p.50 #1 · Official: Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD (Model A058)
I have just bought a Tamron 17-28mm 2.8 to finally fill the gap below 35mm. Most important to me was portability, since I really use wide angle lenses. I wanted a zoom because of flexibility.
I cover almost the whole range form 17-150mm with two lenses now, with a constant 2.8 respectively 2.0 - 2.8 aperture. On full frame Nice
p.50 #2 · Official: Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD (Model A058)
zeitlos wrote:
I have just bought a Tamron 17-28mm 2.8 to finally fill the gap below 35mm. Most important to me was portability, since I really use wide angle lenses. I wanted a zoom because of flexibility.
I cover almost the whole range form 17-150mm with two lenses now, with a constant 2.8 respectively 2.0 - 2.8 aperture. On full frame Nice
Congrats. I have the same setup, add a 200-600mm and you are complete
p.50 #4 · Official: Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD (Model A058)
FotograafNL wrote:
I'm not a pixel peeper, but can you people live with this?? example 1 example 2
And i didn't even watch much content about this lens to find these examples. For me a no go i think.
If you mean cat's eyes, then yes, that's how it is wide open, as the vignetting is rather prominent (which I think is the cause). If you prioritize bokeh balls, then with today's lenses a fast prime closed down a stop or more is the only way in most cases.
As for zooms, I think the new GMII is very similar in this regard...
p.50 #5 · Official: Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD (Model A058)
j4nu wrote:
If you mean cat's eyes, then yes, that's how it is wide open, as the vignetting is rather prominent (which I think is the cause). If you prioritize bokeh balls, then with today's lenses a fast prime closed down a stop or more is the only way in most cases.
As for zooms, I think the new GMII is very similar in this regard...
p.50 #6 · Official: Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD (Model A058)
Well, i find the distortion kind of extreme, very ugly and distracting. I only see circles here (don't mean the bokeh circles but how they are lined in that barrel distortion).
It looks like an ideal travel lens but i think i will stick with my lighter 24-105 f4 for travel (which i use maybe 30% of the time because most of the time the 16-35 GM is on the camera), because the extra bokeh and longer reach has limited value here though i know it's very situation depending. Weight and size are important factors outdoors.
It's a difficult one, but i don't think there is a place for this lens in my work.
Professionally this lens can't replace my 35 f1.4 for environmental portraits, the 55 f1.8 for indoor portraits and 85 f1.8 in studio because there is no rush in creating those, every stop counts and carrying all that weight for nothing irritates me. For product work i mainly use 50-70 and never those f2 of f2.8 apertures.
If i would do more reportage work i think i need a fast zoom, those are the rare situations i get nervous with my primes and only f4 zoom
Very curious if Sony will answer to this Tamron and the Canon 28-70 f2. That Canon is professionally a much more interesting range. Even 28-50 f2 would be interesting. As long as it's smaller than that Canon beast.
Thinking all this over i think this Tamron is mostly interesting for the wedding or event photographer (with a 24 or 16-35 on a 2nd body).
p.50 #7 · Official: Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD (Model A058)
FotograafNL wrote:
Well, i find the distortion kind of extreme very ugly and distracting. I only see circles here.
It looks like an ideal travel lens but i think i will stick with my lighter 24-105 f4 for travel (which i use maybe 30% of the time because most of the time the 16-35 GM is on the camera), because the extra bokeh and longer reach has limited value here though i know it's very situation depending. Weight and size are important factors outdoors.
It's a difficult one, but i don't think there is a place for this lens in my work.
Professionally this lens can't replace my 35 f1.4 for environmental portraits, the 55 f1.8 for indoor portraits and 85 f1.8 in studio because there is no rush in creating those, every stop counts and carrying all that weight for nothing irritates me. For product work i mainly use 50-70 and never those f2 of f2.8 apertures.
If i would do more reportage work i think i need a fast zoom, those are the rare situations i get nervous with my primes and only f4 zoom
Very curious if Sony will answer to this Tamron and the Canon 28-70 f2. That Canon is professionally a much more interesting range. Even 28-50 f2 would be interesting. As long as it's smaller than that Canon beast.
Thinking all this over i think this Tamron is mostly interesting for the wedding or event photographer (with a 24 or 16-35 on a 2nd body). ...Show more →
Also for travel this lens and a 20G makes a perfect combo, for me.
p.50 #8 · Official: Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD (Model A058)
FotograafNL wrote:
Well, i find the distortion kind of extreme, very ugly and distracting. I only see circles here (don't mean the bokeh circles but how they are lined in that barrel distortion).
It looks like an ideal travel lens but i think i will stick with my lighter 24-105 f4 for travel (which i use maybe 30% of the time because most of the time the 16-35 GM is on the camera), because the extra bokeh and longer reach has limited value here though i know it's very situation depending. Weight and size are important factors outdoors.
It's a difficult one, but i don't think there is a place for this lens in my work.
Professionally this lens can't replace my 35 f1.4 for environmental portraits, the 55 f1.8 for indoor portraits and 85 f1.8 in studio because there is no rush in creating those, every stop counts and carrying all that weight for nothing irritates me. For product work i mainly use 50-70 and never those f2 of f2.8 apertures.
If i would do more reportage work i think i need a fast zoom, those are the rare situations i get nervous with my primes and only f4 zoom
Very curious if Sony will answer to this Tamron and the Canon 28-70 f2. That Canon is professionally a much more interesting range. Even 28-50 f2 would be interesting. As long as it's smaller than that Canon beast.
Thinking all this over i think this Tamron is mostly interesting for the wedding or event photographer (with a 24 or 16-35 on a 2nd body). ...Show more →
p.50 #9 · Official: Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD (Model A058)
I don't think all bokeh balls should be perfectly round. I mean the strong barrel distortion in the longer focal lengths that make the (deformed) bokeh balls look like they are lined in circles around the subject. And i'm not a technical guy. It may be coincidence but i don't remember seeing it this strong before like i see in several videos about this lens while i didn't invest much time in in it. But maybe i'm wrong and this is normal at these longer focal lengths.
Yes, i can see it's a solution for those situations (family portraits with changing circumstances). But never a one lens solution for me because i'm mostly a wide angle shooter who likes to get close to the subject to create some dynamic.
p.50 #10 · Official: Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD (Model A058)
FotograafNL wrote:
I don't think all bokeh balls should be perfectly round. I mean the strong barrel distortion in the longer focal lengths that make the (deformed) bokeh balls look like they are lined in circles around the subject. And i'm not a technical guy. It may be coincidence but i don't remember seeing it this strong before like i see in several videos about this lens while i didn't invest much time in in it. But maybe i'm wrong and this is normal at these longer focal lengths.
Yes, i can see it's a solution for those situations (family portraits with changing circumstances). But never a one lens solution for me because i'm mostly a wide angle shooter who likes to get close to the subject to create some dynamic. ...Show more →
Ah, I think I get it now - you probably mean the "swirl" in the bokeh. That's supposedly also caused by vignetting and deformed bokeh balls (or so I read ).
I was just surprised that you rejected this lens based on this, as it doesn't strike me as particularly excessive compared to others. In my experience, the small & fast lenses nowadays are produced at the cost of increased vignetting with all its side-effects. The Tamron is definitely also on the heavy side in this regard.
Of course, we all have our personal preferences - I, for example, struggle with wide family shots (that's why I like the Tamron range so much) ...
Edit: Ok, I've found a test which shows more vignetting in the corners wide-open on the long end on the Tamron, so I guess there is some difference...
Edit#2: To add a bit of substance to my post, here's how my christmas lights look :
p.50 #11 · Official: Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD (Model A058)
Ok, I'll come off as a fanboy again but Dustin Abbott in his latest video picks the Tamron as his premium zoom 2021 favorite (50GM is his premium prime choice) :
?t=311
p.50 #12 · Official: Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD (Model A058)
Some of you use Tamron 35-150 for different reasons : events (pro), all-in-one lens, remplacing 24-105 for travelling, …
Which lens do you have to complement it ?
I have personally purchased a Sony 16-35 GM for UWA landscape photography, Kept my Zony 50 1.4 for portrait (i love so much this lens).
My initial objective purchasing the tamron was to come back to a minimalist lens kit so I don’t know if i need to add a additionnal 100-400 for landscape purpose (compression). I have never owner a such telephoto lens so difficult to know before trying it :-)
p.50 #13 · Official: Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD (Model A058)
I have several lenses.
But the main reason for me to own this Tamron is that I can go outside with one lens only.
Non bags, no extra weight and no need to lose time and occasions during lens exchange.
All this with top level quality mostly in line with the best fixed focal lenses in the market.
Usually with this lens I cover 90% of what I need and I can count on some crop with my R camera. For panorama, when 35 is not enough I can easily take two pictures then stitch at home.
Having said that I see you already own a GM 16-35 and therefore I think you are ok.
I also have a 100-400 but it is taking dust on my shelf. I’m going to put it for sale.
But, of course, this is just me.
p.50 #14 · Official: Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD (Model A058)
I am totally aligned with you !
I am also afraid not to use sony 100-400 too if I finally purchase it :-)
scalanc2 wrote:
I have several lenses.
But the main reason for me to own this Tamron is that I can go outside with one lens only.
Non bags, no extra weight and no need to lose time and occasions during lens exchange.
All this with top level quality mostly in line with the best fixed focal lenses in the market.
Usually with this lens I cover 90% of what I need and I can count on some crop with my R camera. For panorama, when 35 is not enough I can easily take two pictures then stitch at home.
Having said that I see you already own a GM 16-35 and therefore I think you are ok.
I also have a 100-400 but it is taking dust on my shelf. I’m going to put it for sale.
But, of course, this is just me. ...Show more →
p.50 #15 · Official: Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD (Model A058)
Sylvain_31 wrote:
Some of you use Tamron 35-150 for different reasons : events (pro), all-in-one lens, remplacing 24-105 for travelling, …
Which lens do you have to complement it ?
I have personally purchased a Sony 16-35 GM for UWA landscape photography, Kept my Zony 50 1.4 for portrait (i love so much this lens).
My initial objective purchasing the tamron was to come back to a minimalist lens kit so I don’t know if i need to add a additionnal 100-400 for landscape purpose (compression). I have never owner a such telephoto lens so difficult to know before trying it :-)
My recent travel lens kit included the Tamron 35-150 together with the 16-35GM and 100-400 GM x2TC. I came to think of the 16-35GM as a "specialist" lens; meaning that, normally, it gets attached to a camera for a reason. Images become increasingly distorted on going wide, therefore, a wide lens should not be used indiscriminately. The 100-400 GM is potentially a much more useful lens compared to the 16-35 GM, meaning that one would probably end up with many more pictures/keepers from the 100-400 GM. At least, this has been my experience.
I am not sure about the merits of the 100-400 GM for "landscape purpose (compression)" when contemplating the use of this lens alongside the Tamron 35-150. The relevant question is "how often one would get a better landscape by shooting longer than 150 mm?" Arguably, the 100-400 GM is mostly used for subjects other than landscapes at 200 - 400 mm. My own interest when using the telephoto lens is wildlife: insects, birds, animals, and other lifeforms. It is for this reason, I almost always use the 100-400 GM with the x2 TC, as a 200-800 F11 zoom. This complements the 35-150 mm Tamron zoom quite well, in my hands. When going on a 5 - 10 km hike, I typically have the 35-150 on camera and the 100-400GM in the backpack half of the way, and I switch the lenses when I am heading back. The combined recent total usage of the lenses in my hands is probably close to 60 - 35 - 5% for the Tamron 35-150 vs Sony 100-400 GM vs 16-35 GM, respectively. The 100-400 GM sees less usage during the winter months at home, since there are few insects and less wildlife to shoot in our parts of the world in winter. In addition to the above lenses, anyone interested in nightscapes under starry skies might want to have a prime like the 20 mm F1.8 G or similar. A fast prime like yours 50 F1.4 also makes sense to keep for those occasions when you want better bokeh than what you get from the Tamron.
p.50 #16 · Official: Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD (Model A058)
Your feedback is very interesting especially concerning your lens swap method
during your hikes.
ruthenium wrote:
My recent travel lens kit included the Tamron 35-150 together with the 16-35GM and 100-400 GM x2TC. I came to think of the 16-35GM as a "specialist" lens; meaning that, normally, it gets attached to a camera for a reason. Images become increasingly distorted on going wide, therefore, a wide lens should not be used indiscriminately. The 100-400 GM is potentially a much more useful lens compared to the 16-35 GM, meaning that one would probably end up with many more pictures/keepers from the 100-400 GM. At least, this has been my experience.
I am not sure about the merits of the 100-400 GM for "landscape purpose (compression)" when contemplating the use of this lens alongside the Tamron 35-150. The relevant question is "how often one would get a better landscape by shooting longer than 150 mm?" Arguably, the 100-400 GM is mostly used for subjects other than landscapes at 200 - 400 mm. My own interest when using the telephoto lens is wildlife: insects, birds, animals, and other lifeforms. It is for this reason, I almost always use the 100-400 GM with the x2 TC, as a 200-800 F11 zoom. This complements the 35-150 mm Tamron zoom quite well, in my hands. When going on a 5 - 10 km hike, I typically have the 35-150 on camera and the 100-400GM in the backpack half of the way, and I switch the lenses when I am heading back. The combined recent total usage of the lenses in my hands is probably close to 60 - 35 - 5% for the Tamron 35-150 vs Sony 100-400 GM vs 16-35 GM, respectively. The 100-400 GM sees less usage during the winter months at home, since there are few insects and less wildlife to shoot in our parts of the world in winter. In addition to the above lenses, anyone interested in nightscapes under starry skies might want to have a prime like the 20 mm F1.8 G or similar. A fast prime like yours 50 F1.4 also makes sense to keep for those occasions when you want better bokeh than what you get from the Tamron. ...Show more →
p.50 #17 · Official: Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD (Model A058)
Anyone replacing their Tamron 70-180 with this lens able to comment about the difference in size and weight (or other differences you've noticed)? I have the f2.8 zoom, which I like a lot, but I think I'd prefer the 35-150 focal range more often.
p.50 #18 · Official: Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD (Model A058)
grahamgibson wrote:
Anyone replacing their Tamron 70-180 with this lens able to comment about the difference in size and weight (or other differences you've noticed)? I have the f2.8 zoom, which I like a lot, but I think I'd prefer the 35-150 focal range more often.
I owned the 70-180 some months ago and own the 35-150, so it was not a direct replacement. If you’re not used to a lens weight >850g you will be „shocked“ by the dumbbell aka 35-150. At least I was a bit shocked Size difference is relatively small but the weight difference is definitely noticeable.
Ironically I didn’t use the 70-180 very often as it was not versatile enough for my purposes (mainly family pictures). I love the 35-150 for its „better“ versatility as It covers approx. 90% of my preferred focal lengths and hence I don’t care about the weight. The remaining 10% are covered by the 24GM.
p.50 #19 · Official: Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD (Model A058)
I have the 24-105, but the 35-150 (with lower stops) will allow me to travel and take photos without the annoying need to change lens. Every time I change lenses, I get glares from the family.
Nice 
):
