bar napkin math gives me an entrance pupil of roughly 54mm on a 150/2.8 VS 17.5mm on a 35/2. Obviously, there are other factors that come in to play, like making the lens actually sharp and aberration free.
The size of the 35-150 is likley due to the combination of its zoom range (4.2X) and the urge to have it sharp throughout that range with minimal breathing, vignetting, CA, etc.
EdwardDye wrote:
long end being f/2.8? I mean it's only 150 2.8, 70-180 long end is 180 2.8, so I think the f2 is playing a part on size and weight.
p.40 #7 · Official: Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD (Model A058)
wind30 wrote:
… I thought Gerald undone is prob the worst lens reviewer… most of his reviews are a waste of time
If you're a photographer and don't use cameras for video, this may be the case. I don't shoot video and still find his videos interesting and informative. "Worst lens reviewer" is some wacky hyperbole that one generally expects on dpreview, not here at FM. Thankfully, there are enough YT reviewers out there to cater to each individual's interests.
Speaking of, here are a few more recent YT reviews (also video centric - I mean, consider the medium - YT is video):
&t=3s
I haven't seen any direct comparisons of the 35-150 to the 28-75G2, but David Oastler did say in the comments to his video review that his 28-75 G2 was sharper than the 35-150 in their shared focal range. I'll be curious to see comparisons here whenever an FMer acquires both.
p.40 #8 · Official: Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD (Model A058)
photosbyjaron wrote:
If you're a photographer and don't use cameras for video, this may be the case. I don't shoot video and still find his videos interesting and informative. "Worst lens reviewer" is some wacky hyperbole that one generally expects on dpreview, not here at FM. Thankfully, there are enough YT reviewers out there to cater to each individual's interests.
Speaking of, here are a few more recent YT reviews (also video centric - I mean, consider the medium - YT is video):
I haven't seen any direct comparisons of the 35-150 to the 28-75G2, but David Oastler did say in the comments to his video review that his 28-75 G2 was sharper than the 35-150 in their shared focal range. I'll be curious to see comparisons here whenever an FMer acquires both. ...Show more →
Dustin had some comments about 28-75G2 vs 35-150 and I'd say they generally trade blows (sharpness-wise indeed the former had the upper hand in the end I think). I'd need to find it again to check the details ...
p.40 #9 · Official: Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD (Model A058)
j4nu wrote:
I think you are too harsh he's not a photographer after all. I like to watch his reviews to learn something different...
I don’t remember exactly which video I watched but I literally asked YouTube to stop recommending his channel after watching it. I don’t do that often…
There are basics to a lens review. The simple stuff is sharpness. The better ones will test af, bokeh, flare. The really good ones will test bokeh at different subject distances….
p.40 #11 · Official: Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD (Model A058)
WOW Great photos!!!!
turbodude wrote:
ok my full report is....
I love this freaking lens. I was worried it wasnt going to keep up with the sports i shoot, but it worked flawlessly today. I had no difference between shooting with this lens than my 24-70GM, and id argue this lens is a bit more resistant to flare than the 24-70GM
More detail report tomorrow when im not exhausted. I was planning on just shooting the undercard fight with this lens, but it worked so well, i said eff it, and shot the main event with it.
p.40 #14 · Official: Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD (Model A058)
Depends where you travel
Seriously, I also still consider it as a(!) travel lens… and, oh, depends where I want to travel…
I have just received the Sigma 28-70 2.8 so I have two choices (well, and still the 24-70mm Sigma 2.8). But there‘s good reason why the Tamron 35-150mm can be used as a travel lens as well.
p.40 #15 · Official: Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD (Model A058)
zeitlos wrote:
Depends where you travel
Seriously, I also still consider it as a(!) travel lens… and, oh, depends where I want to travel…
I have just received the Sigma 28-70 2.8 so I have two choices (well, and still the 24-70mm Sigma 2.8). But there‘s good reason why the Tamron 35-150mm can be used as a travel lens as well.
Ultimately the best thing about this lens is that it brings additional options for those that want them. There are always going to be weight conscious photographers that will say X lens is too heavy. There are always going to be photographers that prefer carrying a few small primes for size and IQ. There are always going to be photographers that prefer manual focus to get the full experience of controlling everything to capture an image.
And there's photographers like me, who absolutely hate changing lenses out in the Utah desert or PNW rain and want one zoom lens that can get nearly every shot I want.
p.40 #16 · Official: Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD (Model A058)
Well said, yet following that same logic of "nearly every shot I want" in one lens, the one I reach for is the Sony 24-105 with OSS. I use the 24mm to 35mm focal length range over and over again and could never imagine being without it if only one lens can be carried. In-APS-C range, its versatility reaches 157mm.
photosbyjaron wrote:
And there's photographers like me, who absolutely hate changing lenses out in the Utah desert or PNW rain and want one zoom lens that can get nearly every shot I want.
p.40 #17 · Official: Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD (Model A058)
onthebeam wrote:
Well said, yet following that same logic of "nearly every shot I want" in one lens, the one I reach for is the Sony 24-105 with OSS. I use the 24mm to 35mm focal length range over and over again and could never imagine being without it if only one lens can be carried. In-APS-C range, its versatility reaches 1577mm.
Yep, the wide end is critical to my photography be it landscape or cultural travel. If I were to only take one lens, it would need to cover at least 24mm, maybe even wider.
p.40 #18 · Official: Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD (Model A058)
onthebeam wrote:
Well said, yet following that same logic of "nearly every shot I want" in one lens, the one I reach for is the Sony 24-105 with OSS. I use the 24mm to 35mm focal length range over and over again and could never imagine being without it if only one lens can be carried. In-APS-C range, its versatility reaches 1577mm.
I haven't owned it personally, but by all accounts the 24-105G is an excellent lens, especially for landscapes, etc. And definitely if 24mm is necessary for one's uses, that lens is going to offer something the 28-75G2 and 35-150 can't offer. When I first switched over to Sony, I probably used my Sigma 14-24 more than any other lens - a lot of it at 24mm.
For whatever reason though, my personal tastes have changed, and I've really been enjoying longer focal lengths for my landscape pano shots. Prior to getting my 35GM, I probably used 24mm more than any other focal length to create large stitched panos, but when reviewing my lightroom catalogue to help decide between the 24GM and 35GM, I found that I almost always cropped out large portions both above and below the 24mm pano and was often naturally cropping the image to what would have been a 35mm stitched pano anyways. (I always shoot vertically, never horizontally). I think I just naturally like the increased compression one can get with mountains at 35mm and 50mm for stitched panos (which honestly is most of what I prefer to try to take). So for me, this Tamron's range is the perfect solution for about 85% of the shots I've been taking recently, but it most definitely is not going to be everyone's perfect solution.
If I had more money than god, I'd love to have two A1s: one with the 16-35GM and the other with this 35-150. Maybe a 3rd with the 200-600.
p.40 #19 · Official: Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD (Model A058)
photosbyjaron wrote:
I haven't owned it personally, but by all accounts the 24-105G is an excellent lens, especially for landscapes, etc. And definitely if 24mm is necessary for one's uses, that lens is going to offer something the 28-75G2 and 35-150 can't offer. When I first switched over to Sony, I probably used my Sigma 14-24 more than any other lens - a lot of it at 24mm.
For whatever reason though, my personal tastes have changed, and I've really been enjoying longer focal lengths for my landscape pano shots. Prior to getting my 35GM, I probably used 24mm more than any other focal length to create large stitched panos, but when reviewing my lightroom catalogue to help decide between the 24GM and 35GM, I found that I almost always cropped out large portions both above and below the 24mm pano and was often naturally cropping the image to what would have been a 35mm stitched pano anyways. (I always shoot vertically, never horizontally). I think I just naturally like the increased compression one can get with mountains at 35mm and 50mm for stitched panos (which honestly is most of what I prefer to try to take). So for me, this Tamron's range is the perfect solution for about 85% of the shots I've been taking recently, but it most definitely is not going to be everyone's perfect solution.
If I had more money than god, I'd love to have two A1s: one with the 16-35GM and the other with this 35-150. Maybe a 3rd with the 200-600. ...Show more →
That's another issue I have with the Tamron, it makes 16-35GM look more and more appealing .
p.40 #20 · Official: Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD (Model A058)
j4nu wrote:
That's another issue I have with the Tamron, it makes 16-35GM look more and more appealing .
I feel you. I went from being happy with the Sigma 14-24 to now trying to convince myself I don't need to switch to the GM. I also didn't even consider the Tamron 150-500 until owning this 35-150, and all of a sudden I'm watching and reading every online review. The 16-35GM, 35-150, and 150-500 would all work with the same 82mm filters.
Probably going to end up keeping my 100-400GM, but still, I wasn't remotely interested in the 150-500 before, and all of a sudden I'm having to tell that little GAS voice in my brain, no, no, we don't need it. What we have is enough.
he's not a photographer after all. I like to watch his reviews to learn something different...
.
...