p.3 #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)?
chez wrote:
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?
Good perspective! My gear isn’t limiting my photography. In fact my gear probably far out paces my my ability as a photographer. This is clearly GAS and an impulse buy! However, I will hold on to all my lenses, including the Tammy, when it arrives on Tuesday and decide what to sell later, as someone suggested above!
p.3 #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)?
Chris_88 wrote:
Would you still pre-order, if it was 1.5-2kg and took 95mm filters ?
Not sure about 2kg, but 1.5kg (+camera) would totally work in a chest harness like Nicama. It's very comfortable, no joke. I'm glad Sony isn't making heavy dual-gripped cameras like the Z9 so the camera is not adding another 1.2 kilo.
p.3 #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)?
I think it’s important to figure out your size and weight limits. For me both of these are hit with the 135GM. It still barely fits in the digital 10 holster non expanded. I also would not want any heavier.
I would love a lens that can do what the 35-150 can do but I would not want to carry it. It also rules out the 70-180 and 70-200 GM II. The 35-150 and 70-200 still generate some gas for me, but I say no for now. So for tele I have found deep crops from the 135 work for me.
I am still figuring out the lower weight/size limit where I perceive no improvement. I think for me it is somewhere between the 45DN and 65DN. I know there are people who like tiny primes for travel. But I don’t feel a benefit from a 200g lens vs 400g.
So figure out what works for you and understand it will be different from others on the board. To some it might sound crazy that I draw a weight limit at 950g and don’t see a benefit to 200g vs 400g.
p.3 #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)?
tschopp wrote:
I think it’s important to figure out your size and weight limits. For me both of these are hit with the 135GM. It still barely fits in the digital 10 holster non expanded. I also would not want any heavier.
I would love a lens that can do what the 35-150 can do but I would not want to carry it. It also rules out the 70-180 and 70-200 GM II. The 35-150 and 70-200 still generate some gas for me, but I say no for now. So for tele I have found deep crops from the 135 work for me.
I am still figuring out the lower weight/size limit where I perceive no improvement. I think for me it is somewhere between the 45DN and 65DN. I know there are people who like tiny primes for travel. But I don’t feel a benefit from a 200g lens vs 400g.
So figure out what works for you and understand it will be different from others on the board. To some it might sound crazy that I draw a weight limit at 950g and don’t see a benefit to 200g vs 400g....Show more →
Exactly, it's too personal to call something definitely (too) big / heavy / ... in general.
p.3 #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)?
docusync wrote:
Not sure about 2kg, but 1.5kg (+camera) would totally work in a chest harness like Nicama. It's very comfortable, no joke. I'm glad Sony isn't making heavy dual-gripped cameras like the Z9 so the camera is not adding another 1.2 kilo.
Well, 1.5kg would be in the ballpark of the 100-400 GM, so that's perfectable managable. At that weight (and size), it just wouldn't be a walkaround-type of lens for me, but that's just me.
p.3 #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)?
The Tamron 35-150 is the first time I have thought of a zoom lens as having something 'special' in the way it renders images. I have had the holy trinity of zooms in both Sony and Nikon and while they are always great working tools it's not often that you find them to be something other than that. Also having f2 at 35mm real adds to the equation. For me it is the ultimate event lens but of course 35mm is often not wide enough so I have my 16-35GM on a second body. Not a light weight set up but for me it's worth it
?