p.51 #1 · Official: Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD (Model A058)
I'm thinking about getting this but I need some guidance.
I shoot motorsport and pretty much that's the only thing I shoot.
Currently using:
Sigma 24-70 f2.8 (mostly for parked cars and people)
Sony 135mm F1.8 GM (my main less for shooting race)
Sigma 100-400 f5-6.3 (thinking about selling this one)
I don't really need wider than 35mm and while I do occassionally need longer than 135mm, I'm still happy with my 135mm GM which is extremely sharp and lets me crop quite a lot (it compares to Sigmas 250-300mm before it starts losing to it).
p.51 #2 · Official: Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD (Model A058)
I can't speak directly about motorsports as I don't shoot any but if you're ok with 100-400DN autofocus, then the Tamron is even better imho. The AF is blazing fast, it only struggles a bit when tracking something coming fast towards you rather close.
I don't know what else you need for motorsports, but, as you've probably seen, sharpness is excellent and flaring needs to be taken into consideration in some positions of the sun in the frame...
Just don't expect it to be sharper and faster than 135GM .
p.51 #3 · Official: Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD (Model A058)
j4nu wrote:
I can't speak directly about motorsports as I don't shoot any but if you're ok with 100-400DN autofocus, then the Tamron is even better imho. The AF is blazing fast, it only struggles a bit when tracking something coming fast towards you rather close.
I don't know what else you need for motorsports, but, as you've probably seen, sharpness is excellent and flaring needs to be taken into consideration in some positions of the sun in the frame...
Just don't expect it to be sharper and faster than 135GM .
Well, things moving fast towards me is a bit of a must :-)
135mm GM is great in that regard.
Reacquisition of the target is not a problem, as race cars move very predictably, but if it loses focus when it's moving towards or away or sideways, that's a problem. Sigma 100-400 has this problem where it keeps losing focus when cars are moving towards me which is why I'm planning to sell it (as well as f5-6.3 being not bright enough for 1/500 and above shutter speed, especially on a cloudy day).
p.51 #4 · Official: Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD (Model A058)
This lens is perfect for 2 cameras setup and it works with all of my lenses perfectly:
Tamron 35-150+24GM
Tamron 35-150+16-35GM
Tamron 35-150+50GM
Tamron 35-150+Sigma 105 1.4
This is just so much better than my 70-200.
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 :-)
p.51 #5 · Official: Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD (Model A058)
Nebell wrote:
Well, things moving fast towards me is a bit of a must :-)
135mm GM is great in that regard.
Reacquisition of the target is not a problem, as race cars move very predictably, but if it loses focus when it's moving towards or away or sideways, that's a problem. Sigma 100-400 has this problem where it keeps losing focus when cars are moving towards me which is why I'm planning to sell it (as well as f5-6.3 being not bright enough for 1/500 and above shutter speed, especially on a cloudy day).
Yeah, obviously things move towards you ... it depends on the distance and relative speed though.
The Tamron is definitely not on the same level as 135GM in that regard, but I think it should be noticeably better than the Sigma (as it uses linear motors instead of steppers).
I shot my kids sledding down a small hill with the Tamron and I had like 70%+ keepers at 100-150mm @f/2.8 but that doesn't say much .
p.51 #6 · Official: Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD (Model A058)
Just picked up one of these today and traded in my 24-70GM and another lens I never used. I had been going to sell my Tamron 28-200 but in the end decided to keep it as it is so handy when you really want to travel light as the 35-150 real is a heavyweight beast. So my new holy trinity is now the 16-35GM, Tamron 35-150 and 100-400GM on 2 A7riii bodies. I won't often travel with this setup but it does cover everything and I think the 35-150 on my A9 will be an excellent event lens.
p.51 #7 · Official: Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD (Model A058)
To anyone who has the lens has any of you figured out the Custom switch. It says you can also "assign function from camera" but I can see no way of doing this on the A9 or A7rIII. thanks
p.51 #9 · Official: Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD (Model A058)
Viramati wrote:
To anyone who has the lens has any of you figured out the Custom switch. It says you can also "assign function from camera" but I can see no way of doing this on the A9 or A7rIII. thanks
Scalanc is correct. It just means it is what is assigned in the camera menu, which I think is initially focus hold?
I really like the ability in the software to adjust the degree of focus throw and linear vs non linear. As well as use one mode just for infinity. I hope more lenses begin using USBC ports and this level of user customization.
p.51 #10 · Official: Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD (Model A058)
scalanc2 wrote:
I think it means ...assign the function already assigned in camera...
By the way, I cannot operate the software from Mac. Any good experience?
I found that I had allow the the driver to install fully under 'general' in the 'security and privacy' preferences in 'system preferences' https://www.tamron.jp/en/support/lensutility/help/install/
p.51 #11 · Official: Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD (Model A058)
Thinking about replacing Batis 85 and Sony 24-105 with this lens. Thoughts?
I like both lenses, but I rarely use them as I tend to stick to prime lenses in WA to normal range more. I purchased Batis 85 to complete my 20/35/85 kit and 24-105 for family duties (when I have no time for changing lenses or paying attention to artistic aspects of photography). I love the colors and contrast of Batis and it is a compact-ish lens (< 1 lb). 24-105 is just okay. I don't find it super interesting, but it is likely because of my style of run and gun shooting with this lens than the IQ of the lens.
p.51 #12 · Official: Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD (Model A058)
photosbyjaron wrote:
Scalanc is correct. It just means it is what is assigned in the camera menu, which I think is initially focus hold?
I really like the ability in the software to adjust the degree of focus throw and linear vs non linear. As well as use one mode just for infinity. I hope more lenses begin using USBC ports and this level of user customization.
Thanks got it now. not very clear but it's referring to the use of the custom button on the lens
p.51 #13 · Official: Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD (Model A058)
ramesesthe2nd wrote:
Thinking about replacing Batis 85 and Sony 24-105 with this lens. Thoughts?
I like both lenses, but I rarely use them as I tend to stick to prime lenses in WA to normal range more. I purchased Batis 85 to complete my 20/35/85 kit and 24-105 for family duties (when I have no time for changing lenses or paying attention to artistic aspects of photography). I love the colors and contrast of Batis and it is a compact-ish lens (< 1 lb). 24-105 is just okay. I don't find it super interesting, but it is likely because of my style of run and gun shooting with this lens than the IQ of the lens. ...Show more →
The 24-105 G is noticeably smaller and lighter compared to the Tamron 35-150. I am used to hiking with the even larger and heavier 100-400 GM, thus the size and weight of the Tamron is not a deterrent to me, yet this should be a major consideration for anyone interested in the Tamron zoom. E.g., carrying the lens attached to a camera requires a suitably sized large bag (a Manfrotto holster, in my case, which is large enough to fit the A1+100-400GM as well). Optically, the 35-150 and the 24-105G are similarly sharp at F5.6 and further closed down. The Sony produces a little more color fringing. The main advantages of the Tamron are obviously (a) the extended reach (150 vs 105 mm), and (b) being a 1-2 stops faster lens. If these properties are important then the Tamron is a better choice. There might be some concern about the wide end of the Tamron, being limited to 35 mm. In practice, however, the 24 mm end of the 24-105 is also not wide enough in many situations where a wide lens is needed. I mean the argument "35mm is not wide enough" is, to a degree, applicable to 24 mm. For those subjects where a wide lens is needed, one would be better served by replacing the 35-150 by a wide zoom, e.g. a 16-35, but this is one of the decisions guided by personal preferences.
p.51 #14 · Official: Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD (Model A058)
ramesesthe2nd wrote:
Thinking about replacing Batis 85 and Sony 24-105 with this lens. Thoughts?
I like both lenses, but I rarely use them as I tend to stick to prime lenses in WA to normal range more. I purchased Batis 85 to complete my 20/35/85 kit and 24-105 for family duties (when I have no time for changing lenses or paying attention to artistic aspects of photography). I love the colors and contrast of Batis and it is a compact-ish lens (< 1 lb). 24-105 is just okay. I don't find it super interesting, but it is likely because of my style of run and gun shooting with this lens than the IQ of the lens. ...Show more →
If you like the compact size of the Batis, I think you'd be disappointed with the size of the Tamron.
p.51 #15 · Official: Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD (Model A058)
Well I just received the Haoge LMR-SM140 lens tripod collar I ordered from Amazon to try out with this lens in Patagonia, so I'll let y'all know what I think of it after using it down there. (http://www.amazon.com/Haoge-Tripod-Tamron-35-150-100-400mm/dp/B09L7MLTW9) I know that when the lens was first announced, some complained about the weight and thought there should have been a tripod mount for it. Now there is. I haven't been concerned about the weight at the mount at all, but to avoid always having a nodal slide on my L-bracket in order to not have to constantly change the orientation of my tripod head between my 100-400 mount, I figured I'd give this setup a shot.
p.51 #18 · Official: Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD (Model A058)
chez wrote:
If you like the compact size of the Batis, I think you'd be disappointed with the size of the Tamron.
What you are saying is correct, as well as that the size and weight are important. Everything is relative, however, and the Tamron 35-150 is a lens that is not easy to put in perspective. One way of looking at the Tamron is as a possible replacement of BOTH the Sony 24-105 G F4 and 70-200 GM F2.8 mark II. The Tamron can do most of what these two lenses do, except it is not as wide as the former and is limited to 15 fps vs 30 fps on the A1 for the latter. The 150 mm vs 200 mm difference I don't find critical in use on a high MP camera (and yes, the Tamron does not accept teleconverters). Nevertheless, I believe this is correct to say that the Tamron 35-150 can replace the two Sony lenses for, arguably, 90% of the common uses/applications. From this point of view, the versatility of the Tamron is its prized quality and the weight and size should not be a problem with anyone who is happy about their Sony 70-200 GM mark II, which is of similar weight and diameter, yet longer by ca. 4 cm.
I don't mean to disagree with the opinions of others. At the end, the decisive factor is often whether one is reasonably comfortable with a particular piece of equipment, and I well understand that the size and weight of the Tamron 35-150 can make one uncomfortable. This is one of those personal choices where no one is exactly right or wrong, only happy or not with the lens.
p.51 #19 · Official: Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD (Model A058)
ruthenium wrote:
What you are saying is correct, as well as that the size and weight are important. Everything is relative, however, and the Tamron 35-150 is a lens that is not easy to put in perspective. One way of looking at the Tamron is as a possible replacement of BOTH the Sony 24-105 G F4 and 70-200 GM F2.8 mark II. The Tamron can do most of what these two lenses do, except it is not as wide as the former and is limited to 15 fps vs 30 fps on the A1 for the latter. The 150 mm vs 200 mm difference I don't find critical in use on a high MP camera (and yes, the Tamron does not accept teleconverters). Nevertheless, I believe this is correct to say that the Tamron 35-150 can replace the two Sony lenses for, arguably, 90% of the common uses/applications. From this point of view, the versatility of the Tamron is its prized quality and the weight and size should not be a problem with anyone who is happy about their Sony 70-200 GM mark II, which is of similar weight and diameter, yet longer by ca. 4 cm.
I don't mean to disagree with the opinions of others. At the end, the decisive factor is often whether one is reasonably comfortable with a particular piece of equipment, and I well understand that the size and weight of the Tamron 35-150 can make one uncomfortable. This is one of those personal choices where no one is exactly right or wrong, only happy or not with the lens....Show more →
I'll add that while the Tamron is slightly heavier than the 70-200 GM II, it's center of mass is closer to the camera body than the 70-200 GM II, meaning the overall center of mass feels closer to where your hand is, making it slightly easier to handle in some cases. It's also probably why they got away without a tripod collar. The 70-200 GM II feels absurdly light for what it is though. Maybe I'm just used to the longer GM lenses weighing a ton.
p.51 #20 · Official: Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD (Model A058)
hevaKmaI wrote:
I'll add that while the Tamron is slightly heavier than the 70-200 GM II, it's center of mass is closer to the camera body than the 70-200 GM II, meaning the overall center of mass feels closer to where your hand is, making it slightly easier to handle in some cases. It's also probably why they got away without a tripod collar. The 70-200 GM II feels absurdly light for what it is though. Maybe I'm just used to the longer GM lenses weighing a ton.
The GM 70-200mm II has an internal zooming mechanism while the Tamron 35-150mm extends when zoomed at the long end. In other words, the weight distribution of the GM 70-200mm II lens remains the same throughout the zooming range, while that of the Tamron is not. Your observation may be correct if the Tamron is at 35mm but definitely it is not the case when it is zoomed to 150mm.
I am not talking down the lens. I think the Tamron 35-150mm lens is great but I am just stating the fact….
but if you're ok with 100-400DN autofocus, then the Tamron is even better imho. The AF is blazing fast, it only struggles a bit when tracking something coming fast towards you rather close.
... it depends on the distance and relative speed though.