p.1 #1 · Analysis Paralysis: Tamron 35-150 vs GM 70-200 II
I'm looking to add either the Tamron 35-150 or the GM 70-200 II to my kit to join the GM 14mm, PZ 16-35 f4, GM 50mm. The near term goal is to acquire a fast and high quality telephoto range that goes beyond the GM 50. As a hybrid shooter, I travel a lot and currently use the A7IV and A7SIII. While I do understand the obvious difference is size and weight, they both are not normally issues for me. Given my budget, several options come to mind.
Option 1 is to simply go with the Tamron and add the Sigma 100-400 for additional reach up to 400mm when and if needed. Option 2 is to purchase the 70-200 II with the 2x converter for an equivalent reach of 400mm.
Side note: I watched a few videos regarding the use of the 2x with the 70-200 II and I'm not concern too much in this area. Most seem to think the 70-200 II is sharp enough that with the 2x it is still within reach of GM 100-400 quality.
With that, any thoughts shared here will greatly be appreciate and hopefully push me off the fence to one side or the other. Has anyone shot with or considered them both? Any additional data points I should consider? TIA.
p.1 #2 · Analysis Paralysis: Tamron 35-150 vs GM 70-200 II
I think they are quite different, even though they share quite some range...
Things like IQ, size & weight, handling, etc. are really close so it all comes down to your intended usage IMHO.
To keep it short:
1) 1 body & 1 lens and you appreciate larger aperture than standard fast zoom -> you know the answer
2) 2nd body available or you don't mind switching lenses, focus on tele end, demanding AF (sports, ...) -> the other one .
p.1 #3 · Analysis Paralysis: Tamron 35-150 vs GM 70-200 II
I have the 35-150, the 70-200 II, the GM 100-400 and the x1.4/x2 converters. Had the Sigma 100-400.
On MTF 50 targets, the 70-200 is slightly sharper than the 35-150, but you really need to pixel peep at 100/200% to see it.
I like the OSS on the 70-200, which really works well. iBIS, without Yaw-axis correction, does not work as well at longer FL’s on non-OS lenses.
The 70-200 with the x1.4 stays sharp, but I am not happy with the sharpness/contrast with the x2, although many on this forum seem to be happy with the results. AI sharpening can help the converter shots. I really like the flexibility the x1.4 adds.
The 35-150 is an excellent/flexible lens and I find 35mm at f2 to be really useful for low-light and indoor shooting. It also provides decent wider angle subject separation.
With the 70-200, I get full 30 fps on the A1.
For street shooting, I can go more incognito with the black 35-150. When I pull out the white 70-200mm, I get a lot of people staring at me (I do miss the black Nikon telephoto lenses). I use Alphagvrd skins to somewhat mitigate this.
Comparing the 70-200mm to the 35-150 is like comparing apples to oranges, which is why I have both. If I had to choose just one, it would be the 35-150, for the flexibility. They are both absolutely outstanding lenses.
p.1 #4 · Analysis Paralysis: Tamron 35-150 vs GM 70-200 II
InFocus2014 wrote:
I have the 35-150, the 70-200 II, the GM 100-400 and the x1.4/x2 converters. Had the Sigma 100-400.
On MTF targets, the 70-200 is slightly sharper than the 35-150, but you really need to pixel peep at 100/200% to see it.
I like the OSS on the 70-200, which really works well. iBIS, without Yaw correction, does not work as well at longer FL’s on non-OS lenses.
The 70-200 with the x1.4 stays sharp, but I am not happy with the sharpness/contrast with the x2, although many on this forum seem to be happy with the results. AI sharpening can help the converter shots. I really like the flexibility the x1.4 adds.
The 35-150 is an excellent/flexible lens and I find 35mm at f2 to be really useful for low-light and indoor shooting. It also provides decent wider angle subject separation.
With the 70-200, I get full 30 fps on the A1.
For street shooting, I can go more incognito with the black 35-150. When I pull out the white 70-200mm, I get a lot of people staring at me. I use Alphagvrd skins to somewhat mitigate this.
Comparing the 70-200mm to the 35-150 is like comparing apples to oranges, which is why I have both. If I had to choose just one, it would be the 35-150, for the flexibility. They are both absolutely outstanding lenses. ...Show more →
This is a very well written summary and I agree 100%. I also have both lenses and use them completely differently. The 30 FPS capability of the GM glass is important if you have a or plan on buying an A1 or what ever the next HFPS camera will be. I’ve pixel peeped the 35-150 images at 200% and found nothing with quality or sharpness the bothered me. It is a great, very sharp, very versatile, all around lense. The only really negative I have with it is shooting 15 FPS on my A1 but that isn’t Tamron’s fault, that is a Sony design limitation with 3rd party glass.
p.1 #5 · Analysis Paralysis: Tamron 35-150 vs GM 70-200 II
j4nu wrote:
I think they are quite different, even though they share quite some range...
Things like IQ, size & weight, handling, etc. are really close so it all comes down to your intended usage IMHO.
To keep it short:
1) 1 body & 1 lens and you appreciate larger aperture than standard fast zoom -> you know the answer
2) 2nd body available or you don't mind switching lenses, focus on tele end, demanding AF (sports, ...) -> the other one .
Thanks for the input. Yes, in my heart I felt they were different but on paper that 70-150 F2.8 overlap just kept me guessing. Depending on the location, I would likely continue with two bodies with the PZ 16-35 or 14mm on one and the telephoto on the other. As you noted, one body and one lens is straightforward. I appreciate the feedback.
p.1 #6 · Analysis Paralysis: Tamron 35-150 vs GM 70-200 II
InFocus2014 wrote:
I have the 35-150, the 70-200 II, the GM 100-400 and the x1.4/x2 converters. Had the Sigma 100-400.
On MTF 50 targets, the 70-200 is slightly sharper than the 35-150, but you really need to pixel peep at 100/200% to see it.
I like the OSS on the 70-200, which really works well. iBIS, without Yaw-axis correction, does not work as well at longer FL’s on non-OS lenses.
The 70-200 with the x1.4 stays sharp, but I am not happy with the sharpness/contrast with the x2, although many on this forum seem to be happy with the results. AI sharpening can help the converter shots. I really like the flexibility the x1.4 adds.
The 35-150 is an excellent/flexible lens and I find 35mm at f2 to be really useful for low-light and indoor shooting. It also provides decent wider angle subject separation.
With the 70-200, I get full 30 fps on the A1.
For street shooting, I can go more incognito with the black 35-150. When I pull out the white 70-200mm, I get a lot of people staring at me (I do miss the black Nikon telephoto lenses). I use Alphagvrd skins to somewhat mitigate this.
Comparing the 70-200mm to the 35-150 is like comparing apples to oranges, which is why I have both. If I had to choose just one, it would be the 35-150, for the flexibility. They are both absolutely outstanding lenses. ...Show more →
I really appreciate the points you made in this post -- well stated. This is very helpful going forward and really confirmed a few of my thoughts about the two. Hearing this from someone with hands on experience with the two is what I was after. Although they are different, the huge overlap of 70-150 F2.8 is where I was unable to separate the two. However, I don't have the A1 and the ability to remain relatively unnoticed while shooting throughout Europe is important to me. As you inferred, I can't go wrong with either lens so its just a matter of making a decision. Thanks a bunch.
p.1 #8 · Analysis Paralysis: Tamron 35-150 vs GM 70-200 II
What is your intended use? That really determines what might be more appropriate. The 35-150 and 70-200 as very different. For single shot portraits and landscapes the 35-150 probably offers more flexibility. For bursts and action the 70-200 (with or with TC) is going to give faster FPS and AF performance.
The 70-200 with either 1.4x or 2x TC comes close to 100-400 GM sharpness. I would not, however, buy any lens specifically to use it with a TC. If you want 400mm most of the time, get a 400mm. If you want 400mm periodically, the 70-200 II + 2x TC is far better than any zoom lens + TC combo I've ever used.
p.1 #9 · Analysis Paralysis: Tamron 35-150 vs GM 70-200 II
Can’t really help as I don’t have the Tammy but the 70-200 for me at least I need the 200mm and besides that maybe the best 70-200 I ever shot. Maybe rent see what fits your needs
p.1 #10 · Analysis Paralysis: Tamron 35-150 vs GM 70-200 II
Had a similar analysis paralysis and ended up with the 70-200 for a number of reasons: I've had other 70-200 lenses in the past so I know I'll spend a lot of time in the 150-200mm range, I already have the 100-400GM so do not worry about TC performance, I find in-lens OSS much more effective than in-camera IBIS, and I know I'll be getting state of the art Sony AF to match my A1's abilities. An added bonus I discovered after the fact is that it's shockingly light, almost too light to properly balance the camera body.
The 35-150 is tempting and hard to ignore right now because it's very much flavor of the month in places like this, but it's hard to see it as more than a niche lens that might suit some people but IMO is not going to be a true replacement for the 24-70/70-200 because of the obvious focal length limitation. Apart from wildlife (which is what I primarily use the 100-400 for) I'd estimate that 95% of my photos are shot between 24mm and 200mm, but probably only 70% are between 35mm and 150mm. I would love to have the Tammy for those times I know I'm not going to need wider or longer, like when street shooting for example, but sadly I don't have a spare couple grand lying around
p.1 #11 · Analysis Paralysis: Tamron 35-150 vs GM 70-200 II
I am a big fan of Tamron lenses. They provide great value to their customers. Excellent optics, great service, and long warrantees.
Most times when I read threads helping decide between two lenses the choice is not clear, and eventually comes down to preferences. However this time I believe there are compelling benefits to one of the choices that make it an easy choice.
The Sony 70-200 f/2.8 GM vII seems compelling to me.
It is small, and light. The Sony is actually over 100gms lighter than the Tamron.
It has the best image quality of any lens in this FL range from any manufacturer.
It has very fast and accurate focus driven by the fastest focus motor architecture in the industry.
It can take full advantage of the fastest, and highest performance Sony bodies available. Full functionality at 30 FPS RAW. Tamron is not licensed to make lenses that shoot faster than 15 FPS. Putting a slower lens on is like downgrading your camera. You are back to a $2,500 camera body performance wise. Why would you do that? Its a false savings especially when you upgrade your bodies in the future.
It can use Sony 1.4 and 2.0 TCs with very high IQ and performance. That makes in more like having 3 lenses rather than 1. Tamron isn't licensed to use or make TCs for it's E-Mount lenses.
The Sony has OSS which lets me shoot a couple of stops slower shutter speeds using lower ISO values.. This is like getting a huge boost in dynamic range in many circumstances.
The price difference between the Sony and the Tamron is not as big as it often is. The Sony is worth the premium, especially if you shop around for the Sony or buy used.
I have the Sony and TCs. I have never been disappointed in the result of the shooting experience. I sold my Sony 100-400 GM and bought the 70-200. Never been sorry about that choice.
p.1 #12 · Analysis Paralysis: Tamron 35-150 vs GM 70-200 II
wordfool wrote:
Had a similar analysis paralysis and ended up with the 70-200 for a number of reasons: I've had other 70-200 lenses in the past so I know I'll spend a lot of time in the 150-200mm range, I already have the 100-400GM so do not worry about TC performance, I find in-lens OSS much more effective than in-camera IBIS, and I know I'll be getting state of the art Sony AF to match my A1's abilities. An added bonus I discovered after the fact is that it's shockingly light, almost too light to properly balance the camera body.
The 35-150 is tempting and hard to ignore right now because it's very much flavor of the month in places like this, but it's hard to see it as more than a niche lens that might suit some people but IMO is not going to be a true replacement for the 24-70/70-200 because of the obvious focal length limitation. Apart from wildlife (which is what I primarily use the 100-400 for) I'd estimate that 95% of my photos are shot between 24mm and 200mm, but probably only 70% are between 35mm and 150mm. I would love to have the Tammy for those times I know I'm not going to need wider or longer, like when street shooting for example, but sadly I don't have a spare couple grand lying around ...Show more →
This is all about personal preferences: for street photography, I like the 35-150 on a 50 MP (or more) camera and a 16-35 in my backpack, rather than the 24-70/70-200 combo. I have never seen the dazzling white 70-200 used for street photography, and I cannot imagine doing this myself, while I am comfortable using the 35-150 anywhere in the world where carrying the A1 itself should not be a safety concern. There are other options, depending on the personal interests. Some of these can be better served by primes. However, when travelling in new places, expecting the unexpected, with little to no time to react - the 35-150 helps a lot.
For "reach", I think it is better to have a dedicated long(er) telephoto lens. These tend to be heavier and larger, thus the question is whether the travel destination has some interesting wildlife to warrant taking a telephoto lens on the trip. Too often, it might not be warranted. Using the 70-200 with a TC is possible, but I think that adding a TC is more complicated in the field than changing lenses. As I imagine this, one has to remove the 70-200 and set the camera aside (open to the environment), fit the TC onto the lens, then grab the camera and reconnect the two. This might not be as bad as I imagine this to be, but it does sound like an awkward process to me.
p.1 #13 · Analysis Paralysis: Tamron 35-150 vs GM 70-200 II
ruthenium wrote:
This is all about personal preferences: for street photography, I like the 35-150 on a 50 MP (or more) camera and a 16-35 in my backpack, rather than the 24-70/70-200 combo. I have never seen the dazzling white 70-200 used for street photography, and I cannot imagine doing this myself, while I am comfortable using the 35-150 anywhere in the world where carrying the A1 itself should not be a safety concern. There are other options, depending on the personal interests. Some of these can be better served by primes. However, when travelling in new places, expecting the unexpected, with little to no time to react - the 35-150 helps a lot.
For "reach", I think it is better to have a dedicated long(er) telephoto lens. These tend to be heavier and larger, thus the question is whether the travel destination has some interesting wildlife to warrant taking a telephoto lens on the trip. Too often, it might not be warranted. Using the 70-200 with a TC is possible, but I think that adding a TC is more complicated in the field than changing lenses. As I imagine this, one has to remove the 70-200 and set the camera aside (open to the environment), fit the TC onto the lens, then grab the camera and reconnect the two. This might not be as bad as I imagine this to be, but it does sound like an awkward process to me. ...Show more →
Yes, it is indeed personal to every photographer. I can't tell if you're agreeing or disagreeing with any of my points/opinions. As I mentioned, I would love to have a 35-150 for street photography (for all the reasons you mention) and I am also not a fan of TCs (hence the 100-400 for wildlife), although I could see them being useful in the event one can't carry multiple lenses and might occasionally need more reach. The 24-70 and 70-200 are, for me, working lenses and I rarely take them on personal travels when the 24-105 and 100-400 tend to be my preferred zooms.
p.1 #14 · Analysis Paralysis: Tamron 35-150 vs GM 70-200 II
wordfool wrote:
Yes, it is indeed personal to every photographer. I can't tell if you're agreeing or disagreeing with any of my points/opinions. As I mentioned, I would love to have a 35-150 for street photography (for all the reasons you mention) and I am also not a fan of TCs (hence the 100-400 for wildlife), although I could see them being useful in the event one can't carry multiple lenses and might occasionally need more reach. The 24-70 and 70-200 are, for me, working lenses and I rarely take them on personal travels when the 24-105 and 100-400 tend to be my preferred zooms. ...Show more →
I personally cannot imagine carrying around anything so large as the 35-150 for street photography. You definitely won’t be incognito with such a lens if that was your style and approaching people with a big lens definitely puts them on alert from my experience shooting street. I’ve learned to use small primes for street to reduce the anxiousness of the subjects.
p.1 #15 · Analysis Paralysis: Tamron 35-150 vs GM 70-200 II
For me walk around, street, most landscape, and portrait photography is most often best served by my Leica M camera. It uses tiny, fast f1.4, lenses with optics that are as good as, or often better, than the GM lenses. I can walk around with the camera and a mounted lens on my strap, and two tiny lenses in my pockets. This gives me 21mm to about 112mm coverage all f/2 or faster.
My Sony kit is now used primarily for action/wildlife, and long lens use.
p.1 #16 · Analysis Paralysis: Tamron 35-150 vs GM 70-200 II
Absolutely, when travelling and doing street photography, having a compact FF camera like Leica Q2 or the 7-year old RX1R II can be so nice and useful, along with a regular FF frame system.
Regarding people looking at others taking pictures. I very much doubt this attention linearly correlates with the size of the camera system (like reduce the lens size by 50% and get 50% less attention). I find myself looking at other people taking selfies with their smartphones! There is something about the very act of doing photography that makes bystanders wonder about the subject, that is, if there is anything interesting happening around that they might have missed. I don't believe that replacing the Tamron on the A1 by an average prime should make me less conspicuous when doing street photography. Understandably, the attention will be different depending on the location. In a technologically-advanced country like Japan, no one is going to be in the least interested in me doing street photography and my big camera system, except maybe some professional photographers would be interested in my camera for purely technical reasons. In the touristic European destinations, the locals may not pay much attention to people with their cameras (except the pickpockets). In other places, where people with cameras are not common, I think that one need a really compact and discreet camera like Leica Q2 reporter to minimize the inevitable attention a stranger, and especially a stranger with a camera, should get from people around.
When travelling, naturally it helps to have a realistic assessment of the safety of the travel destination. Places where theft is a very real risk may require some preparations and decisions about which gear might be best to have left at home.
p.1 #17 · Analysis Paralysis: Tamron 35-150 vs GM 70-200 II
ruthenium wrote:
Absolutely, when travelling and doing street photography, having a compact FF camera like Leica Q2 or the 7-year old RX1R II can be so nice and useful, along with a regular FF frame system.
Regarding people looking at others taking pictures. I very much doubt this attention linearly correlates with the size of the camera system (like reduce the lens size by 50% and get 50% less attention). I find myself looking at other people taking selfies with their smartphones! There is something about the very act of doing photography that makes bystanders wonder about the subject, that is, if there is anything interesting happening around that they might have missed. I don't believe that replacing the Tamron on the A1 by an average prime should make me less conspicuous when doing street photography. Understandably, the attention will be different depending on the location. In a technologically-advanced country like Japan, no one is going to be in the least interested in me doing street photography and my big camera system, except maybe some professional photographers would be interested in my camera for purely technical reasons. In the touristic European destinations, the locals may not pay much attention to people with their cameras (except the pickpockets). In other places, where people with cameras are not common, I think that one need a really compact and discreet camera like Leica Q2 reporter to minimize the inevitable attention a stranger, and especially a stranger with a camera, should get from people around.
When travelling, naturally it helps to have a realistic assessment of the safety of the travel destination. Places where theft is a very real risk may require some preparations and decisions about which gear might be best to have left at home. ...Show more →
It seems your view of attention when traveling is people possibly eyeing you up, maybe with the intention of trying to steal your gear. My view is my subjects becoming uncomfortable with me taking their photos and the bigger the gear, the more uncomfortable they get. This is my observation from traveling and taking images of people all over the world. I have zero concerns about people watching me with the intention of stealing my gear, I have insurance for that. My concerns is the affect my gear has on my subjects and I’ve seen the bigger the gear, the more uncomfortable they become.
Ask yourself, would you feel more out of place when someone with a big camera and lens points it at you are someone with a phone taking your photo? Which one would you notice more?
p.1 #18 · Analysis Paralysis: Tamron 35-150 vs GM 70-200 II
chez wrote:
I personally cannot imagine carrying around anything so large as the 35-150 for street photography. You definitely won’t be incognito with such a lens if that was your style and approaching people with a big lens definitely puts them on alert from my experience shooting street. I’ve learned to use small primes for street to reduce the anxiousness of the subjects.
I tend not to approach people too closely, and here in NYC it's very easy to be incognito even with a big camera. People just don't notice or don't care. I have used virtually all my lenses for some form of street photography or another, the 55/1.8 being my favorite but the 70-200 comes out on occasion if I want to play with compression or keep my distance (which being a bit of an introvert is often my goal). TBH an A1 with almost any fast prime (f/1.4) or zoom lens is pretty big and conspicuous and would not be my choice if my style was to approach people more closely or if I lived in a less forgiving city. "Street Photography" is such a vague term encompassing so many subject types, styles, methods, and techniques that there's no ideal setup IMO. It's all very YMMV. And at least the 35-150 is black and a bit shorter than the 70-200
p.1 #19 · Analysis Paralysis: Tamron 35-150 vs GM 70-200 II
One consideration is you have lenses capable of giving you sharp images at 35 & 50mm...which would be overlap with the 35-150. The question I'd ask is if you find yourself often needing that range, along with up to 150+mm, on the same outing when changing lenses isn't convenient? If so, the Tamron makes sense to me regardless of the small IQ differences.
For me, I typically have needs below 70mm or from 70mm up to 200mm+, unless it's casual family shooting when traveling where I'll use my Tamron 28-200. So for me, in your situation I'd gravitate towards the 70-200 2.8 II. While the 2xTC would give you the 400mm, by all accounts the IQ & reach provided by the 1.4TC would be a big benefit as well.
p.1 #20 · Analysis Paralysis: Tamron 35-150 vs GM 70-200 II
1bwana1 wrote:
I am a big fan of Tamron lenses. They provide great value to their customers. Excellent optics, great service, and long warrantees.
Most times when I read threads helping decide between two lenses the choice is not clear, and eventually comes down to preferences. However this time I believe there are compelling benefits to one of the choices that make it an easy choice.
The Sony 70-200 f/2.8 GM vII seems compelling to me.
It is small, and light. The Sony is actually over 100gms lighter than the Tamron.
It has the best image quality of any lens in this FL range from any manufacturer.
It has very fast and accurate focus driven by the fastest focus motor architecture in the industry.
It can take full advantage of the fastest, and highest performance Sony bodies available. Full functionality at 30 FPS RAW. Tamron is not licensed to make lenses that shoot faster than 15 FPS. Putting a slower lens on is like downgrading your camera. You are back to a $2,500 camera body performance wise. Why would you do that? Its a false savings especially when you upgrade your bodies in the future.
It can use Sony 1.4 and 2.0 TCs with very high IQ and performance. That makes in more like having 3 lenses rather than 1. Tamron isn't licensed to use or make TCs for it's E-Mount lenses.
The Sony has OSS which lets me shoot a couple of stops slower shutter speeds using lower ISO values.. This is like getting a huge boost in dynamic range in many circumstances.
The price difference between the Sony and the Tamron is not as big as it often is. The Sony is worth the premium, especially if you shop around for the Sony or buy used.
I have the Sony and TCs. I have never been disappointed in the result of the shooting experience. I sold my Sony 100-400 GM and bought the 70-200. Never been sorry about that choice.
I think the above captures everything accurately. The 70-200 II is a marvel, however for me, the 35-150 is the more desirable choice. There are times when I want to go really long - for birding, wildlife and landscapes - and in that case neither 150 or 200 is long enough, so the extra length of the 70-200 isn't a big deal for me, I need the 100-400 or 200-600. However, getting a 35/2 in a lens that can also do great portraits at 150/2.8 is attractive for travel, portraits, street, etc.
The 70-200 is no doubt the better lens, but the 35-150 is the one I will get.
.
I appreciate the feedback. 
This is very helpful going forward and really confirmed a few of my thoughts about the two. Hearing this from someone with hands on experience with the two is what I was after. Although they are different, the huge overlap of 70-150 F2.8 is where I was unable to separate the two. However, I don't have the A1 and the ability to remain relatively unnoticed while shooting throughout Europe is important to me. As you inferred, I can't go wrong with either lens so its just a matter of making a decision. Thanks a bunch. 