p.2 #1 · Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD vs Sony at 35 mm
How would the Tamron 35-150 work as a macro lens? Has someone tried putting a spacer between a Sony body and the lens to shoot close-up? Am just curious because more and more people are shooting 70-200 F2.8 lenses as macros...but it would be wonderful to have a wider angle option...
p.2 #6 · Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD vs Sony at 35 mm
ruthenium wrote:
I have recently wasted time on possibly totally irrelevant questions, like how my new Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 compares to Sony 35GM, Sony 16-35GM, and Sony 24-105G at 35 mm and F2 or F2.8?
Perhaps, some may find this comparison interesting, thus I am posting the observations.
The camera was on a tripod, focused on the number "57", which was 31 m (ca 100 ft) away from the camera. A remote shutter was used with 10 s delay on the camera. DRO and all three lens corrections were turned off.
The RAW files were opened in DxO Photolab 5, using the Cobalt Standard color rendering. No corrections (sharpening, contrast, etc.) were applied.
All crops shown below are 300 x 200 pixels.
At the end, I feel pleased with the performance of the Tamron. The resolution and contrast of this lens at F2 and 2.8 are very close to those of the supposedly excellent Sony 35GM. I expect that both lenses should produce high-quality images at F2 and 2.8 in real-life applications.
One interesting property of the Tamron, which I did not expect, is the apparent field curvature, resulting in the subjects in the background to be better focused compared to the other Sony lenses in this test. This is clearly seen in Crop 5, by looking at the sign "Palomino." Conversely, the foreground is better in focus with the Sony lenses of this test.
The first image given below is the uncropped image; then, crops 1 - 5 appear, as labelled on the uncropped image....Show more →
Thanks for doing this.
It's hard for me to believe the 35GM wasn't sharper
p.2 #7 · Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD vs Sony at 35 mm
rdcny wrote:
How would the Tamron 35-150 work as a macro lens? Has someone tried putting a spacer between a Sony body and the lens to shoot close-up? Am just curious because more and more people are shooting 70-200 F2.8 lenses as macros...but it would be wonderful to have a wider angle option...
The maximum magnification ratio of this lens is 0.26, at 225 mm, in the APS-C mode, when the MFD is 0.33m /13 in (according to the Tamron website). To put things in perspective, here is a possibly instructive example.
The first image is 21MP, at 225 mm. The second is a 7MP crop from the first, upscaled to 24MP in Topaz Gigapixel.
The bottom line: the lens can be reasonably used for subjects as small as several centimeters (ca. 3 in), but it is not a macro lens.
Among the telephoto lenses, the better options are the 70 - 200 F2.8 GM x 2 TC which should have the magnification ratio of 0.6 at 400 mm, or the 100 - 400 F4.5-5.6 x2 TC which would give you the magnification ratio of 0.7 at 800 mm. The latter would work nicely on a sunny day at F11. Both lenses have short MFD (somewhere in the range of 70 - 80 cm).
p.2 #8 · Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD vs Sony at 35 mm
fotografur wrote:
Thanks for doing this.
It's hard for me to believe the 35GM wasn't sharper
If Roger Cicala would put the two lenses on the optical bench at Lens Rentals, I expect the 35GM should certainly be optically superior. However, this is different from looking at the real-life unprocessed images produced by a camera, even a 50MP camera, where the differences might be much less pronounced, or almost imperceptible. This does not strictly mean that the zoom is as "sharp" as the prime, merely that in practice using the Sony, in place of the Tamron, may not result in any real IQ improvements, even at F2 and almost certainly at F2.8. I speculate, of course. When there is an opportunity, I would like to shoot the 35mm GM and the Tamron side-by-side at 35 mm, to prove the point.
p.2 #9 · Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD vs Sony at 35 mm
ruthenium wrote:
The maximum magnification ratio of this lens is 0.26, at 225 mm, in the APS-C mode, when the MFD is 0.33m /13 in (according to the Tamron website). To put things in perspective, here is a possibly instructive example.
The first image is 21MP, at 225 mm. The second is a 7MP crop from the first, upscaled to 24MP in Topaz Gigapixel.
The bottom line: the lens can be reasonably used for subjects as small as several centimeters (ca. 3 in), but it is not a macro lens.
Among the telephoto lenses, the better options are the 70 - 200 F2.8 GM x 2 TC which should have the magnification ratio of 0.6 at 400 mm, or the 100 - 400 F4.5-5.6 x2 TC which would give you the magnification ratio of 0.7 at 800 mm. The latter would work nicely on a sunny day at F11. Both lenses have short MFD (somewhere in the range of 70 - 80 cm). ...Show more →
p.2 #10 · Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD vs Sony at 35 mm
Thank you for the interesting comparison.
The Tamron looks gorgeous, but looking carefully at all the pictures I'm not entirely sure that the Tamron and the Sony GM 35mm are focused exactly at the same distance.
p.2 #11 · Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD vs Sony at 35 mm
Maximilian wrote:
Thank you for the interesting comparison.
The Tamron looks gorgeous, but looking carefully at all the pictures I'm not entirely sure that the Tamron and the Sony GM 35mm are focused exactly at the same distance.
I used the small spot to focus, on the stone in crop 1. The tripod wasn't moved when I changed the lenses.
p.2 #12 · Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD vs Sony at 35 mm
I also think there is some variation copy to copy, as my first copy was sharper at 35mm than my second, while the second is much sharper at 150mm than the first.
However, neither copy was close to the 35GM. I'll confess to having an incredibly good copy of the 35GM though. That being said, although the copies I've tried of the Tamron 35-150 aren't as sharp as the 35GM, the difference really requires pixel peeping. The Tamron is a truly remarkable lens and is impressive for how well it compares to some of the best primes available. I love my 35GM, but I'll confess that I have not used it that much since getting the 35-150. I really have to want that f/1.4 look or be in a situation where the size of the lens matters for me to be willing to swap out the zoom for the prime.
I have all these shots uploaded in the dropbox in the other 35-150 thread, but here is about a 100% crop of the same scene with the 35GM, 35-150, and 24-70DGDN. For all practical purposes, they all are sharp enough for large prints, and the reason to shoot with one versus the other wholly depends on other considerations (size, weight, filter size, versatility, flare, etc.)
p.2 #14 · Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD vs Sony at 35 mm
By looking at the above images from the Tamron and the Sony at F2.8, I don't see any significant difference (and the Sony is supposed to be extremely sharp at F2.8). Such visual comparisons can be, in practice, very challenging. For example, it seems that the images from the Sony 35GM are darker than those from the Tamron. The darker images may give the impression of better IQ simply because they look more contrasty, as if "sharper."
p.2 #16 · Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD vs Sony at 35 mm
ruthenium wrote:
By looking at the above images from the Tamron and the Sony at F2.8, I don't see any significant difference (and the Sony is supposed to be extremely sharp at F2.8). Such visual comparisons can be, in practice, very challenging. For example, it seems that the images from the Sony 35GM are darker than those from the Tamron. The darker images may give the impression of better IQ simply because they look more contrasty, as if "sharper."
Yeah I totally agree. I was fighting the setting sun on that occasion, and testing in midday is more ideal for consistent lighting. I do think that the 35GM does have more natural contrast and bite than the zoom, and that also gives an impression of added sharpness. I think a person would likely have to print larger than 48" and stand a few inches away with a magnifying glass to really notice any significant differences in sharpness, and you'd have to have both prints right next to each other to tell.
Needless to say, sharpness is not going to be a differentiating factor for someone choosing between this and a prime lens in its range.
p.2 #17 · Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD vs Sony at 35 mm
photosbyjaron wrote:
Yeah I totally agree. I was fighting the setting sun on that occasion, and testing in midday is more ideal for consistent lighting. I do think that the 35GM does have more natural contrast and bite than the zoom, and that also gives an impression of added sharpness. I think a person would likely have to print larger than 48" and stand a few inches away with a magnifying glass to really notice any significant differences in sharpness, and you'd have to have both prints right next to each other to tell.
Needless to say, sharpness is not going to be a differentiating factor for someone choosing between this and a prime lens in its range. ...Show more →
I completely agree (I also believe that the Sony 35GM truly has a slightly better contrast). Indeed, sharpness is a non-issue with the Tamron.
p.2 #20 · Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD vs Sony at 35 mm
Looks like a great lens. Hoping to replace my 24-105mm for travel. I know the weight is extra, but a step or two of light and almost 50% more reach should be worth it.
