p.3 #2 · Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD vs Sony at 35 mm
casualshot73 wrote:
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.
I agree with you on both points: the Tamron F2-2.8 can be used in low light, whereas one would want to replace the 24-105 F4 G by a faster lens after sunset or indoors. The extra reach is often important as well. When replacing the 24-105 by the 35-150, my concern was about the Tamron being limited at 35 mm on the wide end. I was not sure how much that should make me feel constrained when using the lens while travelling. It is in this respect, the experience of using the 35-150 so far has been educational. I learned that going wider than 35 mm is relatively rarely necessary and justified, in general use. When necessary, this happens in rather special places which an experienced photographer and/or traveler would probably be aware of. Indiscriminate, casual shooting wider than 35 mm might not be generally a good idea, and I kind of like this that the Tamron 35-150 encourages one to assess the scene and make the switch to a wider lens consciously, when the scene truly calls for a wider lens.
p.3 #3 · Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD vs Sony at 35 mm
ruthenium wrote:
Indiscriminate, casual shooting wider than 35 mm might not be generally a good idea. . .
Sorry, but can't agree with you on this one, Ruth. I can't think of many situations where I would recommend that a photographer shoot indiscrimimately. The range of 24-35mm is essential for many of us pros--for me, especially 24. 35 just isn't wide enough although it's a great focus length for many situations.
I do like what you are saying about assessing a situation before deciding on a focal length. Too many photographers let the zoom do what the eyes, legs are arms should be doing before composing. For those who consider trading in their 24-105 for this fine Tamron zoom, I'd suggest picking up one of several small, light and fast, 24mm lenses on the market. You just may find you'll want it/need it.
p.3 #4 · Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD vs Sony at 35 mm
ruthenium wrote:
I agree with you on both points: the Tamron F2-2.8 can be used in low light, whereas one would want to replace the 24-105 F4 G by a faster lens after sunset or indoors. The extra reach is often important as well. When replacing the 24-105 by the 35-150, my concern was about the Tamron being limited at 35 mm on the wide end. I was not sure how much that should make me feel constrained when using the lens while travelling. It is in this respect, the experience of using the 35-150 so far has been educational. I learned that going wider than 35 mm is relatively rarely necessary and justified, in general use. When necessary, this happens in rather special places which an experienced photographer and/or traveler would probably be aware of. Indiscriminate, casual shooting wider than 35 mm might not be generally a good idea, and I kind of like this that the Tamron 35-150 encourages one to assess the scene and make the switch to a wider lens consciously, when the scene truly calls for a wider lens....Show more →
I don't agree with your view of 24mm being specialized for travel. Many foreign places have very narrow and crowded streets and markets and one many times does not have the luxury of taking a step or two back to get the shot. I've traveled a lot with 3 lenses ( 25, 35 and 85 ) and I'd say my most used lens was the 25, then followed by 85 and finally 35.
The other "big" issue with the Tamron is it's size...having that lens attached to your camera in a crowded market or festival just won't fly...at least not the way I like to shoot.
p.3 #6 · Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD vs Sony at 35 mm
chez wrote:
I don't agree with your view of 24mm being specialized for travel. Many foreign places have very narrow and crowded streets and markets and one many times does not have the luxury of taking a step or two back to get the shot. I've traveled a lot with 3 lenses ( 25, 35 and 85 ) and I'd say my most used lens was the 25, then followed by 85 and finally 35.
The other "big" issue with the Tamron is it's size...having that lens attached to your camera in a crowded market or festival just won't fly...at least not the way I like to shoot....Show more →
Same here.
Just finished editing a 3 week landscape travel (many lakes, waterfalls and canyons in eastern Europe) and the result in edited photo's is about 70% 16-35, 29% 24-105 (and half of that still under 50mm) and only 1% 70-300.
I often hear photographers say that starters tend to use wide more but the more advanced photographers rather grab a tele for their landscapes. Well then i doubt if i ever reach that advanced status being photographer for 21 years now.
The thing is.. it depends preference and especially on how you use your wide lens. Getting as much in the frame as possible is not my intention in most situation. It's more about getting close because i like dynamics in my shots.
When photographing street life it's different sometimes, but my 24-105 serves me well.
Professionally i love my primes for portrait and fashion work. But also during a very intense fashion (on location) day last week i used my 35 f1.4 60% of the time and the 85 a bit more than the 55.
Only if i'd do more reportage work or go back to doing weddings i think i'd love to buy this Tamron, because i would not need a 70-200 then (a lens i don't like, but only need for receptions and guest photo's during ceremonies). Though interior 35 is often too long so i'd still use it combined with the 16-35mm. One thing to consider though is the value of a bit of overlap in zooms.
p.3 #7 · Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD vs Sony at 35 mm
FotograafNL wrote:
Same here.
Just finished editing a 3 week landscape travel (many lakes, waterfalls and canyons in eastern Europe) and the result in edited photo's is about 70% 16-35, 29% 24-105 (and half of that still under 50mm) and only 1% 70-300.
I often hear photographers say that starters tend to use wide more but the more advanced photographers rather grab a tele for their landscapes. Well then i doubt if i ever reach that advanced status.
The thing is.. it depends preference and especially on how you use your wide lens. Getting as much in the frame as possible is not my intention in most situation. It's more about getting close because i like dynamics in my shots.
When photographing street life it's different sometimes, but my 24-105 serves me well.
Professionally i love my primes for portrait and fashion work. But also during a very intense fashion (on location) day last week i used my 35 f1.4 60% of the time and the 85 a bit more than the 55.
Only if i'd do more reportage work or go back to doing weddings i think i'd love to buy this Tamron, because i would not need a 70-200 then (a lens i don't like, but only need for receptions and guest photo's during ceremonies). Though interior 35 is often too long so i'd still use it combined with the 16-35mm. One thing to consider though is the value of a bit of overlap in zooms. ...Show more →
When I wrote "I learned that going wider than 35 mm is relatively rarely necessary and justified, in general use," I should have made a greater emphasis on that this was my personal experience. I should not have made this sound as a generalized statement.
I traveled last December and in late January - early February with three lenses (16-35, 35-150, and 100-400) and I used all three. Indeed, the former lens saw limited use. I love the 16-35 F2.8 GM; the problem was it was not needed most of the time. One day, I knew I might need it and had it in the backpack - this "saved the day" for me when I found myself in a gorgeously decorated villa which interior I could capture at 16 mm, but would be impossible to give it proper credit at 35 mm. Obviously 35 mm is not wide enough. Your usage "about 70% 16-35, 29% 24-105" seems to make another point: that 24 mm is also not wide enough when a wide lens is needed!
Indeed one needs more than one lens (possibly a minimum of three lenses) to cover the whole range from wide to telephoto. The practical question is how one splits this range. One way is 12-24, 24-105, 100-400. Another is 16-35, 35-150, 150-500 (or 100-400). The big decision is about the one in the middle: 24-105 vs 35-150. This is not an easy decision: the former is smaller and lighter - the latter is faster and arguably more versatile. I own both lenses and I have been using the 35-150 a lot lately. I wish it had been smaller and lighter, but so far, I have not been tempted to replace it by the 24-105.
There is a completely different challenge: in some places one wants to be discreet (for different reasons, e.g. to avoid drawing too much attention to oneself and one's expensive photography equipment), meaning a need for a compact lens and an inconspicuous camera. Even if I taped all signs on my A1, the "lowly" A7III with, e.g., FE 35mm f/2.8 ZA Lens might be the camera system to take to such places. This is however a different topic.
p.3 #8 · Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD vs Sony at 35 mm
Malarkey. I say advanced photographers reach for a lens that lets them convey what they intend. Sometimes that might be a wide angle, sometimes it might be a telephoto.
FotograafNL wrote:
Same here.
Just finished editing a 3 week landscape travel (many lakes, waterfalls and canyons in eastern Europe) and the result in edited photo's is about 70% 16-35, 29% 24-105 (and half of that still under 50mm) and only 1% 70-300.
I often hear photographers say that starters tend to use wide more but the more advanced photographers rather grab a tele for their landscapes. Well then i doubt if i ever reach that advanced status being photographer for 21 years now.
The thing is.. it depends preference and especially on how you use your wide lens. Getting as much in the frame as possible is not my intention in most situation. It's more about getting close because i like dynamics in my shots.
When photographing street life it's different sometimes, but my 24-105 serves me well.
Professionally i love my primes for portrait and fashion work. But also during a very intense fashion (on location) day last week i used my 35 f1.4 60% of the time and the 85 a bit more than the 55.
Only if i'd do more reportage work or go back to doing weddings i think i'd love to buy this Tamron, because i would not need a 70-200 then (a lens i don't like, but only need for receptions and guest photo's during ceremonies). Though interior 35 is often too long so i'd still use it combined with the 16-35mm. One thing to consider though is the value of a bit of overlap in zooms. ...Show more →
p.3 #9 · Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD vs Sony at 35 mm
ruthenium wrote:
The practical question is how one splits this range. One way is 12-24, 24-105, 100-400. Another is 16-35, 35-150, 150-500 (or 100-400). The big decision is about the one in the middle: 24-105 vs 35-150. This is not an easy decision: the former is smaller and lighter - the latter is faster and arguably more versatile. I own both lenses and I have been using the 35-150 a lot lately. I wish it had been smaller and lighter, but so far, I have not been tempted to replace it by the 24-105.
There is a completely different challenge: in some places one wants to be discreet (for different reasons, e.g. to avoid drawing too much attention to oneself and one's expensive photography equipment), meaning a need for a compact lens and an inconspicuous camera. Even if I taped all signs on my A1, the "lowly" A7III with, e.g., FE 35mm f/2.8 ZA Lens might be the camera system to take to such places. This is however a different topic....Show more →
Like i said: overlap has it's value too (sorry if my English is not perfect).
I think i see 35mm as a standard instead of 50. 24-35 is a very usable and important range and convenient to have on both my most used zooms (for the reason i use zooms in certain circumstances).
p.3 #11 · Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD vs Sony at 35 mm
After looking up the word malarkey (i don't think every non English speaker knows that word..) i agree of course but like i said; i read so many statements about longer lenses more often used for landcape. It's a preference, and that's fine. Just just wanted to give a reason for mine.
p.3 #12 · Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD vs Sony at 35 mm
A crop to 50mm from 35 is an option too. But taking a step back is no replacement for a wide angle perspective.
Last week a fashion customer requested me to make a lot of landscape style photos that session just because it fits better in some web format they use, not the best reason imo, but okay.. . It's aways difficult to explain customers that simply stepping back gives different results in dynamics (and ofc depth of field). Apart from the landscape problems of extra styling the background etc. I turned out fine (used the 35 f1.4 a lot because with wide angle the aperture is extra important to me) but it was a challenge.
It’ll require stitching but the results are mind blowing.
Unrelated - someone needs to kick sony’s butt for limiting all 3rd party lenses to 15fps in AF-C. This lens has 2x fast linear motors. I don’t see a reason why it can’t go faster than 15fps on the A1.
