p.20 #2 · Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD Image Thread
chad hites wrote:
Really great set! I love the rich colors. I am very impressed with the 35-150 on my A1. It clearly works well for you also!
Thank you! I am glad you like the lens.
p.20 #6 · Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD Image Thread
Just bought this lens, wow I have not been this excited about a lens in a long while. For me, this lens replaces (and bests) a 24-70/2.8, 50GM, Samyang 85/1.4, and Tamron 70-180. There is no bad focal length on this lens, but I was most surprised at just how spectacular it is at 35mm wide open. I have not missed the 24-35mm range as I thought I would, probably because I've also recently started exploring 16-28/35mm ultrawide zooms. Tamron 35-150 DSC03666 by Ryan Li, on Flickr. 35mm, F/2
p.20 #7 · Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD Image Thread
ryanli wrote:
Just bought this lens, wow I have not been this excited about a lens in a long while. For me, this lens replaces (and bests) a 24-70/2.8, 50GM, Samyang 85/1.4, and Tamron 70-180. There is no bad focal length on this lens, but I was most surprised at just how spectacular it is at 35mm wide open. I have not missed the 24-35mm range as I thought I would, probably because I've also recently started exploring 16-28/35mm ultrawide zooms. https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52279892144_cacc95530a_o.jpgTamron 35-150 DSC03666 by Ryan Li, on Flickr. 35mm, F/2
Nice colors and composition!
Interesting to note your experience "I have not missed the 24-35mm range as I thought I would" which has been my experience as well. It is regularly said that the Tamron is not "wide enough." This feeling may have something to do with the known tendency to use zooms at the extremes (wide and long end). Thus, the normal zooms are probably often used at 24 mm, hence giving the sense that access to this focal length is critical. I think I had this feeling myself, coming to Tamron from the Sony 24-105G lens. The Tamron taught me to shoot at 35 mm, and this has been an interesting and valuable experience. I do carry the 16-35 GM with me (in the backpack) when travelling in new places, just in case, but the real needs to use the focal lengths wider than 35 arise rarely. There are reasonably well-defined situations when the use of a wide lens is needed, but I came to realize that it is better to avoid shooting wide indiscriminately, as including more things in a frame does not result in a better composition. Also going wider than 35 mm increasingly distorts the reality, which works to produce beautiful artistic images when used properly, but may equally give ugly results in general use. The bottom line is that it might be right for a normal zoom to start at 35 mm, and for a wide zoom to cover the rest, like the 16-35 GM does.
p.20 #8 · Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD Image Thread
@ryanli@, you're one of us now . I see your use case is the same as mine - mostly family .
Regarding the "not wide enough" discussion, I think it's clear you can't get that typical for a wide angle (~24mm) striking look of a subject rising from the center with a 35mm. I like those kind of shots, but find them repetitive in large quantities. While 35mm for me, is just wide enough to make the perspective interesting but you're not as constricted with regards to placing your subject in the very center due to less perspective distortion. All in all, apples to oranges in my opinion.
There are of course other cases where a wider lens is useful:
* you can't back out any more to frame
* those wide-ish *scape shots
but then you can try stitching I guess.
To keep with the theme of this image thread, here's a rare instance of my kids posing for a photo :
ƒ/2.5 70.0mm 1/125s ISO1000
p.20 #9 · Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD Image Thread
These are three technical examples (at 35 mm f2, 53 mm f2.2, and 74 mm f 2.5) illustrating the point about the particular image quality of the Tamron when used wide-open.
I took the pictures at a recent exhibit of art and artefacts discovered in Pompeii, Italy.
p.20 #10 · Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD Image Thread
ruthenium wrote:
Nice colors and composition!
Interesting to note your experience "I have not missed the 24-35mm range as I thought I would" which has been my experience as well. It is regularly said that the Tamron is not "wide enough." This feeling may have something to do with the known tendency to use zooms at the extremes (wide and long end). Thus, the normal zooms are probably often used at 24 mm, hence giving the sense that access to this focal length is critical. I think I had this feeling myself, coming to Tamron from the Sony 24-105G lens. The Tamron taught me to shoot at 35 mm, and this has been an interesting and valuable experience. I do carry the 16-35 GM with me (in the backpack) when travelling in new places, just in case, but the real needs to use the focal lengths wider than 35 arise rarely. There are reasonably well-defined situations when the use of a wide lens is needed, but I came to realize that it is better to avoid shooting wide indiscriminately, as including more things in a frame does not result in a better composition. Also going wider than 35 mm increasingly distorts the reality, which works to produce beautiful artistic images when used properly, but may equally give ugly results in general use. The bottom line is that it might be right for a normal zoom to start at 35 mm, and for a wide zoom to cover the rest, like the 16-35 GM does....Show more →
Thanks @ruthenium! I concur very much with your observations, though they ring true even though I'm decidedly a wide angle guy - if I could take only one lens to a desert island, the 24GM would be it (though I fear now the 35-150 is not far behind and then I'd die of arm fatigue on the island..) Seriously though, your last point is insightful, and we have full-frame mirrorless technology to thank. Once upon a time, 35-xxx used to be the norm for so-called standard zooms, then they became 28-xxx, then boundaries were pushed and they became 24-xxx.. but it is full-frame mirrorless that has enabled ultrawide zooms starting at 16/17mm or even 12/14mm to become uniformly sharp, take filters, and not weigh a ton of bricks.
Here's a tagline for the Tamron 17-28: Making 35-150 Great Again.
p.20 #11 · Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD Image Thread
j4nu wrote:
@ryanli@@, you're one of us now . I see your use case is the same as mine - mostly family .
Regarding the "not wide enough" discussion, I think it's clear you can't get that typical for a wide angle (~24mm) striking look of a subject rising from the center with a 35mm. I like those kind of shots, but find them repetitive in large quantities. While 35mm for me, is just wide enough to make the perspective interesting but you're not as constricted with regards to placing your subject in the very center due to less perspective distortion. All in all, apples to oranges in my opinion.
There are of course other cases where a wider lens is useful:
* you can't back out any more to frame
* those wide-ish *scape shots
but then you can try stitching I guess.
Ahh thanks the pleasure is all mine, to be part of the club Lovely shot, and your daughter is certainly well trained with regards to posing - making you work for the "decisive moment" for sure!
My use case also involves events and travel when work takes me on business trips away from the family.. can't wait to use the 35-150 there.
p.20 #12 · Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD Image Thread
This is an example of why I like the 35-150mm so much with its 35mm f2 capability. For shoots like this I normally take my GM 24mm f1.4, Sigma 35mm f1.2, GM 50mm f1.2 and Sigma 105mm f1.4, along with two bodies. I felt a bit lazy on this day and just took the Tamron zoom (hey, I'm an old guy. ).
I shot this particular setup at 35mm f2.0, 80mm f2.5 and 150mm f2.8. In terms of subject isolation and bokeh, the 80mm and 150mm shots were great, but compressed the background more than I wanted and did not provide the context that I was looking for. I would have normally shot 35mm f1.2, but the Tamron's 35mm f2 provided enough subject isolation to where I was happy with the shot. In fact, I find that I mostly shoot this lens at 35mm f2, or something over 100mm at f2.8
I added some processing to the shot, but you can get the idea.
A1, Tamron 35-150mm, ISO 100, 35mm, f2, 1/400, electronic shutter, AD600 in HSS, 24" beauty dish w/sock
... and for something completely different, as I mostly post images close to wide open, I wanted something landscap-ish. Unfortunately the day I chose for the trip to the highest peak of Gran Canaria had some low clouds which made the view super hazy.
Anyways, here's the processed image where I wanted to bring out the colors:
. I see your use case is the same as mine - mostly family 
.
Seriously though, your last point is insightful, and we have full-frame mirrorless technology to thank. Once upon a time, 35-xxx used to be the norm for so-called standard zooms, then they became 28-xxx, then boundaries were pushed and they became 24-xxx.. but it is full-frame mirrorless that has enabled ultrawide zooms starting at 16/17mm or even 12/14mm to become uniformly sharp, take filters, and not weigh a ton of bricks.
