p.2 #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)?
Just use that 7 days to make up your mind and don't let others talk you into something you don't believe/feel yourself ...
Regarding the Sigma, my impression was that it does not strike you as as sharp as the Tamron but the images certainly have a very nice "feel"/"look" to them. Its rendering is very nice for a zoom, but you lose some sharpness up close.
p.2 #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)?
In the same vein, one might be questioning someone's interest in 70-200 GMII: the lens is heavy; it is not wide enough and it is not long enough.
I guess the simple reason many are interested in 70-200GMII as well as in Tamron 35-150 is that these are real "fine lenses," gems and masterpieces of lens design producing good quality images wide-open to f2 - 2.8.
The arguments like "not wide enough" or "too heavy" are not very meaningful. Like, all long telephoto lenses are heavy to different degrees, yet many photographers own these and have learned how to handle heavy lenses. When it comes to "not wide enough" - the immediate question is not wide for what? Why should this matter if there is a good choice of dedicated wide zooms and primes available for anyone interested in capturing wide vistas.
There are different, better arguments against buying some lenses. For example, anyone who sees no value in shooting wide open to f2 -2.8 and does mostly landscapes at 24 mm f8 - 11 should be happy with the 24-105G. Thus, there are lenses which can be useful for someone's photography, or not. Instead of saying "this lens is not wide enough", it is better to simply acknowledge that the focal range is not suitable for one's photography. This does not diminish the value of the lens for those who shoot in the 35-150 mm range and enjoy the quality of the images obtained at f2-2.8.
p.2 #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)?
ruthenium wrote:
In the same vein, one might be questioning someone's interest in 70-200 GMII: the lens is heavy; it is not wide enough and it is not long enough.
I guess the simple reason many are interested in 70-200GMII as well as in Tamron 35-150 is that these are real "fine lenses," gems and masterpieces of lens design producing good quality images wide-open to f2 - 2.8.
The arguments like "not wide enough" or "too heavy" are not very meaningful. Like, all long telephoto lenses are heavy to different degrees, yet many photographers own these and have learned how to handle heavy lenses. When it comes to "not wide enough" - the immediate question is not wide for what? Why should this matter if there is a good choice of dedicated wide zooms and primes available for anyone interested in capturing wide vistas.
There are different, better arguments against buying some lenses. For example, anyone who sees no value in shooting wide open to f2 -2.8 and does mostly landscapes at 24 mm f8 - 11 should be happy with the 24-105G. Thus, there are lenses which can be useful for someone's photography, or not. Instead of saying "this lens is not wide enough", it is better to simply acknowledge that the focal range is not suitable for one's photography. This does not diminish the value of the lens for those who shoot in the 35-150 mm range and enjoy the quality of the images obtained at f2-2.8....Show more →
I disagree with you in that not wide enough and too heavy are very reasonable decision making points. They might not influence your decision, but these two points are the main reasons many people are not buying the lens. In fact the OP Is wavering on the lens due to it’s weight.
p.2 #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)?
Only complaint I've personally found with the 35-150 is mine at least does not look to track something moving toward or away from the camera while zooming in or out. Like a runner. Side to side tracking does great, but almost always fails to keep tracking focus if I zoom out while someone comes toward me fairly quick.
p.2 #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)?
chez wrote:
I disagree with you in that not wide enough and too heavy are very reasonable decision making points. They might not influence your decision, but these two points are the main reasons many people are not buying the lens. In fact the OP Is wavering on the lens due to it’s weight.
People are buying the lens. It is sold out in most places. We all want the quality of Tamron 35-150 and weight of a tiny ultra-compact prime, but as it goes with most things in life, you can't have your cake and eat it too.
As far as not wide enough is concerned, it is obvious from your posts that you believe that what lenses you don't personally own are just not good enough for most people. You made the right choices and everyone who chooses something else is either a nincompoop or ignorant. I am surprised you haven't mentioned your travel friendly Batis collection yet in this thread. I think ruthenium gave a very reasonable response, but you do you.
p.2 #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)?
chez wrote:
I disagree with you in that not wide enough and too heavy are very reasonable decision making points. They might not influence your decision, but these two points are the main reasons many people are not buying the lens. In fact the OP Is wavering on the lens due to it’s weight.
I fully agree "that not wide enough and too heavy are very reasonable decision making points." However these considerations are of personal nature and do not reflect on the quality and value of a lens for others. Thus a statement like "for my photography, this lens [name it] is not wide enough or long enough although a fine lens" is a meaningful personal testament. Whereas discouraging others from buying/keeping a lens "because it is not wide enough or long enough although a fine lens" is mildly inappropriate and presumptuous, because we cannot know whether the focal range and the physical characteristics of the lens under consideration are good for others or not. There are different lenses, and their value and usefulness may not correlate at all with their weight or how wide they shoot. The example of the new 70-200 GMII is of this kind - it is somewhat heavy, and it is not wide and long enough. Does this mean the lens is of little value? - obviously not.
This is what I meant in the post above when I said "The arguments like "not wide enough" or "too heavy" are not very meaningful" when directed to others.
p.2 #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)?
ruthenium wrote:
In the same vein, one might be questioning someone's interest in 70-200 GMII: the lens is heavy; it is not wide enough and it is not long enough. This does not diminish the value of the lens for those who shoot in the 35-150 mm range and enjoy the quality of the images obtained at f2-2.8.
I agree with this post. Yes lenses like the 35-150 are amazing; but they really aren't for everyone and you shouldn't feel bad as a photographer if it doesn't suit your style of shooting or your way of packing.
The whole argument of 'this should be in your bag because it's that good' isn't always valid.
p.2 #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)?
The two questions of importance to the OP, at least in my book, are 1) heavy compared to what? and related to that 2) what are/would be the alternatives to the big Tamron?
The Tamron of course is sort of a one-of-a-kind lens, hence comparisons are not readily available, but if you take the 70-200 GM2, for instance, it weighs 1.05 kg (without the lens foot). Sure, that's not light compared to say a compact 35mm f1.8 or f2 prime, but seeing how 70-200 2.8 zooms have weighed in at around 1.5kg thus far, it is *relatively* light. Same goes for the 400 GM and 600 GM, of course.
The Tamron 35-150 weighs slightly more than the 70-200 GM2, specifically 1.165 kg. The question the OP must answer is whether he can find a way to live with the Tammy's weight or opt for a combination of more compact zooms to cover a similar range. The Tamron 28-75 G2 (0.54kg) and the 70-180 (0.81kg) together weigh more and will take up more space than the 35-150 in the bag, but since you can only mount one at a time, they will be easier on the wrist, so to say.
The big Tamron sure looks impressive, but to me a one lens "walk around" zoom solution ideally starts at 24mm, since I use wide angles very often, but that's just me.
p.2 #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)?
ruthenium wrote:
I fully agree "that not wide enough and too heavy are very reasonable decision making points." However these considerations are of personal nature and do not reflect on the quality and value of a lens for others. Thus a statement like "for my photography, this lens [name it] is not wide enough or long enough although a fine lens" is a meaningful personal testament. Whereas discouraging others from buying/keeping a lens "because it is not wide enough or long enough although a fine lens" is mildly inappropriate and presumptuous, because we cannot know whether the focal range and the physical characteristics of the lens under consideration are good for others or not. There are different lenses, and their value and usefulness may not correlate at all with their weight or how wide they shoot. The example of the new 70-200 GMII is of this kind - it is somewhat heavy, and it is not wide and long enough. Does this mean the lens is of little value? - obviously not.
This is what I meant in the post above when I said "The arguments like "not wide enough" or "too heavy" are not very meaningful" when directed to others. ...Show more →
Well the OP is complaining the lens is too heavy after shooting for a day and resulting in pain in their wrist. Yet I hear people say it’s not heavy and they can use it all day…carry it differently…soon we’ll get the “go to the gym” statements.
Bottom line, it is a heavy lens and this should be discussed in the open…not hidden under the carpet. As far as not wide enough, again nothing wrong discussing this so people approach buying decisions with eyes wide open.
Praising only the positives of image qualities without the negatives of weight, size and focal length does no one any good.
p.2 #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)?
I’m in the “looks like a fantastic lens, but too heavy for me” camp. If the OP finds it uncomfortable to use, chances are they won’t use it and should move on. I am a fan of the 16-35 PZ and 70-180 combo. Yes the aggregate weight is not that far off, but I’m going to carry a wider lens with a 35-150 anyway and I think there is something to be said for just having a lighter lens mounted to the camera even if the bag overall weighs about the same.
p.2 #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)?
itai195 wrote:
I’m in the “looks like a fantastic lens, but too heavy for me” camp. If the OP finds it uncomfortable to use, chances are they won’t use it and should move on. I am a fan of the 16-35 PZ and 70-180 combo. Yes the aggregate weight is not that far off, but I’m going to carry a wider lens with a 35-150 anyway and I think there is something to be said for just having a lighter lens mounted to the camera even if the bag overall weighs about the same.
You are exactly right. Weight on your back is totally different than weight on your wrist, neck or shoulder. It makes zero sense to compare the weight of one lens with the combined weight of multiple lenses.
p.2 #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)?
This would be a travel lens for me. For that reason it has to be somewhat light, easy to pack and easy to get in and out of a bag. I could deal with the longer FL with stitching when a wider angle is required, but for ease of use I think I'll stick with a smaller lens.
p.2 #14 · Just got the Tamron 35-150, but might return it. How would the Sigma Art 24-70 or something else compare (for image quality)?
Reading this thread and others about the 35-150 has given me GAS and has me really confused about what to do!
I ordered the Tamron and it’s on its way (that’s the GAS). The confusion is that I already have this focal range covered and now have to decide what to sell and what to keep!
I like the 1 lens focal length coverage of the Tammy and won’t be bothered by the weight. I would use it to shoot family gatherings, grandkids on the lake and water skiing, school events/sports, and travel. I also do a few paid gigs a year, mostly business portraits. However, I also own the Sigma 24-70 f 2.8, Sony 24-105 F4 (used for travel and family stuff), and Sony 70-200 f2.8 GM2. So now, like the OP, I’m thinking of returning the Tammy when it arrives. Decisions, decisions! Open to suggestions.
p.2 #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)?
Iman113 wrote:
Reading this thread and others about the 35-150 has given me GAS and has me really confused about what to do!
I ordered the Tamron and it’s on its way (that’s the GAS). The confusion is that I already have this focal range covered and now have to decide what to sell and what to keep!
I like the 1 lens focal length coverage of the Tammy and won’t be bothered by the weight. I would use it to shoot family gatherings, grandkids on the lake and water skiing, school events/sports, and travel. I also do a few paid gigs a year, mostly business portraits. However, I also own the Sigma 24-70 f 2.8, Sony 24-105 F4 (used for travel and family stuff), and Sony 70-200 f2.8 GM2. So now, like the OP, I’m thinking of returning the Tammy when it arrives. Decisions, decisions! Open to suggestions. ...Show more →
Funny… thinking of returning already
Try it… then decide what to sell.
I have had mine for a few months… and still have my primes. I still haven’t decided what to sell
p.2 #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)?
Iman113 wrote:
Reading this thread and others about the 35-150 has given me GAS and has me really confused about what to do!
I ordered the Tamron and it’s on its way (that’s the GAS). The confusion is that I already have this focal range covered and now have to decide what to sell and what to keep!
I like the 1 lens focal length coverage of the Tammy and won’t be bothered by the weight. I would use it to shoot family gatherings, grandkids on the lake and water skiing, school events/sports, and travel. I also do a few paid gigs a year, mostly business portraits. However, I also own the Sigma 24-70 f 2.8, Sony 24-105 F4 (used for travel and family stuff), and Sony 70-200 f2.8 GM2. So now, like the OP, I’m thinking of returning the Tammy when it arrives. Decisions, decisions! Open to suggestions. ...Show more →
My rule of thumb is to keep your existing gear until it limits your photography, then look at that time what is available that would remove the limits. This gets rid of the endless GAS people get with each new release of gear.
So what is limiting your ability to take photos you want today?
p.2 #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)?
Chris_88 wrote:
The big Tamron sure looks impressive, but to me a one lens "walk around" zoom solution ideally starts at 24mm, since I use wide angles very often, but that's just me.
I wish Sigma, Sony, Tamron or even Canon would make a 24-135/2.8. Instant pre-order from me
p.2 #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)?
Like the 24-105 Sony zoom before it, this one is a sound 'popular taste' lens. Colours may not match the realism and class of the best primes due to a lack of tone gradient finesse, common in zoom lenses. Image depth suffers accordingly, but many compositions are bokeh-centric and don't require what you get from the Leica M/Zeiss/Cosina stables. A high proportion of the image thread examples use bokeh and wide apertures. Bokeh quality is very prominent, but that is down to personal taste.
It is all of 2000 grams mounted on an a7rIV with a filter and hood. As we see in all the balanced reviews, the size/weight is the elephant in the room. There is no escaping the fact that you are using an 1165 gram 35/2, an 1165 gram 50/2.2, and an 1165 gram 85.2.8. The unavoidable 2kg package will require care in handling and packing in many environments.
How many can get by with a 35/2 as the wide end? It seems to find most favour with the users of 70-200mm lenses, and really all but 8mm of its wide range is technically in the telephoto range. It's good Tamron made it. Amid the hype, many seem to enjoy what it offers.
p.2 #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)?
philip_pj wrote:
Colours may not match the realism and class of the best primes due to a lack of tone gradient finesse, common in zoom lenses.
Uh, no. There doubtless are quite a few drawbacks in terms of image quality commonly associated with zooms. But "tone gradient finesse" aka color gradient precision aka bit depth isn't among them. Maybe you are confusing contrast with precision?
...