p.4 #1 · Second Generation Tamron 70-180mm F/2.8 VC G2 Announced
steamtrain wrote:
Thanks.
35-100mm maybe is the most important part. I'm often finding the 70mm end of the standard f/2.8 zoom limiting, and I would love to have something covering both the most important part of that standard zoom with a range up to 100mm at f/2.8. .
When going with the 70-180mm I can shoot a 24-70mm f/2.8 next to it on my R5. Changing cameras is faster than changing lenses, but turning a zoom ring is faster yet. On top of that the 35-150mm gives a larger aperture at 35-79mm. And with a 35-150mm I can still shoot that 24-70mm next to it, with the 35-70mm overlap reducing the risk of missed shots.
The 70-180 is less weight, stabilized, more affordable (1500 euro vs close to 2000 euro), and it focuses probably a bit faster. ...Show more →
Sounds like 35-150 matches your use case better.
I don't mis OIS that much when shooting at 150mm, but I agree that generally somewhere around 135mm or so IBIS becomes less effective.
p.4 #2 · Second Generation Tamron 70-180mm F/2.8 VC G2 Announced
BastianK wrote:
I do see myself getting one of the G2 when the need for a fast telezoom arises, and it seems that will happen next year.
I'm not trying to put you on the spot, but I read this in your review:
"If I had a small child that I would like to take pictures of at the local playground, or a bigger child that I would like to take pictures of during school plays, sports or other events, this is the lens I would personally get for the task."
I am a new father as of 11 months ago and I've been finding all kinds of lenses useful, but after the first month or two fast AF is a must! I haven't regretted any of my lens purchases fueled by this new person in my life.
p.4 #3 · Second Generation Tamron 70-180mm F/2.8 VC G2 Announced
steamtrain wrote:
For me the version 2 having ILIS is a big deal, and faster AF is always welcome as well.
My dilemma: this new 70-180mm or the 35-150mm f/2.0-2.8.... Too much redundancy to have both, however, at the same time the differences are significant as well.....
None of the reviewers looked into whether the problems with Tamron’s OSS and active stabilization have been fixed. If you want OSS for video I would wait and figure out the situation
the 35-150 has poor magnification (0.17x) so keep that in mind, it’s poor enough that I know it will frustrate me
Imo the biggest advantage of the 35-150 (and 50-400) is that they enable the use of a 12-24 in combination
For the 70-200 the widest lens that works well in combination is a 16-35
You forgot to mention you're talking about MFD, as that's what Dustin's sample shows...
I'm talking about every other case...
But yes, if you intend to use it only at its already not impressive MFD, then it's a wrong choice as it looses some contrast then, especially on the long end.
My copy is definitely not golden, as other users got similar results here (but we had had that conversation already)...
p.4 #6 · Second Generation Tamron 70-180mm F/2.8 VC G2 Announced
j4nu wrote:
You forgot to mention you're talking about MFD, as that's what Dustin's sample shows...
I'm talking about every other case...
But yes, if you intend to use it only at its already not impressive MFD, then it's a wrong choice as it looses some contrast then, especially on the long end.
My copy is definitely not golden, as other users got similar results here (but we had had that conversation already)...
Ah, when I test in the store I usually shoot some flyer with text in the center and corners of the frame. Could explain why I was unimpressed
At normal focal lengths I do shoot at 0.2x or closer, I know this because the Canon 40/2.8’s MFD was annoying (0.18x) and the 55ZA is even worse in this aspect.
I should start testing lenses at more ranges in the store, but often there isn’t a suitable distant target covering center and corners
p.4 #7 · Second Generation Tamron 70-180mm F/2.8 VC G2 Announced
I compared my copies of the 35 GM and 35-150 lenses at F2.0, using this "nine-dollar chart" (see below).
The camera was 39" (1 m) away from the chart. At this distance, the Tamron is sharp in the center but it is softer in the mid-zone and in the corners. It would not be surprising, if the performance of these lenses should be different at longer distances from the subject. Thus, the observations reported here should be treated with caution, with the understanding that they may or may not be fully representative of the real-life behaviour of the lenses.
I don't see anything alarming. I have used the Tamron 35-150 at 35 mm F2.0. This usually happens in real low light situation, when the the corners are rarely in focus or rarely important anyways (for bokeh, it makes sense to work at 150 mm F2.8, instead of 35 F2.0).
The following uploads are
1) The entire uncropped chart
2) Central crops
3) Midframe crops
4) The corners
The small crops are at about 400% magnification - this is like pixel-peeping.
The Tamron looks darker in the corners, and there is a noticeable color-cast that I know from my past testing this lens.
entire uncropped chart
ILCE-1FE 35mm F1.4 GM lens65535 lens35mmf/2.01/125s100 ISO0.0 EV
p.4 #9 · Second Generation Tamron 70-180mm F/2.8 VC G2 Announced
BastianK wrote:
One of my readers mentioned that as well.
I was surprised how close they are in terms of weight
That's important hands on information, as I would expect the 35-150mm to feel noticeably heavier.
p.4 #10 · Second Generation Tamron 70-180mm F/2.8 VC G2 Announced
ruthenium wrote:
3) Midframe crops
4) The corners
The upper ones are better than the ones below. For the corners I don't care so much about ultimate sharpness, but the midframe is important.
I agree with you 150mm f/2.8 is better, however, if you bring a zoom like this it's because you can't shoot always at longer focal lengths.
p.4 #11 · Second Generation Tamron 70-180mm F/2.8 VC G2 Announced
ruthenium wrote:
I compared my copies of the 35 GM and 35-150 lenses at F2.0, using this "nine-dollar chart" (see below).
The camera was 39" (1 m) away from the chart. At this distance, the Tamron is sharp in the center but it is softer in the mid-zone and in the corners. It would not be surprising, if the performance of these lenses should be different at longer distances from the subject. Thus, the observations reported here should be treated with caution, with the understanding that they may or may not be fully representative of the real-life behaviour of the lenses.
I don't see anything alarming. I have used the Tamron 35-150 at 35 mm F2.0. This usually happens in real low light situation, when the the corners are rarely in focus or rarely important anyways (for bokeh, it makes sense to work at 150 mm F2.8, instead of 35 F2.0).
The following uploads are
1) The entire uncropped chart
2) Central crops
3) Midframe crops
4) The corners
The small crops are at about 400% magnification - this is like pixel-peeping.
The Tamron looks darker in the corners, and there is a noticeable color-cast that I know from my past testing this lens. ...Show more →
Thanks for the comparison! The top shots look better to me, I suppose thats from the 35GM.
For some context, with 35mm at 1m we can do a half body shot of an adult in landscape orientation, or a 3/4 body shot in potrait orientation
For kids, you could do a full body shot of a preschooler at 1m in portrait orientation.
p.4 #12 · Second Generation Tamron 70-180mm F/2.8 VC G2 Announced
steamtrain wrote:
The upper ones are better than the ones below. For the corners I don't care so much about ultimate sharpness, but the midframe is important.
I agree with you 150mm f/2.8 is better, however, if you bring a zoom like this it's because you can't shoot always at longer focal lengths.
The question I am asking myself is how often the differences I see when pixel-peeping are going to be important in the pictures I take with the lenses? I believe that the answer most likely is, very rarely. I don't believe that shooting with the 35 GM instead of the Tamron at 35 mm should make my pictures better (when viewed on a 27" monitor). The choice of subject, the composition, the light, and the post processing are important, but this is like stating the obvious. When it comes to lenses, the question is not whether lens A is "better" than lens B. I believe the correct question is which of the lenses should allow me to capture the images I would like to take. There are different lenses for different uses.
p.4 #13 · Second Generation Tamron 70-180mm F/2.8 VC G2 Announced
aCuria wrote:
Thanks for the comparison! The top shots look better to me, I suppose thats from the 35GM.
For some context, with 35mm at 1m we can do a half body shot of an adult in landscape orientation, or a 3/4 body shot in potrait orientation
For kids, you could do a full body shot of a preschooler at 1m in portrait orientation.
Sure, if this is what you need, at 1m distance and at 35 mm F2 (or even at F1.4) then the 35GM is a good choice.When one can step farther away and similarly frame the subject at 100-150 mm F2.8, then the Tamron might be an equally good (or even better) lens choice.
p.4 #14 · Second Generation Tamron 70-180mm F/2.8 VC G2 Announced
ruthenium wrote:
Sure, if this is what you need, at 1m distance and at 35 mm F2 (or even at F1.4) then the 35GM is a good choice.When one can step farther away and similarly frame the subject at 100-150 mm F2.8, then the Tamron might be an equally good (or even better) lens choice.
I picked the 70-200 GMii in the end, because of the necessity of OSS for video mode, better magnification at 200mm, and the ability to crop to a 400mm fov with good results
That said, I think there are many situations where the 35-150 is better.
For example, if I have the 200-600 on one body, the 35-150 on a second body would be more useful than a 70-200.
With a 12-24 on one body, having a 35-150 on another also seems like a better pairing than a 70-200.
It is also more plausible to take a 35-150 lens alone on a day trip than a 70-200.
p.4 #15 · Second Generation Tamron 70-180mm F/2.8 VC G2 Announced
ruthenium wrote:
Sure, if this is what you need, at 1m distance and at 35 mm F2 (or even at F1.4) then the 35GM is a good choice.When one can step farther away and similarly frame the subject at 100-150 mm F2.8, then the Tamron might be an equally good (or even better) lens choice.
One more thing that affects sharpness and is different between your test chart shots (also my long distance shots for that matter) and those portraits at 1m example is that when shooting portraits you're not focusing in the center (and reframing) but in the actual area of the frame where your "model" is. In most cases this produces sharper results, because you minimize the impact of things like field curvature or lens decentering...
p.4 #16 · Second Generation Tamron 70-180mm F/2.8 VC G2 Announced
j4nu wrote:
One more thing that affects sharpness and is different between your test chart shots (also my long distance shots for that matter) and those portraits at 1m example is that when shooting portraits you're not focusing in the center (and reframing) but in the actual area of the frame where your "model" is. In most cases this produces sharper results, because you minimize the impact of things like field curvature or lens decentering...
I agree, the field curvature of a lens can impact the tests done on flat charts. I should add that the more I use charts for testing my lenses, the more I get the nagging feeling that the results can be misleading, and the only way to know how a lens performs in typical real-life settings is to spend a few weeks shooting a variety of subjects. Then, one can say with better confidence whether the lens is useful or not, and whether one likes the images produced by the lens or not. The Tamron 35-150, as an example, has been very useful in my experience (no lens can do everything, and like it was noted above, I wish the magnification ratio of this lens could be better). It is both an advantage and a curse to have the increasingly rich choice of lenses for the Sony FE mount.
Ultimately, I agree with "It doesn’t matter to me at all if I have the sharpest copy of a lens or not. I just want to know if it's acceptable for the purposes I want to use it for." (https://www.dpreview.com/opinion/4042117089/roger-cicala-why-i-dont-use-an-mtf-bench-to-test-my-own-lenses)
p.4 #17 · Second Generation Tamron 70-180mm F/2.8 VC G2 Announced
ruthenium wrote:
I agree, the field curvature of a lens can impact the tests done on flat charts. I should add that the more I use charts for testing my lenses, the more I get the nagging feeling that the results can be misleading, and the only way to know how a lens performs in typical real-life settings is to spend a few weeks shooting a variety of subjects. Then, one can say with better confidence whether the lens is useful or not, and whether one likes the images produced by the lens or not. The Tamron 35-150, as an example, has been very useful in my experience (no lens can do everything, and like it was noted above, I wish the magnification ratio of this lens could be better). It is both an advantage and a curse to have the increasingly rich choice of lenses for the Sony FE mount.
Ultimately, I agree with "It doesn’t matter to me at all if I have the sharpest copy of a lens or not. I just want to know if it's acceptable for the purposes I want to use it for." (https://www.dpreview.com/opinion/4042117089/roger-cicala-why-i-dont-use-an-mtf-bench-to-test-my-own-lenses) ...Show more →
I agree that using the lens how you intend to use it during evaluation is much more enlightening than shooting test charts and analyzing mtf charts. I also put just as much value on a lens on how usable the lens is under the conditions I would be using the lens. A lens too bulky or heavy is a definite negative for my travel where I value light compact lenses…even if theoretically they give up some image quality.
I’ve posted many images here on FM that got a lot of great feedback that were shot with lenses that get bad reviews by those same members. I purposely don’t publish the gear used to take the image.
p.4 #18 · Second Generation Tamron 70-180mm F/2.8 VC G2 Announced
ruthenium wrote:
The question I am asking myself is how often the differences I see when pixel-peeping are going to be important in the pictures I take with the lenses? I believe that the answer most likely is, very rarely. I don't believe that shooting with the 35 GM instead of the Tamron at 35 mm should make my pictures better (when viewed on a 27" monitor). The choice of subject, the composition, the light, and the post processing are important, but this is like stating the obvious. When it comes to lenses, the question is not whether lens A is "better" than lens B. I believe the correct question is which of the lenses should allow me to capture the images I would like to take. There are different lenses for different uses....Show more →
I'm a pixel peeper, and I like perfect IQ, no matter if that's adequate or not.
That said, I'm willing to accept zooms used wide open will never give the IQ of good primes at the same aperture. I'm also willing to stop down one stop at the widest end to get great IQ.
You could consider the Tamron as a 35-105mm f/2.8 lens, which, compared to a 24-105mm, gives you the most used part for portraits at one stop brighter. No 70mm limitation, no f/4.0 limitation. Even when considering the Tamron as such a lens it's a great option. The 106-150mm and f/2.0 at 35mm is a nice bonus, even if the IQ is a bit weaker there. What's more, at 50mm you're getting f/2.2, and that f/2.2 looks very good to me.
p.4 #19 · Second Generation Tamron 70-180mm F/2.8 VC G2 Announced
Checked with B&H today and looks like the new Tamron 70-180 G2 lens will ship out on Oct 16th. It ships from Tamron to the vendors on Oct 12th (release day). Adorama indicated the same for those interested in getting one at launch.
(I've posted pictures a long time ago).
