Not really something I have much use for. Especially given the price. But it’s great to see Sony coming out with more non traditional focal length/aperture lenses
Shame it can’t take TC’s. That would have increased it’s usefulness greatly. And made the price tag a little easier to swallow
Agreed on TC's, I would have been tempted if it did as it could potentially replace about all my lenses besides my small dedicated travel lenses. As it is I can't justify both the 50-150 & 70-200 II, and the 70-200 is just too good with and without TC's to part with.
DWOfPaul wrote:
I think where the 50-150mm can be worth its price is if it could replace a 70-200mm and a few primes for you, especially if you don't already have fast lenses.
For example, the Sony 70-200mm f2.8 GM II is 2,800 and the Sony 135mm f1.8 is 2,100. You are already ahead of the game with the 50-150mm. Just to add some more comparisons, a Sony 85mm f1.4 II is 1,800 and a Sony 50mm f1.4 is 1,300.
This is exactly my perspective on it, and for me, such a lens would easily replace a 70-200 because most of my event work can be done 135mm and wider. I'd rather have a couple f/2 zooms, one on each camera, than swapping fast primes in/out during fast-paced events.
hevaKmaI wrote:
It's tough to replace that Sony 70-200mm f2.8 GM II though. You can add a 2x TC to it to get to 400mm and still be in spitting range of the 100-400mm GM in IQ with less overall weight and gear in your bag (not the same IQ mind you, but not too far off).
DWOfPaul wrote:
Agreed. That's why I said if the 50-150mm can replace a 70-200mm for you. Personally, the lack of TC compatibility makes it a no go for me. But many photographers are very happy with the Tamron 35-150mm, which lacks TC compatibility too. So there is definitely a market for such a lens. Hopefully it will sell well enough for Sony to eventually make a GM II that supports TC's, I have been wishing for a 100-300mm f4 for years.
Doesn't 70-200 with 1.4x TC come close enough to 100-300/4?
My guess is to include TC compatibility would increase lens length by about an inch, which would move the center of gravity farther out and make the lens feel heavier as a result.
70-200 GM II is still cheaper, more versatile (imo), lighter. Or even more versatile is the 35-150 F2. How much of a difference are you going to see from F2 to F2.8? Price is what is the sticking point here. It makes no sense when you have these other two lenses.
PixiPhotography wrote:
It makes no sense when you have these other two lenses.
Sony purposefully made this a 'big badge big white' lens. I think 'make sense' automatically goes out the window with that premise haha.
It's a signature piece for Sony, which will be used by some but not that many. Same audience as a 200F1.8 or 200F2 had.
I don’t think the overlap between those in the market for this lens and the 200/2 crowd is that large. Sure, some portrait photographers will fall in that camp, but this lens is going to be big for event photographers and indoor sports photographers.
This lens excels at highlighting the advantages of the Tamron 35-150—offering an extra 15mm on wide end, a lighter and more compact build, all at half the price. The most noticeable difference in f/2 vs. f/2.8 rendering and bokeh appears on the wider end, where the Tamron remains at or near f/2. IMO the Tamron presents a more balanced and versatile choice as an all-in-one high IQ lens solution.
Dustin Abbott does a good job reviewing the lens. He admires it, thinks it is the ultimate sports shooter's lens, and may be great for weddings/events, but has reservations about the rendering and bokeh as well as the handling of flare.
There is a comparison one-to-one image set of the Sony and the Tamron 35-150mm lens in the rendering section of the reivew that I found useful. It is a photograph of a statue of a little girl set in rough grass with a brush background. To me, the rendering of the Tamron is much more pleasing. Also, the colors of the Tamron seem better and more natural, with the Sony, at least on my screen, tending a bit toward grey.
At the moment, this looks to me more like a work-a-day lens rather than an enthusiast's or artist's lens.
I'm torn on this one. It's a dream to have a one lens setup, but this isn't really replacing 2025 primes, it's replacing 2015 primes. There is a world of difference between a sharp wide open 85mm 1.2/ 50 1.2 and and 85mm or 50mm f2. So you'd probably still need one of those plus a wide in the bag. What this is really replacing is your 135mm 1.8 with the ability to go out to 50mm at f2. That's a very real benefit for many many scenarios. But this is also going to take up a lot of space and weight in the bag. Sony's GM primes have gotten so small and so good (and the used prices drop so much to make them a steal) that I will probably be envying this one from afar.
chiron wrote:
Dustin Abbott does a good job reviewing the lens. He admires it, thinks it is the ultimate sports shooter's lens, may be great for weddings/events, but has reservations about the rendering and bokeh as well as the handling of flare.
There is a comparison one-to-one image set of the Sony and the Tamron 35-150mm lens in the rendering section of the reivew that I found useful. It is a photograph of a statue of a little girl set in rough grass with a brush background. To me, the rendering of the Tamron is much more pleasing. Also, the colors of the Tamron seem better and more natural, with the Sony, at least on my screen, tending a bit toward grey.
I generally find Dustin Abbott to have reliably objective reviews, so this is a good data point, because the dealbreaker for me on the 28-70 GM was the rough bokeh in wooded/busy scenes.
Knut. wrote:
Travel with THIS weight? 😲
Unobtrusive street photography with this flashy white lens?
I’m not sure…
It is rather when you want everyone to know that YOU are the photographer!
Weddings, birthdays, concerts, events… here it will shine.
People photography in general:
- extremely fast AF
- georgeous bokeh
Who cares that the lens is slightly soft in the edges wide open? It helps the separation of the main subject.
That is just the thing. We are conditioned to think that travel or street photography has to be a certain way. That is why the outcome all look the same. Think back to Saul Leiter. She shot reflections, shapes, negative space, and colors, etc. Everyone thought street could only be done with a 28mm or 35mm, he shot a lot with 85mm.
I'm just saying that it would be fun to try this for travel or street. Do something different.
chez wrote:
Easy is a relative term. I personally would find carrying this size of lens around for a day to be a real pain in the ass. I’d have zero enjoyment with that lens by the end of the day…no, by lunch time.
I am curious...do you keep it out the entire time or keep it in the backpack til you feel the urge to use it? I think it might be a travel style thing.
nhmorgan wrote:
I'm torn on this one. It's a dream to have a one lens setup, but this isn't really replacing 2025 primes, it's replacing 2015 primes. There is a world of difference between a sharp wide open 85mm 1.2/ 50 1.2 and and 85mm or 50mm f2. So you'd probably still need one of those plus a wide in the bag. What this is really replacing is your 135mm 1.8 with the ability to go out to 50mm at f2. That's a very real benefit for many many scenarios. But this is also going to take up a lot of space and weight in the bag. Sony's GM primes have gotten so small and so good (and the used prices drop so much to make them a steal) that I will probably be envying this one from afar. ...Show more →
According to Fro, he felt it compared favorably to the 135 1.8, which is 2019, but still considered quite nice.
I think this lens is aimed squarely at A1 and A9 series shooters who want active AF while zooming with 30+ FPS access. I’ve had the tamron 35-150 since launch because no other lens on the market provided that range (still doesn’t if you think about it) but it doesn’t provide active focusing while your zooming in and out at the same time. I knew this and dealt with it but now Sony releases this lens and I will be upgrading to take advantage of it. Most of my images were at 50 and beyond so it works for my use case and I always carried the 24 GM with me. My combo will stay the same adding this lens. Again this is all subjective to personal use and there is no “right” answer but rather personal use case as it’s always with camera/lens combos.
shadow9d9 wrote:
I am curious...do you keep it out the entire time or keep it in the backpack til you feel the urge to use it? I think it might be a travel style thing.
I carry my camera with lens on my wrist the entire day. I typically shoot people which are totally unpredictable so I am ready all the time. Shooting architecture I can see putting your gear away…but not shooting people.
One interesting point that I thought I would add to the discussion is that Gordon Lang quoted Sony as saying that if you put a filter on the lens with an outer diameter larger than 99.4mm that it could interfere with the hood. I looked at some filters and they seem to have a 5mm band even on slim filters. This could turn more challenging to find filters that work with it properly.
BrianP wrote:
One interesting point that I thought I would add to the discussion is that Gordon Lang quoted Sony as saying that if you put a filter on the lens with an outer diameter larger than 99.4mm that it could interfere with the hood. I looked at some filters and they seem to have a 5mm band even on slim filters. This could turn more challenging to find filters that work with it properly.
One of the videos I saw, may be Gerald undone, said they used a step down filter and didn’t notice any effects. As a solution.
...