p.2 #1 · Analysis Paralysis: Tamron 35-150 vs GM 70-200 II
TravelinBriNY wrote:
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....Show more →
A well reasoned and rational approach to this choice. 100% valid in my opinion. I am sure you are not alone in arriving at that decision. Such choices are often decided on thin differences in personal preferences. For me, below 100mm I am mostly using amazing prime lenses. Either Sony GM, or Leica/Voigtlander. These primes are special to me for a variety of reasons. I also keep a Sony 200-600 for sport and wildlife and pair this lens with the TCs as I do the 70-200mm. The great thing is that in these days, and on the Sony E-Mount system we have such choices at our disposal.
p.2 #2 · Analysis Paralysis: Tamron 35-150 vs GM 70-200 II
Even though I may end up with both for the time being I went with the 70-200 GM II. The main reason I would get the 35-150 would be to replace the 28-200 and the 35-150 was just too big and heavy for that job. It also acts as a reasonably good substitute for the 100-400 with a TC attached which is a bonus.
For events/weddings etc. I'd bring two bodies so the one lens for all approach isn't necessary and that IMO is where the 35-150 seems to shine.
For casual walkaround shooting the 28-200 is a really great tool for the job. If I want more "magic" in the shots I'm going to bring some fast primes so personally the 35-150 isn't the first thing I would grab.
I only tried the 35-150 very briefly so maybe with more familiarity this could all change but for now I'm trying to resist the GAS.
p.2 #3 · Analysis Paralysis: Tamron 35-150 vs GM 70-200 II
So, everyone seems to agree these are different lenses, but nearly everyone keeps on adding his points to this apples and oranges comparison ...
It's simply not possible to say one is clearly better than the other due to those differences, even if we take IQ only into consideration (as each side has its advantages, i.e. Tamron is better at 70mm and GMs advantage grows on tele end, which again is somewhat expected due to the difference in their range span).
p.2 #4 · Analysis Paralysis: Tamron 35-150 vs GM 70-200 II
We have both in our shop and the Tamron has become the unquestioned stills king for event gigs (mostly corporate and weddings). We had to add four more to inventory to keep people from fighting over them. For video, though, the overwhelming preference goes to the the GM (and OEM lenses in general) because there's no beating the AF when you need it.
Outside of work, the Tamron isn't a lens that I'd enjoy using or purchase for my kit. It's a great performer, but it feels very awkward to me in use at the wider end (there certainly is no larger, heavier way to 35/2) and its size and weight would mean letting it replace my favored primes in my bag, and that's not a trade I'm willing to make. The GM, especially with its ability to use TCs, fantastic weight for the lens type, and its superb performance, would feel less like a compromise and more like a highly flexible alternative to me.
p.2 #5 · Analysis Paralysis: Tamron 35-150 vs GM 70-200 II
I’ve had both at the same time and let the tammy go.
I won’t repeat all the compliments already said to this lens. They’re true.
For me it was a matter of weight and size and the posibility of adding a TC.
And because I’ve never took it outside when I planned to use for its close range (35-85).
If you don’t have any prime or a 24-70 maybe I’d choose tammy over the sony
p.2 #6 · Analysis Paralysis: Tamron 35-150 vs GM 70-200 II
There is a reason that the most common zoom lenses are probably the 24-70/100 and the 70-200mm, because on balance these have been shown to be the most useful. Tamron are trying a few new things, but I whether there will be another version of the 35-150mm we will have to see but for certain there will always be new 24-70/100 and 70-200mms appearing. The 35-150 is a big lens and you lose the 24/28mm view and the extra stop is not that much different from conventional 24-70 2.8 versions. Most pros need a 200mm lens anyway (+ or - a TC), so with a Tamron you have to solve the longer lens issue, either with spending the big $$ on a 70-200mm with all the duplication that involves, or go even bigger with a 100-400mm. On balance, I reckon a more conventional 2 lens set up remains preferable, even though the 35-150mm is an attractive idea
p.2 #7 · Analysis Paralysis: Tamron 35-150 vs GM 70-200 II
Well, that's part of the appeal of the Tamron, that you could drop the holy trinity and use only 16-35+35-150 instead.
For me, it's pretty clear - I take the Tamron when I don't feel like juggling lenses, while having a flexible range and aperture for that closer-to-primes separation (compared to 28-200, 24-105 and even 24-70 a bit).
Personally, I see more difference between 24 and 35 than 150 and 200 mm...
p.2 #8 · Analysis Paralysis: Tamron 35-150 vs GM 70-200 II
freaklikeme wrote:
Outside of work, the Tamron isn't a lens that I'd enjoy using or purchase for my kit. It's a great performer, but it feels very awkward to me in use at the wider end (there certainly is no larger, heavier way to 35/2) and its size and weight would mean letting it replace my favored primes in my bag, and that's not a trade I'm willing to make. The GM, especially with its ability to use TCs, fantastic weight for the lens type, and its superb performance, would feel less like a compromise and more like a highly flexible alternative to me. ...Show more →
I get that.
Take this next statement with a grain of salt - as I have not owned/used the Tamron yet (I have one on order): for sure this is an awkward replacement for a small 35/2. However - if you love shooting at portrait ranges and want to maintain the ability to also go to 35/2, it makes more sense. For me this lens is useful as I love shooting candid street portraits at 135, but shoot wide more often. The 35-150 allows me to do both without losing the ability to do either. I see it more as a replacement for a 135 than for a 35. In that sense, the size is more manageable (it is only .5 lbs and 1.2 inches larger than the 135/1.8GM)
p.2 #9 · Analysis Paralysis: Tamron 35-150 vs GM 70-200 II
TravelinBriNY wrote:
I get that.
Take this next statement with a grain of salt - as I have not owned/used the Tamron yet (I have one on order): for sure this is an awkward replacement for a small 35/2. However - if you love shooting at portrait ranges and want to maintain the ability to also go to 35/2, it makes more sense. For me this lens is useful as I love shooting candid street portraits at 135, but shoot wide more often. The 35-150 allows me to do both without losing the ability to do either. I see it more as a replacement for a 135 than for a 35. In that sense, the size is more manageable (it is only .5 lbs and 1.2 inches larger than the 135/1.8GM)...Show more →
Sound reasoning for the use case. I can see where the flexibility will come in handy (street candids and event candids don't differ much in the goal). I don't shoot at lot of street (parades and protests occasionally, where big zooms aren't out of place), but most of the street shooters I know can't get their kits small enough, lest someone notice them. I'm impressed you're not shying away from it for that reason.
I also view the 70-200/2.8 (or, in my case, 80-200/2.8) as a 135 and 180 replacement. I love both my primes at those focal lengths for specific reasons and purposes but their size and weight typically means one or the other makes it in the bag. If I can live without the speed and excellent close focus of the 135 or the flare resistance and low distortion of the 180, then it's the 80-200 that goes.
p.2 #10 · Analysis Paralysis: Tamron 35-150 vs GM 70-200 II
I own the the 70-200 II, it's one of those lenses I find it hard to imagine ever getting rid of, It is that perfect. Maybe if Sony came out with a 70-200 f2, who knows what the future will bring.
p.2 #11 · Analysis Paralysis: Tamron 35-150 vs GM 70-200 II
freaklikeme wrote:
Sound reasoning for the use case. I can see where the flexibility will come in handy (street candids and event candids don't differ much in the goal). I don't shoot at lot of street (parades and protests occasionally, where big zooms aren't out of place), but most of the street shooters I know can't get their kits small enough, lest someone notice them. I'm impressed you're not shying away from it for that reason.
I also view the 70-200/2.8 (or, in my case, 80-200/2.8) as a 135 and 180 replacement. I love both my primes at those focal lengths for specific reasons and purposes but their size and weight typically means one or the other makes it in the bag. If I can live without the speed and excellent close focus of the 135 or the flare resistance and low distortion of the 180, then it's the 80-200 that goes....Show more →
I also like street with the smallest kit possible, and haver a GR3 for exactly that reason, but when I used to use the 135 for street I loved the results, we'll see how this goes... I just got mine delivered, unforuately - as I am overseas - I won't get my hands on it until November.
p.2 #12 · Analysis Paralysis: Tamron 35-150 vs GM 70-200 II
TravelinBriNY wrote:
I get that.
Take this next statement with a grain of salt - as I have not owned/used the Tamron yet (I have one on order): for sure this is an awkward replacement for a small 35/2. However - if you love shooting at portrait ranges and want to maintain the ability to also go to 35/2, it makes more sense. For me this lens is useful as I love shooting candid street portraits at 135, but shoot wide more often. The 35-150 allows me to do both without losing the ability to do either. I see it more as a replacement for a 135 than for a 35. In that sense, the size is more manageable (it is only .5 lbs and 1.2 inches larger than the 135/1.8GM)...Show more →
For portrait use you don't lose much at the telephoto end, but at 85mm you're at f2.8, at 50mm you're at f2.5mm, and 35 F2 while fast for a zoom, doesn't have the separation of f1.4 (or 1.2 in the case of my bigma).
I've rented the 35-150 for wedding work twice and am on the fence with ownig it. For wedding work it's fantastic as it covers most of the range I need. For posed portraits, including those that happen on a wedding day, it doesn't replace my primes.
For personal shooting, the lens is too big for my tastes. It's not enjoyable to carry a two prime combo... In my case, sigma 35f2 and 65 f2
p.2 #13 · Analysis Paralysis: Tamron 35-150 vs GM 70-200 II
So is there a final verdict about this comparison? Those you opted for 70-200 G2, what are you pairing it with? I've never been a 24-70 fan so I'm thinking of either pairing it with 16-35 pz or 20-70 for a 2 lens travel combo.
p.2 #14 · Analysis Paralysis: Tamron 35-150 vs GM 70-200 II
ajamils wrote:
So is there a final verdict about this comparison? Those you opted for 70-200 G2, what are you pairing it with? I've never been a 24-70 fan so I'm thinking of either pairing it with 16-35 pz or 20-70 for a 2 lens travel combo.
Two optically excellent lenses whose other characteristics make each better in some situations than others which is why some actually own and use both. All the info is here in this thread. You (not us) need to carefully analyze your needs and choose accordingly.
If you want a two lens travel combo why not the 20-70/4 G with the new 70-200/4 GII? Thats what I will be using when the lens arrives. I currently own the 20-70/4 G and 70-200/2.8 GMII and have owned the 35-150.
p.2 #16 · Analysis Paralysis: Tamron 35-150 vs GM 70-200 II
I went this route, Sony FE 70-200mm f/2.8 GM OSS II, Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS(I want to change to Sony FE PZ 16-35mm f/4 G, and I hope that it is not worse), and Voigtlander APO-LANTHAR 50mm f/2.
p.2 #17 · Analysis Paralysis: Tamron 35-150 vs GM 70-200 II
As this has been stated a number of times in this thread, Tamron 35-150 and Sony 70-200 are two significantly different lenses.
Asking which of the two one should choose is kind of like asking whether to choose Sony 200-600 over Sony 100-400?
Anyone who shoots mostly at 600 mm, should choose the 200-600. Likewise, anyone who mostly needs 200 mm f/2.8 (especially for fast action, on A1) should get the 70-200. For everything else, the Tamron is the better choice. I own both lenses, and use the 35-150 almost exclusively. My copy of the 70-200 GM II is softer in all corners, compared to the Tamron, in the 70 to 90 mm range. There is no compelling reason to use the 70-200 in the overlapping range.
p.2 #19 · Analysis Paralysis: Tamron 35-150 vs GM 70-200 II
Although quite different lenses the reason I chose the Sony were the support for TC's, OSS and much superior close-focus ability. If the Tamron had just one of those three capabilities I probably would have jumped on one especially support for TC's.
70-200 is my favourite non-wildlife lens and the weight of the Sony is just amazing, but I really like the idea of a fast 35-150 too. Maybe if they did a G2 version and made some upgrades I'd add it to the collection one day.
p.2 #20 · Analysis Paralysis: Tamron 35-150 vs GM 70-200 II
pfoiles wrote:
Two optically excellent lenses whose other characteristics make each better in some situations than others which is why some actually own and use both. All the info is here in this thread. You (not us) need to carefully analyze your needs and choose accordingly.
If you want a two lens travel combo why not the 20-70/4 G with the new 70-200/4 GII? Thats what I will be using when the lens arrives. I currently own the 20-70/4 G and 70-200/2.8 GMII and have owned the 35-150.
Why do you want to change to f4 from 2.8? Due to size and weight? I thought about getting 20-70 but keep pausing as I already have 16-35 PZ, which has been great so far.
