p.11 #2 · Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD Image Thread
Turns out 35mm is pushing it for laguna de los tres. Here’s a stitched pano image from last night with the 35-150. There must’ve been a cloud on the horizon as the clouds just turned grey.
p.11 #6 · Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD Image Thread
On our hike yesterday, this pair of Magellanic woodpeckers let us get pretty close.
I’m finding the 35-150 and RIV paired with a second body and 16-35GM to be a perfect do-it-all landscape combo for someone who isn’t averse to carrying the weight. (I’m also carrying 2 tripods and vlogging gear). Granted I’m only in my late 30s, but not particularly fit, and my Mammut 35L Trion Spine is totaling around 48lbs including a full bladder, and it honestly wasn’t too bad hauling up the 13 miles to Laguna de los Tres. We’ve encountered a lull of bad weather, but hoping to snag a few more views before it’s time to leave.
All in all, this lens continues to impress me with every day of use.
p.11 #9 · Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD Image Thread
mfenske wrote:
I'm trying to convince myself I don't need this lens and these images ARE NOT helping.
This has been discussed a lot in this thread but I think you really need to answer two questions:
1) is 35mm wide enough for you (that's why it's more of people lens for me) ?
2) are you okay with its size & weight?
Optically (minus flare), I think it's the best of the bunch in this range .
p.11 #10 · Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD Image Thread
j4nu wrote:
This has been discussed a lot in this thread but I think you really need to answer two questions:
1) is 35mm wide enough for you (that's why it's more of people lens for me) ?
2) are you okay with its size & weight?
Optically (minus flare), I think it's the best of the bunch in this range .
The flare has been exceedingly rare in my experience with the 35-150, effectively a non-issue, in my usage. Optically, it is the color fringing that has been of some concern to me, in some situations (in the uncorrected images). There is less color fringing produced by the 35-150, compared to that seen in the uncorrected images produced by the 24-105 f4, but it is visible. The size and even more the weight of the 35-150 are very serious points to consider. The lens is a joy to use, but it literally leaves one with a heavy feeling.
p.11 #11 · Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD Image Thread
j4nu wrote:
This has been discussed a lot in this thread but I think you really need to answer two questions:
1) is 35mm wide enough for you (that's why it's more of people lens for me) ?
2) are you okay with its size & weight?
Optically (minus flare), I think it's the best of the bunch in this range .
I haven't had mine long and I have been trying to get it to flare but so far apart from one occasion I have not had any problems, Yes 35 is not very wide but as another poster has said this lens combined with the 16-35Gm is a match made in heaven. It is a HEAVY lens and that is it's real downside but to get the range with f2-2.8 is really quite something and it is optically stunning for a zoom. Today I sold my A9, one of my A7riii's and the Tamron 28-200 and bought the A1 so with the 35-150 on the A1 and 16-36 on the A7riii I feef I can do pretty much anything I need too
p.11 #12 · Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD Image Thread
"with the 35-150 on the A1 and 16-36 on the A7riii I feel I can do pretty much anything I need too" sums up my experience, except that I am o.k. changing lenses on the A1. My second body (I mean camera) has not seen much use lately - I should consider giving to one of my children.
p.11 #13 · Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD Image Thread
ruthenium wrote:
The flare has been exceedingly rare in my experience with the 35-150, effectively a non-issue, in my usage. Optically, it is the color fringing that has been of some concern to me, in some situations (in the uncorrected images). There is less color fringing produced by the 35-150, compared to that seen in the uncorrected images produced by the 24-105 f4, but it is visible. The size and even more the weight of the 35-150 are very serious points to consider. The lens is a joy to use, but it literally leaves one with a heavy feeling.
Well, I kinda feel the opposite:
* LoCA & fringing is very well controlled
* flare/ghosts appear very easily if I position the sun somewhere near the edges of the frame.
The latter is probably a bit exacerbated by my use of clear/UV filters (they make me feel safer against rain, snow, wind...), which seems to add reflections sometimes, but in general I'd say the only lenses I used that show similar behavior regarding flare & ghosts are 100-400 teles.
Funnily enough, I'm not overly concerned with ghosts normally as I rarely shoot "pure" landscapes & etc. but the Tamron is one of the few lenses that made me recompose quite a few times due to the position of the sun.
That's not to say it's not a great lens, it's my favorite zoom by far . I just feel it makes sense to present its pros & cons (I could add pronounced vignetting on the long end if I was really picky, but I think people are used to that in FE lenses by now )...
Just an (extreme though) example of what I'm talking about (with a clear filter on):
35mm f2 (I don't want to scare you with f8 )
And a counter example where it handled the sun pretty well imho:
68mm f2.5
p.11 #15 · Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD Image Thread
j4nu wrote:
The latter is probably a bit exacerbated by my use of clear/UV filters (they make me feel safer against rain, snow, wind...), which seems to add reflections sometimes, but in general I'd say the only lenses I used that show similar behavior regarding flare & ghosts are 100-400 teles.
Funnily enough, I'm not overly concerned with ghosts normally as I rarely shoot "pure" landscapes & etc. but the Tamron is one of the few lenses that made me recompose quite a few times due to the position of the sun.
That's not to say it's not a great lens, it's my favorite zoom by far . I just feel it makes sense to present its pros & cons (I could add pronounced vignetting on the long end if I was really picky, but I think people are used to that in FE lenses by now )... ...Show more →
I would agree with this. My T35-150 has about the same amount - maybe slightly less - ghosting and flare as my 100-400GM. Manageable for sure, but definitely something you have to work around. There are trade offs one has to make for a zoom as versatile as this versus a manual focus prime, and sun star performance and flare resistance is definitely one of them. That being said, the ability to photograph a scene at 35mm and then crank in to 150mm without changing lenses has been great for me. I think if someone doesn’t really care for perspectives wider than 24mm, a 24-70/70-200 is likely a better combo. The 16-150 range has been working for me so far, but on the other hand I also have noticed recently that I rarely print images that were wider than 24mm, so I very well may one day switch to a 24-70GM II/70-200GM II, but for now I’m enjoying this two lens combo.
It would be interesting to see someone do a comparison at landscape apertures between this and the Tamron 28-200. I find I get maximum resolution around f/5.6-7.1 on the 35-150.
And some edited shots processed to my preference since this is the image thread.
)...
