p.15 #1 · Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD Image Thread
A series of pictures taken while hiking in Pinery provincial park on lake Huron last Tuesday. The harsh midday sun produced too much contrast during the first 2 hours - I had to deal with this in postprocessing.
p.15 #2 · Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD Image Thread
Took the lens to Namibia ...
I was concerned about the weight, but it was mostly not an issue. Unlike my old 24-70 I couldn't keep it in my backpack vertically, so it took more space, but it was well balanced on A1, and when shooting weight was no concern at all.
p.15 #5 · Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD Image Thread
secondclaw wrote:
Took the lens to Namibia ...
I was concerned about the weight, but it was mostly not an issue. Unlike my old 24-70 I couldn't keep it in my backpack vertically, so it took more space, but it was well balanced on A1, and when shooting weight was no concern at all.
p.15 #15 · Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD Image Thread
I was in Toronto yesterday, to apply for a visa for Japan, then spent several hours in the Royal Ontario Museum.
The following photos are representative of the lens performance in low ghastly light, while being used wide-open. The camera was hand-held. This might be of interest to those considering the use of this lens for travel, in indoor settings such as a poorly lit museum.
p.15 #16 · Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD Image Thread
ruthenium wrote:
I was in Toronto yesterday, to apply for a visa for Japan, then spent several hours in the Royal Ontario Museum.
The following photos are representative of the lens performance in low ghastly light, while being used wide-open. The camera was hand-held. This might be of interest to those considering the use of this lens for travel, in indoor settings such as a poorly lit museum.
Didn't you use a polarizing filter to get rid of glass reflections and increased contrast?
p.15 #17 · Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD Image Thread
JeyB wrote:
Didn't you use a polarizing filter to get rid of glass reflections and increased contrast?
No. In fact, I had a PolarPro CP filter when I entered the museum. I removed it to avoid the loss of about 1 stop of light with the filter. It might be interesting to try shooting in the same place with the filter on. One stop is not such a big deal.
All postprocessing was pretty standard in DxO Photolab and I was careful to preserve the bokeh by applying local corrections in those cases where the background was naturally blurred.
p.15 #18 · Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD Image Thread
ruthenium wrote:
No. In fact, I had a PolarPro CP filter when I entered the museum. I removed it to avoid the loss of about 1 stop of light with the filter. It might be interesting to try shooting in the same place with the filter on. One stop is not such a big deal.
All postprocessing was pretty standard in DxO Photolab and I was careful to preserve the bokeh by applying local corrections in those cases where the background was naturally blurred.
Yes, one stop is not such a big deal, but the increased contrast and lack of reflections should have resulted in a more punchy rendering. I usually miss a CPL filter when I shoot wildlife with the 200-600, but it is not easy to find a 95 mm filter and loss an additional stop of light. Most of my professional shootings with 82 and 77 mm front element lenses are taken with this kind of filters, even in studio settings with strobes.
Here is a full res example at location with two Godox strobes and Irix Edge slim CPL. Sony A1, Sony 24-70 GM@ 64 mm, f7.1, 1/200, ISO 100. Sorry if offtopic. I'm seriously considering buying a Tamron 35-150 f2-2.8 by the way. My main concern is its wide focal lenght range, if it was a 30-150 I would run for it with my eyes closed... https://i.imgur.com/yudbrGC.jpg
p.15 #19 · Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD Image Thread
Whether the Tamron is wide enough at 35 mm is one typical concern, the other being about the size and weight of the lens. Considering the lenses you are using (especially the 200-600), I don't expect you should find the Tamron particularly large or heavy. The size and weight concerns are usually from those who chiefly shoot with primes wider than 135 mm (not the big telephoto ones).
Regarding 35 mm, this is impossible to decide for others. The answer depends so much on the use. By looking at the images I posted above, these were taken at 35 - 44 - 58 - 69 - 101 - 105 - 116 - 150 mm f/2-2.8. I enjoyed the versatility of shooting 35-150 mm wide open. In these particular settings I did not feel constrained by the 35 mm. This can be totally different is a place where you want to capture some wide interior (e.g. in a palace), or find yourself too close to a subject when stepping back is not an option. The solution adopted by me, and it seems the other owners of the Tamron, is to pair the lens with a wide zoom, e.g. 16-35 f/2.8.
p.15 #20 · Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD Image Thread
ruthenium wrote:
Whether the Tamron is wide enough at 35 mm is one typical concern, the other being about the size and weight of the lens. Considering the lenses you are using (especially the 200-600), I don't expect you should find the Tamron particularly large or heavy. The size and weight concerns are usually from those who chiefly shoot with primes wider than 135 mm (not the big telephoto ones).
Regarding 35 mm, this is impossible to decide for others. The answer depends so much on the use. By looking at the images I posted above, these were taken at 35 - 44 - 58 - 69 - 101 - 105 - 116 - 150 mm f/2-2.8. I enjoyed the versatility of shooting 35-150 mm wide open. In these particular settings I did not feel constrained by the 35 mm. This can be totally different is a place where you want to capture some wide interior (e.g. in a palace), or find yourself too close to a subject when stepping back is not an option. The solution adopted by me, and it seems the other owners of the Tamron, is to pair the lens with a wide zoom, e.g. 16-35 f/2.8....Show more →
You're right again. I don't feel scared of the bulky and heavy Tamron, of course. In fact I've never considered it to be heayy given its maximum aperture and focal lenght available. I also own the Sigma 85 f1.4 DG HSM E-mount, which I have nicknamed "El Kilo", and I like a lot the sense I feel having it on my hands, despite the new Sigma 85 f1.4 redesign and til now I don't have any interest in replacing it.
So if I am in a situation I need ultra wide to mid telephoto on the fly, the only way would be to mount my Sigma 14-24 f2.8 DG DN on the A7 R3 and the Tamron on the A1. But then I would have to leave behind my 135 f1.8 GM which I also love and find very desirable to use. Decissions, decissions as always
