p.1 #1 · Just got the Tamron 35-150, but might return it. How would the Sigma Art 24-70 or something else compare (for image quality)?
I finally got a hold of this lens yesterday and I have to say I’m real conflicted. I’ve been shooting with the tamron 28-200 on my a7iii for about a year and a half and I was looking for an all in one lens solution that had better quality than the 28-200. I’ve taken a lot of great photos with the 28-200, but it obviously doesn’t pump out G Master quality images. The 35-150 though….wow. I don’t think I can go back to my 28-200 after this. The sharpness and quality of the images is astounding. Now the downside for the lens is obviously the weight. Everyone talks about it and I thought “meh” but now that i have it I see what they mean. Oddly I don’t find it heavy at all when It’s on a strap, but I do find it heavy in my hand when I’m shooting. Ive noticed some discomfort in my left wrist/lower forearm after using it. However, I did spend 4 hours at the zoo yesterday and it didn’t feel that cumbersome so maybe I’m just getting used to it. Wondering if anyone else has experienced this and if they got used to the weight?
If this lens was a little lighter (or if I got payed to photograph) then it would be a no brainer, but Im just a very enthusiastic hobbyist who likes shooting a bit of everything. I have 7 days to return so I’m going to spend a lot more time with it and see.
On the topic of image quality, what others lenses would give me similar image quality if I decide to return it? I was looking at the sigma art 24-70 and I’m wondering how the image quality would compare? I know focal lens and apertures are different, but I’ve been spoiled with the incredible image quality from the 35-150 and I don’t think I can go back.
p.1 #2 · Just got the Tamron 35-150, but might return it. How would the Sigma Art 24-70 or something else compare (for image quality)?
A 24-70 means you also have to get a 70-180 (or 70-200) if you like longer focal lengths.
If you got a great copy of the 35-150 (which seems to be ), I would suggest to use it as much as possible during the next 7 days and see if you can get used to it. I have seen some great pictures with this lens. Sharp with a nice bokeh.
p.1 #3 · Just got the Tamron 35-150, but might return it. How would the Sigma Art 24-70 or something else compare (for image quality)?
Well, that's the issue withe the Tamron - you won't find another lens like it ...
When it comes to IQ, 24-70 GM II + 70-200 GM II would be give you more range (+ a bit more sharpness in total I think) at the cost of aperture and the need to carry 2 bodies or switching lenses.
Sigma 24-70 DN is quite sharp, especially at the wide end. I compared my copy to the Tamron and it was a bit behind, but others observed it's rather give and take depending on the focal length.
I'd advise you to give it another try to get used to the weight if possible, but I agree the Tamron is a hefty lens. It was my main lens during recent summer vacation trip , but I can understand one could prefer something like 28-70 DN due to the size & weight alone ...
p.1 #4 · Just got the Tamron 35-150, but might return it. How would the Sigma Art 24-70 or something else compare (for image quality)?
I have used all three lenses that you mentioned in your post. Sigma is an amazing lens (I preferred it over OG 24-70 GM and Tamron 28-75) but it does not replace Tamron 35-150. The best part about the Tamron is that it produces prime like images with such a versatile zoom range. If that's not something you want, then Sigma is an easy choice.
With that said, I still have 28-200 as it is a perfect combo with 200-600, for a two lens solution for outdoors.
p.1 #5 · Just got the Tamron 35-150, but might return it. How would the Sigma Art 24-70 or something else compare (for image quality)?
Fboss wrote:
A 24-70 means you also have to get a 70-180 (or 70-200) if you like longer focal lengths.
If you got a great copy of the 35-150 (which seems to be ), I would suggest to use it as much as possible during the next 7 days and see if you can get used to it. I have seen some great pictures with this lens. Sharp with a nice bokeh.
That is definitely the trade off. I really do shoot at a variety of focal lengths so unfortunately if I want super good image quality ill either have to use the 35-150, a two lens solution, or make peace with the 28-200. I'm going on a long high elevation hike tomorrow and I'm going to bring it along. It will be the ultimate test to see if I can deal with the weight.
p.1 #6 · Just got the Tamron 35-150, but might return it. How would the Sigma Art 24-70 or something else compare (for image quality)?
j4nu wrote:
Well, that's the issue withe the Tamron - you won't find another lens like it ...
When it comes to IQ, 24-70 GM II + 70-200 GM II would be give you more range (+ a bit more sharpness in total I think) at the cost of aperture and the need to carry 2 bodies or switching lenses.
Sigma 24-70 DN is quite sharp, especially at the wide end. I compared my copy to the Tamron and it was a bit behind, but others observed it's rather give and take depending on the focal length.
I'd advise you to give it another try to get used to the weight if possible, but I agree the Tamron is a hefty lens. It was my main lens during recent summer vacation trip , but I can understand one could prefer something like 28-70 DN due to the size & weight alone ......Show more →
Thanks for your reply. I have also considered that combination, but I've gotten so used to a one lens solution with the 28-200. It wouldn't be the end of the world if I had to carry two lenses, but I think we would all prefer a 24-600 1.4 with perfect optics that weighs 500g if that was possible. Sadly I don't think it is. I'm going to keep trying to get used to the weight of the lens. It really wasn't bothering me yesterday at the zoo so that's a good sign.
p.1 #7 · Just got the Tamron 35-150, but might return it. How would the Sigma Art 24-70 or something else compare (for image quality)?
I have a question about the sigma art 24-70. You mentioned the "prime like" quality of the tamron at a variety of focal lengths and that has been one of my main draws to this lens. I'm wondering how the sigma compares to the tamron in terms of pure image quality? I know the tamron has an aperture and focal length advantage, but does the sigma also deliver "prime like" images within its focal range? I guess that is my main question. I think I would be okay with being limited by the sigma IF I could get the same prime like images with it.
p.1 #8 · Just got the Tamron 35-150, but might return it. How would the Sigma Art 24-70 or something else compare (for image quality)?
Swimming_trouble_718 wrote:
I have a question about the sigma art 24-70. You mentioned the "prime like" quality of the tamron at a variety of focal lengths and that has been one of my main draws to this lens. I'm wondering how the sigma compares to the tamron in terms of pure image quality? I know the tamron has an aperture and focal length advantage, but does the sigma also deliver "prime like" images within its focal range? I guess that is my main question. I think I would be okay with being limited by the sigma IF I could get the same prime like images with it. ...Show more →
I sold my Sigma 24-70mm f2.8 DG DN some time ago, so I cannot make a direct comparison to my Tamron 35-150mm; however, in terms of edge-to-edge performance, it seems like the Tamron is a bit sharper. I'm not selling the Sigma lens short, as I think it is an outstanding lens and was definitely much sharper at 70mm f2.8 than the GM lens I had.
For me the Tamron lens is a reminder that life is full of compromises. For an upcoming trip, I had planned to take my 28-200mm, as one of my lenses, but after shooting the 35-150 for some time, now, realize that I would not be satisfied with the overall sharpness, bokeh, contrast or overall aperture of this otherwise light, amazing lens (28-200mm). I might be annoyed with the weight of the bigger Tamron, at times, but believe that the added weight will be worth it, should I capture shots that I want to hang on the wall, or crop significantly.
p.1 #9 · Just got the Tamron 35-150, but might return it. How would the Sigma Art 24-70 or something else compare (for image quality)?
I also had the Sigma 24-70 DG DN. Not sure I had the best copy. Sharpness was Ok overall, but not prime sharp.
What I didn't like in particular was the handling, and relatively slow AF. It was front heavy and didn't balance well on the camera (just my opinion). Make sure you can return it if/when you buy it. If you want significantly lighter and a good handling (with great sharpness), the Tamron 28-75 G2 could be a better option for you. At the cost of the versatility and extra f-stop of the 35-150.
p.1 #10 · Just got the Tamron 35-150, but might return it. How would the Sigma Art 24-70 or something else compare (for image quality)?
The Sigma 24-70/2.8 is a totally different lens than the 35-150 in that 24mm is WAY wider than 35mm. The Sigma is a fantastic lens and is as sharp as many primes at 24, 35, and especially 50mm. Great contrast, color, and very pleasing image quality.
To me, it’s a much better “one lens solution” than the 35-150 because of the much wider angle of view and it’s lighter weight and size. Others will obviously have a different opinion and each opinion is just as valid as the other since this is so personal to what individuals shoot and how much tolerance they have to weight. For me, the wider angle of the 24-70/2.8 is much more valuable than the extra zoom of the Tamron.
p.1 #11 · Just got the Tamron 35-150, but might return it. How would the Sigma Art 24-70 or something else compare (for image quality)?
mudlake wrote:
To me, it’s a much better “one lens solution” than the 35-150 because of the much wider angle of view and it’s lighter weight and size.
For me too. I shoot way more at the wide end and very rarely do I need to go past 100mm. This is for street and travel. For landscapes and some wildlife, I have a 100-400 which fits that bill. The 35-150 range is an in-betweener, not wide enough and not quite long enough.
p.1 #12 · Just got the Tamron 35-150, but might return it. How would the Sigma Art 24-70 or something else compare (for image quality)?
I also like much more Tamron 35-150/F2-F2.8 than Sigma 24-70 which for me is an ok lens but nothing special. Tamron on the other hand is exceptional in pretty much everything outside of flare correction but it's a non issue for me.
Tamron trully came a long way since DLSR lenses and this one is superb.
p.1 #13 · Just got the Tamron 35-150, but might return it. How would the Sigma Art 24-70 or something else compare (for image quality)?
I previously made positive comments about the 35-150mm for travel. To be clear, I would never see this lens as a 'one lens travel solution'. As a minimum, I would also take my PZ 16-35mm or GM 12-24mm along as well.
p.1 #15 · Just got the Tamron 35-150, but might return it. How would the Sigma Art 24-70 or something else compare (for image quality)?
It is heavy, big, and not wide enough, there is no other way to skin a cat, but there is no other lens like it in the Sony range. You can buy multiple other lenses to get the same IQ, range, bokeh, rendering, etc., but IMHO as a one lens solution this lens is as good as it gets. I haven't touched my 35 GM even once since I got the Tamron.
My solution to deal with the weight is to carry it in a small sling bag (Peak Design 5L). I had a Sony 24-105 before Tamron and although it was much lighter, it wasn't light enough and small enought to be a truly portable travel style lens, so I sold it for Tamron. If I am going to carry a big lens, I might as well carry a lens that gives me images I enjoy and admire. It truly produces prime like images.
For my own needs, 35mm is usually wide enough for me, but for those rare occasions when I want to go wider, I have Sigma 24mm f/3.5 C lens. It is a tiny pocketable lens and pairs well with the mighty Tamron Master.
You have tasted blood now, OP. There is no turning back. Start doing wrist exercises.
p.1 #16 · Just got the Tamron 35-150, but might return it. How would the Sigma Art 24-70 or something else compare (for image quality)?
Regarding "I've noticed some discomfort in my left wrist/lower forearm after using it" - shouldn't that be right, not left? Another question is about you "don’t find it heavy at all when it’s on a strap" - do you mean a neck, shoulder, or wrist strap? If it isn't a wrist strap, do you spend much time holding and supporting the camera on the strap while not shooting, with your arm bent upwards and the camera in hand in such a way that the wrist is bent under the pressure? That feeling of discomfort in your wrist and lower forearm might be suggestive of a sustained pressure from above, not from actually holding the camera with two hands while in a shooting position, with the viewfinder at the eye level.
I find A1 with the Tamron is not a problem to use all day while carrying in a holster, and with a wrist strap.
p.1 #17 · Just got the Tamron 35-150, but might return it. How would the Sigma Art 24-70 or something else compare (for image quality)?
I have been using the Haoge Tripod Mount with a black rapid strap on my A1.
It works very well to reduce the weight hanging by my side.
Using it for a day out it was comfortable and not too heavy.
p.1 #18 · Just got the Tamron 35-150, but might return it. How would the Sigma Art 24-70 or something else compare (for image quality)?
Swimming_trouble_718 wrote:
I finally got a hold of this lens yesterday and I have to say I’m real conflicted. I’ve been shooting with the tamron 28-200 on my a7iii for about a year and a half and I was looking for an all in one lens solution that had better quality than the 28-200. I’ve taken a lot of great photos with the 28-200, but it obviously doesn’t pump out G Master quality images. The 35-150 though….wow. I don’t think I can go back to my 28-200 after this. The sharpness and quality of the images is astounding. Now the downside for the lens is obviously the weight. Everyone talks about it and I thought “meh” but now that i have it I see what they mean. Oddly I don’t find it heavy at all when It’s on a strap, but I do find it heavy in my hand when I’m shooting. Ive noticed some discomfort in my left wrist/lower forearm after using it. However, I did spend 4 hours at the zoo yesterday and it didn’t feel that cumbersome so maybe I’m just getting used to it. Wondering if anyone else has experienced this and if they got used to the weight?
If this lens was a little lighter (or if I got payed to photograph) then it would be a no brainer, but Im just a very enthusiastic hobbyist who likes shooting a bit of everything. I have 7 days to return so I’m going to spend a lot more time with it and see.
On the topic of image quality, what others lenses would give me similar image quality if I decide to return it? I was looking at the sigma art 24-70 and I’m wondering how the image quality would compare? I know focal lens and apertures are different, but I’ve been spoiled with the incredible image quality from the 35-150 and I don’t think I can go back. ...Show more →
@ OP, The zoo is probably the absolutely best possible use case for a 35-150. Animals are not far away enough that 150mm cant do the job, and 35mm lets you get some shots of your kids while you are at it. 35mm is wide enough mostly for a zoo enviroment.
Not having the 35-150 i typically bring a 35mm prime and 70-200, which is more lens switching but its one stop faster at 35mm for the indoor exhibits, and one stop faster on the long end when cropping / TC to a 300mm fov and beyond.
FF 150/2.8 ~= bokeh of a FF 300/5.6 after crop + 2 stops more noise (effective sensor size = m4/3)
FF 200/2.8 ~= bokeh of a FF 300/4 after crop or TC + 1 stop more noise (effective sensor size = apsc)
And yes, quality glass is really important, you will never be able to go back haha. The Sigma 24-70/2.8 you are looking at is better than the 28-75 used in the comparison above
The thing is.... that assuming you really NEED a 150/2.8, 35-150 actually gets you a fairly lightweight 2 lens kit when run with a wide angle (14GM, 17-28, 12-24, 14-24, 16-28, 16-35.....). For example, 14GM + 35GM + 70-200GMii certainly weighs more than a 14GM + 35-150
However, if you ONLY need 24mm and wont get a wider lens, then the 24-70 may be a better idea, you can combo with a 100-400 or 70-200 + TC and get way more reach than 150/2.8, while still running a 2 lens kit.
p.1 #19 · Just got the Tamron 35-150, but might return it. How would the Sigma Art 24-70 or something else compare (for image quality)?
Listen to yourself first. Like me, it is too heavy for you. Shooting comfort leads to great content.
One of my three faves of 14 lenses is the 70-180. Paired with a wide angle zoom like you are considering is a fantastic combo of comfort and reasonable weight.
24-180 is a real world full focal length range. 35-150 not wide enough or long enough although a fine lens.
p.1 #20 · Just got the Tamron 35-150, but might return it. How would the Sigma Art 24-70 or something else compare (for image quality)?
ramesesthe2nd wrote:
It is heavy, big, and not wide enough, there is no other way to skin a cat, but there is no other lens like it in the Sony range. You can buy multiple other lenses to get the same IQ, range, bokeh, rendering, etc., but IMHO as a one lens solution this lens is as good as it gets. I haven't touched my 35 GM even once since I got the Tamron.
My solution to deal with the weight is to carry it in a small sling bag (Peak Design 5L). I had a Sony 24-105 before Tamron and although it was much lighter, it wasn't light enough and small enought to be a truly portable travel style lens, so I sold it for Tamron. If I am going to carry a big lens, I might as well carry a lens that gives me images I enjoy and admire. It truly produces prime like images.
For my own needs, 35mm is usually wide enough for me, but for those rare occasions when I want to go wider, I have Sigma 24mm f/3.5 C lens. It is a tiny pocketable lens and pairs well with the mighty Tamron Master.
You have tasted blood now, OP. There is no turning back. Start doing wrist exercises. ...Show more →
Given that you traded the 24-105 for the 35-150, was it worth giving up OSS, expecially for video?
...
