Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Sony Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1       2      
3
       4       end
  

Archive 2022 · Curious what lenses people are using 16-35 and 70-200?

  
 
aCuria
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #1 · p.3 #1 · Curious what lenses people are using 16-35 and 70-200?


I used to use the 16-35L + 70-200L combination all the time for events. I never felt a need to cover the focal length gap between the two lenses, it’s a tiny gap, smaller than the classic 35 + 85 prime combination

The main downside to this combination is the lack of low light capability… you still need a bunch of primes for this reason

I think the best combination for personal photography where the goal is to minimize the total number of lenses is to use primes on the wide to normal focal lengths, and zooms for telephoto focal lengths. For example, the following is a very competent combination:

- 14GM or 20G
- 35GM
- 70-200GMii

For paid work you HAVE to cart around allot of gear, but for personal work carrying around too much gear is just a pain.

Today I use the following
- adapted 16-35L rarely, if i still did paid work I would get a FE mount one. For fast paced event work you want a full extension wide zoom and not a half extension one like the Sigma and Tamron 16-28 / 17-28. For personal work I rather save the money and use primes which work in all lighting conditions! It doesn’t help that the 16-35GM isn’t very good at 35mm… the best variant seems to be the 16-35PZ for now, but that’s kinda slow at f/4
- 15 fisheye rarely, it’s good for sports where you can be extremely close up, think trick skateboarding / bmx. Infinity on this lens is so close that autofocus doesn’t matter too much. If I used it allot maybe the 14GM is a good alternative
- EF 17/3.5 Tokina rarely, it’s competent but f/3.5 is slow
- the 24GM is used often, it is particularly good for video. I need to sell my EF 24/2.8
- sold my 35L for the 35GM, used often
- sold my EF 50mm for the 55ZA, it’s not used as often now, because cropping the 35GM images works so well I get lazy to swap lenses
- EF mount 90 macro sometimes - only for macro
- Sold the 70-200L, i intend to replace it with the 70-200GMii

Unfortunately the my FE lens lineup was determined largely by the order of Sony’s lens releases… the 55ZA was one of the few competent FE lenses for way too long, and the 24GM was released long before the 35GM

Edited on Jun 08, 2022 at 02:32 PM · View previous versions



Jun 08, 2022 at 01:06 PM
yelloguy2
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #2 · p.3 #2 · Curious what lenses people are using 16-35 and 70-200?



aCuria wrote:
I never felt a need to cover the focal length gap between the two lenses, it’s a tiny gap, smaller than the classic 35 + 85 prime combination


I used to feel the same way. Once I got the Contax 35-70 I changed. It may have something to do with my ability to find good compositions in that focal length range. But that lens is a delight. I shoot only landscapes fwiw.

To the OP, I use the EF 16-35 f/4. It is adapted but gets the job done. And the contax 80-200 f/4



Jun 08, 2022 at 02:28 PM
aCuria
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #3 · p.3 #3 · Curious what lenses people are using 16-35 and 70-200?


yelloguy2 wrote:
I used to feel the same way. Once I got the Contax 35-70 I changed. It may have something to do with my ability to find good compositions in that focal length range. But that lens is a delight. I shoot only landscapes fwiw.

To the OP, I use the EF 16-35 f/4. It is adapted but gets the job done. And the contax 80-200 f/4


Hmm how is the 35-70 different from a 24-70 that starts at 35?

I did have the EF 28-75 and 24-105, neither are really wide enough for events, so the 16-35 had to remain in the bag.

When the 16-35 is on the camera, and you need something longer 99% of the time it makes more sense to switch straight to the 70-200…

If i wanted a 50mm fov I would just take a step forward with the 16-35. Switching to a 50mm prime just doesn’t happen unless there was not enough light



Jun 08, 2022 at 02:42 PM
j4nu
Online
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #4 · p.3 #4 · Curious what lenses people are using 16-35 and 70-200?


aCuria wrote:
From the samples I have seen, the Sigma 24-70 is better than the Tamron 35-150 in the shared range


Not my copies then ...



Jun 09, 2022 at 12:46 AM
aCuria
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #5 · p.3 #5 · Curious what lenses people are using 16-35 and 70-200?


j4nu wrote:
Not my copies then ...


Looks like you got a god tier copy of the 35-150 haha congrats

https://youtu.be/_C0ws_1zZyM

The corners of the 35-150 look very soft from the samples, maybe the review copy was bad

I tend to prefer using primes on the wide end so unless it’s optically approaching what the 35GM can do, it’s hard for me to get excited about it tbh

Or if it exceeds the 70-200GMii.


The way I see it, if ultimate image quality doesn’t matter to you then this lens reduces the number of lenses in your bag by 1, by replacing a 35/1.8G and a 70-200GMii. Unlike the much slower 28-200, the 35-150 is as bright as a zoom gets

The real question is if 35mmm is wide enough. If a wider lens is also needed, like a 16-35, then the 16-35GM + 70-200GMii should trump the 16-35GM + 35-150 because of how good the 70-200GMii is



Jun 11, 2022 at 11:44 AM
j4nu
Online
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #6 · p.3 #6 · Curious what lenses people are using 16-35 and 70-200?


aCuria wrote:
Looks like you got a god tier copy of the 35-150 haha congrats

https://youtu.be/_C0ws_1zZyM

The corners of the 35-150 look very soft from the samples, maybe the review copy was bad

I tend to prefer using primes on the wide end so unless it’s optically approaching what the 35GM can do, it’s hard for me to get excited about it tbh

Or if it exceeds the 70-200GMii.

The way I see it, if ultimate image quality doesn’t matter to you then this lens reduces the number of lenses in your bag by 1, by replacing a 35/1.8G and a 70-200GMii. Unlike
...Show more

Look, I'm not arguing whether 35mm is wide enough or 150mm long enough. I'm just saying you're not really giving up IQ as it's more of give and take depending on the focal length and region of the frame (e.g.

), even when talking about sharpness alone.
Check out @ruthenium@'s comparison post, where the Tamron actually gets close to 35GM or @photosbyjaron@'s test shots against the Sigma to see it yourself...



Jun 12, 2022 at 03:43 AM
aCuria
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #7 · p.3 #7 · Curious what lenses people are using 16-35 and 70-200?



j4nu wrote:
Look, I'm not arguing whether 35mm is wide enough or 150mm long enough. I'm just saying you're not really giving up IQ as it's more of give and take depending on the focal length and region of the frame (e.g.

), even when talking about sharpness alone.
Check out @ruthenium@@@'s comparison post, where the Tamron actually gets close to 35GM or @photosbyjaron@@@'s test shots against the Sigma to see it yourself...


Could you link exactly which posts by ruthenium and photosbyjaron you are taking about?

From the YouTube link you posted, to my eyes 35-150 may be better (than the 28-75) in the midframe, but loses the 28-70 in the corners by a bigger margin

It’s in line with my previous impression that the corners on the 35-150 tend to be abit soft



Jun 12, 2022 at 04:26 AM
j4nu
Online
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #8 · p.3 #8 · Curious what lenses people are using 16-35 and 70-200?


aCuria wrote:
Could you link exactly which posts by ruthenium and photosbyjaron you are taking about?

From the YouTube link you posted, to my eyes 35-150 may be better (than the 28-75) in the centre, but loses the 28-70 in the corners by a bigger margin than it wins in the centre

It’s in line with my previous impression that the corners on the 35-150 tend to be abit soft


Sure, that's the posts I've been able to find quickly:
* https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1712652/47#15780597
* https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1733272/0

Yes, wide-open corners look worse in that comparison, stopping down to the same aperture helps in some cases. Maybe my copy of the Sigma is weaker, as my quick test shots actually showed better resolution in the corners on the Tamron @35mm.



Jun 12, 2022 at 05:39 AM
ruthenium
Online
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #9 · p.3 #9 · Curious what lenses people are using 16-35 and 70-200?


aCuria wrote:
Could you link exactly which posts by ruthenium and photosbyjaron you are taking about?

From the YouTube link you posted, to my eyes 35-150 may be better (than the 28-75) in the centre, but loses the 28-70 in the corners by a bigger margin than it wins in the centre

It’s in line with my previous impression that the corners on the 35-150 tend to be abit soft


I ran some comparisons, just for myself, to get a better sense of how Tamron 35-150 might compare to other lenses I own. I posted the results twice, see below. Obviously, these observations are for my copies of the lenses, and I cannot make any broad claims.
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1733272/0#15797076
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1712652/47#15780597

The posts by photosbyjaron:
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1733272/1#15800488)
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1712652/38#15760498

I distinctly remember seeing a comparison of Tamron 35-150 with the new Sony 70-200 lens on this (Sony) forum. Unfortunately, I cannot find it now - sorry about this.

What you said earlier about Tamron 35-150, "optically it’s inferior to the 24-70GMii, 24-70 art, 70-200GMii…" is a misrepresentation, because the word, "inferior", has strong negative connotations (as in "inferior race"). No two lenses are exactly the same, and thorough systematic testing of the lenses you mentioned would no doubt find some differences. Yet, there is ample evidence reported on fredmiranda suggesting that optically Tamron 35-150 is one of the best zooms available for Sony cameras. The optical quality is probably the last/least concern one may have when considering purchasing this lens. Furthermore, none of the lenses you mentioned can be used as replacement for the Tamron. One cannot say, "I am going to use a 24-70 lens instead of the Tamron 35-150", or "I don't need the 35-150, because I have the Sony 70-200." This is like comparing apples and oranges, or saying that beer is an inferior drink compared to whisky and cognac. The reason the Tamron is so addictive is that one can take one image at 35 mm f2, and the next one at 150 mm f2.8, and many more in-between the limits. In certain situations (travel, venue), this versatility and the good IQ afforded by the Tamron 35-150 are very useful.








Jun 12, 2022 at 06:23 AM
j4nu
Online
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #10 · p.3 #10 · Curious what lenses people are using 16-35 and 70-200?


ruthenium wrote:
I ran some comparisons, just for myself, to get a better sense of how Tamron 35-150 might compare to other lenses I own. I posted the results twice, see below. Obviously, these observations are for my copies of the lenses, and I cannot make any broad claims.
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1733272/0#15797076
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1712652/47#15780597

The posts by photosbyjaron:
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1733272/1#15800488)
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1712652/38#15760498

I distinctly remember seeing a comparison of Tamron 35-150 with the new Sony 70-200 lens on this (Sony) forum. Unfortunately, I cannot find it now - sorry about this.

What you said earlier about Tamron 35-150, "optically it’s inferior to the 24-70GMii, 24-70 art, 70-200GMii…" is a misrepresentation, because the word,
...Show more

Agreed, I only joined this discussion to clarify the "inferior" comment, as it's simply incorrect.
Regarding the comparisons to a single lens, esp. 70-200 GMII, I also think they are mostly pointless as the difference in focal range is too big.
However, I think it does make sense to compare 35-150 (or 16-35+35-150) to 24-70+70-200 (+16-35 for the holy trinity) combo, as you might be running with 2 or even 3 bodies . Anyways, I still don't see objective IQ loss for the former in that case either.



Jun 12, 2022 at 07:15 AM
aCuria
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #11 · p.3 #11 · Curious what lenses people are using 16-35 and 70-200?


ruthenium wrote:
I ran some comparisons, just for myself, to get a better sense of how Tamron 35-150 might compare to other lenses I own. I posted the results twice, see below. Obviously, these observations are for my copies of the lenses, and I cannot make any broad claims.
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1733272/0#15797076
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1712652/47#15780597

The posts by photosbyjaron:
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1733272/1#15800488)
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1712652/38#15760498

I distinctly remember seeing a comparison of Tamron 35-150 with the new Sony 70-200 lens on this (Sony) forum. Unfortunately, I cannot find it now - sorry about this.

What you said earlier about Tamron 35-150, "optically it’s inferior to the 24-70GMii, 24-70 art, 70-200GMii…" is a misrepresentation, because the word,
...Show more

Thanks for the links, appreciate it.

I took a close look and my first impression seems to be that there is a noticable significant amount of sample variation in photosbyjaron's copies, I wonder how indicative this sample variation is of the first few production batches.

Its hard for me to draw conclusions from your lens tests, there is a fair amount of noise in the samples which makes it hard to see what the maximum lp/mm achievable is, which is obsecured by noise. Admittedly its hard to do these tests right, I do have access to the glass resolution test plates but setting up everything correctly is painful.

Even when done right, the synthetic test does not reflect shooting irl exactly because in low light, a 85/1.4 is going to be consistently at 2 stops lower iso than a 85/2.8, and a 150/2.8 OSS is sometimes going to be at 1-2 stop lower iso than a 150/2.8 without OSS... These differences usually wont reflect in the synthetic test

ruthenium wrote:
ruthenium: none of the lenses you mentioned can be used as replacement for the Tamron. One cannot say, "I am going to use a 24-70 lens instead of the Tamron 35-150", or "I don't need the 35-150, because I have the Sony 70-200."


This is completely true in the context of a single lens. However as one lens does not cover the range I need, at least (for me) I think in terms of a kit of multiple lenses. In the context of a multiple lens kit, a wide angle + 35-150 can be replaced by other lens combinations.

ruthenium wrote:
the word, "inferior", has strong negative connotations


You are right, perhaps too negative. It sounded better in my head before translation to english, perhaps "not quite as good" would be better.

photosbyjaron wrote:
"The holy trinity will likely always be the best path to maximum zoom IQ for those wanting or willing to buy and carry all three, and individual prime lenses will still render the best results in absolute IQ terms, but what this lens does offer is quite unique and extraordinary with a useful range at minimal sacrifice to image quality."


acuria wrote:
"You get the 35-150 or 28-200 for it’s unique focal length, optically it’s inferior to the 24-70GMii, 24-70 art, 70-200GMii…"


photosbyjaron did put the idea across more eloquently then I did, but fundamentally I think we did independently arrive at the same conclusion

I do have a vested interest figuring out the best possible lens combination, and no horse in the race. While I do have the 70-200GMii on pre-order (stocks are short...). If the 35-150 is amazing its not too late to cancel and order that instead.



Jun 12, 2022 at 07:41 AM
aCuria
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #12 · p.3 #12 · Curious what lenses people are using 16-35 and 70-200?


j4nu wrote:
Agreed, I only joined this discussion to clarify the "inferior" comment, as it's simply incorrect.
Regarding the comparisons to a single lens, esp. 70-200 GMII, I also think they are mostly pointless as the difference in focal range is too big.
However, I think it does make sense to compare 35-150 (or 16-35+35-150) to 24-70+70-200 (+16-35 for the holy trinity) combo, as you might be running with 2 or even 3 bodies . Anyways, I still don't see objective IQ loss for the former in that case either.


There cant be that many people running a 70-200 as their only lens haha

Even if i ignore image quality...

The 70-200GMii is said to focus faster, is capable of >15 fps, has OSS and internal zoom + focus

What the 35-150 is good at is having a 35/2 attached to a medium telephoto, and this can be a pretty big deal if it means you only run one body instead of 2



Jun 12, 2022 at 08:06 AM
j4nu
Online
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #13 · p.3 #13 · Curious what lenses people are using 16-35 and 70-200?


aCuria wrote:
There cant be that many people running a 70-200 as their only lens haha

Even if i ignore image quality...

The 70-200GMii is said to focus faster, is capable of >15 fps, has OSS and internal zoom + focus

What the 35-150 is good at is having a 35/2 attached to a medium telephoto, and this can be a pretty big deal if it means you only run one body instead of 2


Agreed (to an extent, AF difference will be visible in tracking only IMHO and 2 bodies with the Tamron give you 16-150 range with extra aperture to boot), I'm not saying the Tamron is the one lens to rule them all (even if it comes somewhat close) .
Anyways, we've made our points, anyone who reads this can make up his/her own mind.
I really meant only the IQ difference, which to me is give and take depending on the intended usage...



Jun 12, 2022 at 08:21 AM
ruthenium
Online
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #14 · p.3 #14 · Curious what lenses people are using 16-35 and 70-200?


aCuria wrote:
Thanks for the links, appreciate it.

I took a close look and my first impression seems to be that there is a noticable significant amount of sample variation in photosbyjaron's copies, I wonder how indicative this sample variation is of the first few production batches.

Its hard for me to draw conclusions from your lens tests, there is a fair amount of noise in the samples which makes it hard to see what the maximum lp/mm achievable is, which is obsecured by noise. Admittedly its hard to do these tests right, I do have access to the glass resolution test
...Show more

Re: "ruthenium wrote: the word, "inferior", has strong negative connotations
eCuria: You are right, perhaps too negative. It sounded better in my head before translation to english, perhaps "not quite as good" would be better.
Even "not quite as good" is not a useful reference. Not good for what and in what regard? For example, for use on a 24MP camera, with the aperture closed to f5.6 or 8 would be one scenario. For use on a 50MP camera, wide open is another. "Optical quality" is not a single, uniquely defined property, and the choice of the most suitable lens depends on the application. Furthermore, there are many testimonials on this forum from users who praise their most loved lenses for their "character," which adds another dimension different from the dry technical "optical quality." There is a certain strong personal aspect involved in lens selection. The lens kits used by the members on this forum are often dramatically different, and there is no better recipe for building one's kit other than trial and error. It is quite normal to hear one user say that a certain lens is the most used in his/her kit; whereas the same lens can be rarely used in the kit of another user. Regarding "If the 35-150 is amazing" - no it isn't amazing; it is a useful lens that some happened to fall in love with. One cannot fall in love without establishing a relationship with the subject. It is not fair to pronounce a judgement which is not based on personal experience. Furthermore, considering the strong personal aspect of our relationship with the lenses, we may want to avoid offending others who perhaps feel different about the lenses we find "not quite as good" whatever it means, even if this is our genuine feeling. It is more useful to exchange the technical information about, e.g., AF, CA, flare and ghosting, amount of vignetting, corner sharpness, coma, etc., because these parameters and properties are important to different degrees for different applications. It can also be useful to share observations of subjective nature, e.g. if a lens is poorly balanced and feels heavy, etc.



Jun 13, 2022 at 01:04 AM
aCuria
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #15 · p.3 #15 · Curious what lenses people are using 16-35 and 70-200?



ruthenium wrote:
Re: "ruthenium wrote: the word, "inferior", has strong negative connotations
eCuria: You are right, perhaps too negative. It sounded better in my head before translation to english, perhaps "not quite as good" would be better.
Even "not quite as good" is not a useful reference. Not good for what and in what regard? For example, for use on a 24MP camera, with the aperture closed to f5.6 or 8 would be one scenario. For use on a 50MP camera, wide open is another. "Optical quality" is not a single, uniquely defined property, and the choice of the most suitable lens depends on
...Show more

Yes human speech is not an exact language, and even in law where people are trying to be as clear as possible there’s already cases of bees being classified as fish in California… ‘Mericans amirite?

As far as I’m concerned, echoing the words of Jordan Peterson, In any discussion if there’s no risk of pissing someone off then the discussion ultimately isn’t about anything of importance

Until a precise language for humans is commonly used (we DO have precise languages, but they are only popular for programming computers) then you are stuck with the “xx lens is amazing” and we have to interpret such statements accordingly



Jun 13, 2022 at 04:07 AM
photosbyjaron
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #16 · p.3 #16 · Curious what lenses people are using 16-35 and 70-200?


I'll chime in here since I was referenced. Sorry for the delay - just seeing this thread from the notifications of being mentioned, as I haven't been as active on the forum lately with other hobbies crowding brain and wallet space.

As it relates to the main subject of this thread: I think the 16-35/70-200 is a very capable combo and is what I used for the first several years of shooting landscapes once I got back into the hobby. Gives nice UWA and WA options, and it also allows for those tighter landscape shots that are often, in my opinion, the ones that really shine. The one area where this two lens combo lacks is probably event photography, simply because the 35-70 range really is such a useful range that is common to the human eye. If I was shooting events, I'd want a 24-70 in addition to the 70-200 (or in addition to a 16-35 for small room events) or a 35-150. That being said, regarding the subject for which I was referenced, past posts about the 35-150, I do think that for those that don't often use the 200mm of the 70-200, the 35-150 is a match made in heaven with the 16-35. For corporate events, weddings, parties, etc., it does seem to me to be the perfect lens to pair with a 16-35 for event photography. One of the main reasons I say this is because the overall composition appearance between 150 and 200 is fairly insubstantial. An event shot taken at 150 and cropped to what it would be had it been 200 is negligible. As compared to trying to do the same thing on the wider end. Cropping a 35 f/2.8 to a 65 f/2.5 just isn't the same. Anyways, that aspect is likely why the 35-150 was referenced in a thread about 16-35/70-200 combo.

So to further derail this for just one more post, here's my long-winded response to the discussion about the 35-150 here:
Ultimately, most of lens X vs lens X is navel gazing in the end, right? If we're shooting landscapes, unless we're printing 36x48 or something, we're not going to see a noticeable resolution difference - the real thing that matters is the composition, lighting, timing, rare atmospheric conditions, etc. - the lens is just a small piece of the story, and is merely an inanimate tool. Similarly, if we're shooting events, we're likely framing the subject near the center, and a small increase in corner resolution absolutely does not matter. At the point a speaker or a bride or the mother of the bride is far enough to the corner where resolution differences matter, we've screwed up as the photographer. The only time I wish for a prime is when I really want that f/1.4 look, but I don't consider that IQ. Narrow DOF is an artistic aesthetic decision and not a question of image quality. And the only time when it really matters to have a zoom is when I want a particular focal length look that I can't get with a prime.

For landscapes, there isn't a picture on any of my walls that I can look at and think, man, I wish I had used a Sony with a 16-35GM instead of a Z7 with a Z14-30. Nor are there images I've printed where I've wished I had used a 35GM instead of my T35-150 based on resolution or general IQ (the sun flare with sunsets is an issue). There are definitely shots where I wish I had used a dramatically different focal length, which was why prior to the 35-150, I carried my 14-24/24-70/100-400 everywhere I went - and spent an annoying amount of time during a sunset rushing to change lenses for a particular composition that would arise. The number of times during one fall season shooting our yellow aspens where I was constantly having to change lenses between my 24-70 and 100-400 to capture some unique sun ray in the distance, and then something up close, and then the need to switch back to the standard zoom, and then to the 35GM for a high resolution stitched pano, and then back to the standard zoom, rinse, repeat, rinse, repeat - became extremely frustrating, and I longed for a lens with the IQ that was good enough and versatile enough where I'd change lenses fewer times and miss fewer shots with the wrong lens and not enough time to change (like a fox appearing out of nowhere, but having a 35GM on the body).

Now I mostly just carry a 16-35/35-150. I took my SY24/35GM/100-400GM along as well when we went to Patagonia, and quickly realized I could get 95% of the shots I wanted there just with the 16-35/35-150. So the 35-150 lives on my camera 95% of the time. I'll shoot with my 35GM when I make an concerted effort to capture f/1.4 shots, and I'll use my SY24 for milky way shots, but otherwise, the Tamron lives on my camera nearly full time. But that's because it is the tool that works best for my needs and the compromises I'm okay with. To me, convenience is having the focal range. But even convenience means different things to different people. I am highly annoyed by lens changes. Someone who loves and uses tiny Voigt lenses likely sees their size and weight as the convenience and think a giant, heavy lens as very inconvenient.

As it relates to actual image quality, in a blind test, 9 out of 10 times, even seasoned photographers will fail to differentiate one lens from another, unless we're talking about particularly noticeable features - like a Voight's sunstars, for example. But if we're going to acknowledge that the question of IQ is minor minutia that mostly just interests those of us who get wrapped into that sort of thing, then let's navel gaze as it relates to the T35-150 vs 24-70/70-200 for those overlapping focal lengths:

For sun flare/ghosting/etc., there is no question that this is a weakness of the T35-150. While it is better than the 100-400GM in that aspect, only minimally so. I will reach for a prime for a directly into the sunset shot 10 out of 10 times if available if that is the shot. Or I will stitch a scene where I can compose to minimize the glare.

For resolution, obviously a prime like a 35GM, one of the best primes on the market (if you get a good copy), is going to out-resolve any zoom. I don't have hands on experience with the new 24-70GMII or the 70-200GMII, but I'd be shocked if they can compare with the 35GM (whose resolution in a good copy is nearly comparable to the voigt). However, I imagine both GMII's can likely better resolve further to the corners than the T35-150 - and importantly, they should, they cost more, and they are focal lengths that are easier to construct for a sharp image. A 24-70/28-75 is not a crazy ask for a sharp lens. Nor is a 70-200. I think the real surprise is just how well the T35-150 compares to these standard lenses, given that it is a 4x lens mid-range to short telephoto zoom.

Bokeh is very personal. All have difference preferences, some stronger than others. I find that very few of my shots are ruined (or made) by bokeh. But I also don't do portrait photography where that matters. I'm an attorney, and this is just a hobby to me, so I shoot landscapes, my wife in landscapes, my dog, my dog in landscapes, my friends, and my friend's dogs (and a rare paid gig). That's basically it. The T35-150 at 35 f/2 has given me plenty of bokeh to work with, and I'm quite happy with it.

Modern lenses across the board are so good now that often there is more of a difference in the range of lens variability than there is between models. Only testing lenses in the method that Roger at lens rentals was doing would really tell us a base line - and that is only useful in a semi-academic manner of acknowledging which designer had likely the best design for X attribute. Copy to copy variation is such across the whole industry that the only useful comparisons are between the two copies an individual actually has in their possession. I've handled copies of the 35GM where the T35-150 would have been better in a heads up competition. A perfect 35GM, however, will trounce the zoom. I have a very good copy of the Sigma 24-70 (at least I did before I sent it in for the dust issue warranty repair), and there were some focal lengths where it bested the 35-150 and some where it was bested.

Grab a different copy of the Sigma 24-70 (or GMII) and you'll get different results. If you're in the States, I hate to suggest abusing our generous consumer return policies, but with the current state of lens variation, it's nearly advisable at this point to buy two copies and keep the best one while returning the other.

I acknowledge this is kind of rambling. To try to come to some point:

1) I think it is best to see these lenses as merely the tools they are and to consider for each individual's use case, particularly your use case, whether it's a better tool or a worse tool, than other tools available, for what you want out of it. After all, you wouldn't use a framing hammer to hang a picture frame, and you wouldn't want to try to frame a house with a finishing hammer. The question isn't which is a better tool - they are different tools - filling different tool slots.

I see the 35-150 as an incredibly useful tool for me, and I have hardly used my 35GM/100-400GM since I bought it. The primary reason is convenience. I don't have to change lenses, don't have to bring them with me, don't have to consider which tool is the "best" - because as a tool it is good enough to handle nearly anything I encounter (combined with the 16-35GM).

2) The focal range will either match your shooting preferences (your mind's eye of things) or it wont. 5 years ago, 15mm and 30mm were probably my most frequently taken focal length for images (15-30 zoom), and I was really into wide angle perspectives for landscapes. But then I considered that of the dozens of images we've printed to hang on our walls of our adventures in the last 5 years, maybe 1 image was at 14mm and less than half a dozen were at 24mm or less. When I realized that I actually preferred tighter images, and that most of my "keepers" that we ended up printing and hanging up were mostly 35mm and greater, I longed for a lens that could give me 24-70/70-200 type resolution in a single lens. So when Tamron announced the 35-150, I preordered it - the only lens I've ever done so. Simply because that focal range and the aperture range is so incredibly useful for my personal preferences.

Every lens is a bundle of compromises - compromises the designers had to make at the inception of the lens, and compromises also that result from manufacturing. (I tested 5 35GMs before I found my keeper and 2 T35-150s). I'd say the compromise of the 35-150 is a minor compromise in IQ and size and weight for the benefit of convenience. The convenience of not changing lenses, and the convenience in not needing to really carry additional lenses.

Absolute corner sharpness compared to the 24-70GMII or 70-200GMII is probably lower, but I also can zoom from 35 to 150 without a lens change. It is the PERFECT event lens. I recently shot an event, a rare thing for me, and I was able to zoom in on speakers for individual details and then zoom out enough to capture full scenes. With a 24-70, I would have wanted to also bring a 70-200 for that role. In that particular case, the tool gave me convenience. I could take a camera bag for just the camera and the one lens. I could get all the shots with the one lens. The client wouldn't have known or cared if I had used a 24-70/70-200 combo for that tiniest of increases in resolution in the corners.

As a prospective buyer, you just need to decide which bundle of compromises are right for you. Is it more lenses via primes, a bit fewer lenses in the GMII fashion, or is it the T35-150. Absolute IQ in the far corners should be nearly a last priority issue, unless you're printing massive landscape shots and standing 6 inches away to oooh and aahh at the details (which is also fine - I love to do that with our giant acrylic pano prints, and it's why I shoot with an RIV).

Good luck! And good luck with the lens lottery gods on whichever lens you go with!



Jun 15, 2022 at 11:26 AM
aCuria
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #17 · p.3 #17 · Curious what lenses people are using 16-35 and 70-200?


Thanks for the long write up, it’s much appreciated!

I’m assuming from your post, that you are using a single camera for your event photography? Using a 16-35 and 70-200 on two cameras is not the same thing as using the 16-35 and having to switch lenses for 70mm. When being paid to do the event a backup camera is needed regardless… my as well use it.

I suspect you find changing lenses particularly annoying because that lens kit… is particularly large and heavy (12-24GM, 24-70v1, 100-400?) as compared to someone using lightweight primes which can be just 100-200g each. It’s much easier to switch lenses when they are small.

I have to disagree that the lens comparisons are navel gazing… when I tested the 35/1.4 ZA some years ago it was quite disappointing compared to the 35L (which I sold for the 35GM). In Sony’s current lens lineup, theres an awful number of terribly overpriced duds like the 24-240, 28/2, 35ZA, 16-70/4 ZA…it’s quite important to figure out what’s what, even the 70-200 v1 was not very impressive

You may be interested to know that the modern canon printer drivers (for the pro-1000 and similar) does not downsample the input image anymore (the old ones did), so massively increasing the input image dpi is preferable, while in the past you wanted to upsample or downsample to specific input image dpi so the printer driver doesn’t do (bad) up/down sampling

The amount of information the printer drivers can consume and reproduce in print actually far exceeds the capability of our cameras today, even for smaller prints

The Canon pro-1000 can output 2400 dots of varying sizes (and shades of grey) per inch, and in a 4x6 inch B&W print that’s 2400* 6” = 14,400 dots. Compare that to the 9504 pixel width you get out of the Riv…. Anyway 4x6” is an extreme example, I think you should see differences at > 8x12 if you can see them on your screen

There’s a video on this subject regarding the printing side of things i watched some time ago:

https://youtu.be/bjfWdWmCzSQ

Regardless, I agree that the other factors mentioned composition, lighting, timing, rare atmospheric conditions… are more important than the lens.

However the lens choice is the one where improvement involves spending money, while the others involves spending “time and effort”. The “currency” used to improve each one isn’t the same so they are not usually discussed together

I’m not sure how you frame your events shots, but regarding the corner / edge resolution comment, suppose you have a group photo don’t your subject’s heads end up closer to the edge of the frame rather than the centre? It’s actually pretty rare for me to put the subject’s head in the centre 33% of the frame. Usually the eyes will be in the top 25% of the frame.

For me the f/1.4 look is not the only reason to use f/1.4. I actually do carry NDs but I use them fairly rarely for the specific purpose of getting to f/1.4!

Pushing down the iso used indoors and at night is a big reason for me to use 1.4 or brighter. I would always shoot wide open when above iso 100 if i can get away with it, but it’s not always possible, especially if there are >2 people in the frame.

Some other reasons to shoot wide open for me are to keep the shutter speed low for Astro, and to remove distracting foregrounds in landscapes

I realize from your typical lens choices, the way you shoot is fairly different. I sold an EF 28-75 long ago, and a 24-105L more recently because both didn’t get much use.

These days for personal photography I often carry out either the 24GM (video) or 35GM alone in a small bag. Especially for indoor stuff and in the evening I won’t take any other lenses

Only if more reach is needed, then 85mm / 90mm / 70-200L(sold) / 150-600 (sold) would be brought along in addition.

If I foresee needing something wider then the 15 fisheye 17mm or 16-35 are added to the bag

I think in the end if I really need a zoom in that range I would have kept the 24-105 until today, or at the very least have missed having the 24-105 after selling it.

The most annoying thing for me right now, is bringing out the 35 + 90, and the 90mm (my longest ff lens now) not being long enough.



photosbyjaron wrote:
I'll chime in here since I was referenced. Sorry for the delay - just seeing this thread from the notifications of being mentioned, as I haven't been as active on the forum lately with other hobbies crowding brain and wallet space.

As it relates to the main subject of this thread: I think the 16-35/70-200 is a very capable combo and is what I used for the first several years of shooting landscapes once I got back into the hobby. Gives nice UWA and WA options, and it also allows for those tighter landscape shots that are often, in my
...Show more



Jun 19, 2022 at 12:39 AM
Maxxus46
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #18 · p.3 #18 · Curious what lenses people are using 16-35 and 70-200?


aCuria wrote:
Thanks for the links, appreciate it.

I took a close look and my first impression seems to be that there is a noticable significant amount of sample variation in photosbyjaron's copies, I wonder how indicative this sample variation is of the first few production batches.

Its hard for me to draw conclusions from your lens tests, there is a fair amount of noise in the samples which makes it hard to see what the maximum lp/mm achievable is, which is obsecured by noise. Admittedly its hard to do these tests right, I do have access to the glass resolution test
...Show more

If it matters, the Tamron 35-150 IQ is very good, but not in the same regard as the 70-200GM MKII. The GM is sharper, has better color and contrast. The GM also has much faster AF and can handle 30FPS where the Tamron cannot (max is 10 fps in my tests with the A1). I will also say the Tamron is front heavy, poorly balanced. Not a fun lens to use for more than an hour or so. The new GM is superbly balanced ,with elements shifted toward the camera body it handles like a dream. End of the day , pick the focal length that works for you...but if your picky about IQ, then a two lense solution is probably better



Jun 19, 2022 at 07:51 PM
j4nu
Online
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #19 · p.3 #19 · Curious what lenses people are using 16-35 and 70-200?


Guys, 70-200GM II is a great lens in its own right, no need to denigrate its rivals, let alone the Tamron which is not really a direct competitor.
"Colors, balance, front-heaviness, issue with weight" are completely personal things and I can say for me the claims above are simply untrue (Tamron is more than 4cm shorter when contracted, but ~120g heavier).
Regarding AF, Tamron is so fast that in my usage it edges out even 50 & 135 GMs (they are so all fast it's hard to tell and I don't have a way to measure it precisely). Where it lacks is tracking, so if you're shooting a (fast) moving target, the difference will be massive... but in general "point and shoot" scenario, the Tamron seems to be the fastest-focusing lens I have.
Also, it's 15fps, but that doesn't matter if the tracking lacks...
Also, there are others, even only optical, like CA correction which is better on the Tamron, qualities which can be considered...
I'm really getting tired of "defending" (as I have already been called out here as "goddamn defensive" ) the Tamron against unjust claims. The funny part is it really has some major weaknesses (like ghosting), but people seem so hung up on sharpness, which really is the least of its worries (it only drops from its usual high level in the corners on the long end AFAIR).



Jun 20, 2022 at 06:19 AM
AmbientMike
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #20 · p.3 #20 · Curious what lenses people are using 16-35 and 70-200?



patriot wrote:
Wondering what people like me, shooting what I do (below), are using between 16-35 and 70-200 f2.8 zooms. In recent years what I like to shoot has changed, from family related trips, sports and events, to mostly landscapes and walk around. So much more relaxing! I like natural light, indoors and out.

My current lenses are below. The first Sony lens I bought was the 24-105 but I find I don't use it. The radical new me usually starts out with the 16-35, and carry the 70-200 with a 1.4 extender. Sometimes I'm starting to walk around with the 70-200.
...Show more

If you are looking to get a good 16-35, the Canon 16-35/4 is supposed to be excellent. And the Canon 70-200/4's are supposed to be excellent, and lighter than the 2.8's. The tamron 70-180 isn't much heavier though

I'm more mid range lately on landscapes but you kinda answered your own question there you can crop 35 to 50mm I suppose. 50mm prime fills 35 to 70 gap if you are interested



Jun 20, 2022 at 01:58 PM
1       2      
3
       4       end




FM Forums | Sony Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1       2      
3
       4       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username       Or Reset password



This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.