Some of the comments in this thread strike me odd, so I thought I would add my 2 cents. In use, the 50-150 is very easy to use handheld for long periods of time. If you can handle a 70-200, you won't notice the difference. To me, it feels smaller and easier than some of the 70-200s. I am not selling my 70-200s, but I think I will be using this lens a great deal...for me, probably more than the 70-200s. I frequently reside in this focal range and appreciate the f/2 over the f/2.8. It is a very nice lens.
BrianP wrote:
Some of the comments in this thread strike me odd, so I thought I would add my 2 cents. In use, the 50-150 is very easy to use handheld for long periods of time. If you can handle a 70-200, you won't notice the difference. To me, it feels smaller and easier than some of the 70-200s. I am not selling my 70-200s, but I think I will be using this lens a great deal...for me, probably more than the 70-200s. I frequently reside in this focal range and appreciate the f/2 over the f/2.8. It is a very nice lens....Show more →
Those who have a use for it will appreciate this lens. I picked up mine Saturday and used it for a dance performance in very low light, as well as a studio shoot.
Very easy to handhold, like a 70-200/2.8 ; results are stunning. I plan to use it for indoor sports and dance, as well as some studio and outdoors. Having an extra stop in the 50-150 range for subject separation and lower ISO is of high value for my style of shooting. I've picked up a 16-35/2.8 to pair it with for travel.
cambyses wrote:
Maybe it’s just me, but the biggest selling point of my Tamron 35-150mm f/2-2.8 is its 35mm wide end—it usually saves me from needing to carry a separate 24-70mm lens. That’s why, when I travel these days, I always reach for the 35-150 instead of packing both a 24-70 and a 70-200. Personally, 50mm just doesn’t feel wide enough for most of the perspectives and compositions I prefer. I get that designing a 35-150mm with a constant f/2 aperture would’ve been a much bigger engineering challenge for Sony, but I still wish they had made it happen!
35mm is no where near wide enough for my travels. I’d need at least something in the 24mm range.
After waffling, I preordered. Tested it out at an event last weekend, and have almost entirely positive thoughts about it. The rendering at 150mm f2 is really nice. I prefer it to the 135mm GM, and although some people dump on that lens' rendering, I always thought it was decent. For my purposes, the range of 50-150 is great and I much prefer this to the 70-200 range. While 200 is great, I always found that 70 isn't quite wide enough. Getting a lens that has the same separation of a 70-200 at 200 2.8, while gaining the extra light gathering of an F2 AND getting wide to 50mm f2 is really super versatile.
While the lens isn't heavy, I did feel its weight after a full day of shooting and I do think that it feels heavier than it is. Maybe that's just where the weight is positioned and the physical size of the lens creating more swing weight. It's not a deal breaker, but I do think it feels heavier even than heavier 70-200s than the GM ii.
I also adapted it to a Z8 for about an hour just to compare its performance. The AF on the Z8 was ok, with a few noticeable jitters from the adapter. The biggest issue adapting, though, is that the lens definitely won't focus while zooming with the etz-21 adapter.
nhmorgan wrote:
After waffling, I preordered. Tested it out at an event last weekend, and have almost entirely positive thoughts about it. The rendering at 150mm f2 is really nice. I prefer it to the 135mm GM, and although some people dump on that lens' rendering, I always thought it was decent. For my purposes, the range of 50-150 is great and I much prefer this to the 70-200 range. While 200 is great, I always found that 70 isn't quite wide enough. Getting a lens that has the same separation of a 70-200 at 200 2.8, while gaining the extra light gathering of an F2 AND getting wide to 50mm f2 is really super versatile.
While the lens isn't heavy, I did feel its weight after a full day of shooting and I do think that it feels heavier than it is. Maybe that's just where the weight is positioned and the physical size of the lens creating more swing weight. It's not a deal breaker, but I do think it feels heavier even than heavier 70-200s than the GM ii.
I also adapted it to a Z8 for about an hour just to compare its performance. The AF on the Z8 was ok, with a few noticeable jitters from the adapter. The biggest issue adapting, though, is that the lens definitely won't focus while zooming with the etz-21 adapter. ...Show more →
I feel the same about the 50-70 range being more useful than the 150-200 range.
Starting at 50 makes it a normal lens… with the ability to get F2 all the way to 150.
I really want this as a dog portrait lens, but it’s hard to justify the cost. I’m shooting the 28-70 f/2, but would prefer a longer working distance (and the option for more blur). Maybe I should sell the 28-70, but I love it in general and it’s easily handholdable with one hand. Donzo98 wrote:
Mostly portraits, and some dog photography.
I know some reviewers said its rendering is too clinical but I like it. It's not a character lens (and I would like some more swirl), but I prefer the look to the Sony 135mm 1.8 for sure.
ketang wrote:
I know some reviewers said its rendering is too clinical but I like it. It's not a character lens (and I would like some more swirl), but I prefer the look to the Sony 135mm 1.8 for sure.
chez wrote:
Do you have a direct comparison to the Sony 135? Personally I’m not digging those red bokeh balls in the bottom left corner.
Hoping to do this at some point, will post here. I did a sharpness comparison and the 135 is bitingly sharp from 1.8 whereas this zoom is simply sharp, but I can't think of a use case where the perfection of the 135 is really needed over what this offers.
ketang wrote:
Hoping to do this at some point, will post here. I did a sharpness comparison and the 135 is bitingly sharp from 1.8 whereas this zoom is simply sharp, but I can't think of a use case where the perfection of the 135 is really needed over what this offers.
I’m not concerned about sharpness these days. That bokeh ball in the image you posted is very distracting…would be interesting how the 135 would have handled it.
.