Tamron 35-150 f2-2.8 thoughts
p.1 #1Tamron 35-150 f2-2.8 thoughts
Picked up a very nice copy of the Tamron 35-150 f2-2.8, and have been testing it on a variety of jobs paired with a Z8, ranging from studio headshots for a magazine, to a contemporary dance performance downtown, and today shooting a wedding with it.
I had picked it up because I'd read glowing reviews on sharpness and potential as a one camera and lens solution fast paced jobs like weddings. I had also heard of the flaring issues in backlit environments, which was a concern because with daytime environmental portraits I often position the sun behind the subject, but wanted to see for myself.
Prior to getting the 35-150, I had been using the 24-120 f4 combined with a 50 1.8 S on a second body, and they perform great as a pair. Fast autofocus, razor sharp wide open, and 24mm is useful for weddings where you're often in cramped environments. I've found the S lens design to be remarkably resistant flaring and loss of contrast in backlit conditions.
In terms of sharpness, center of frame wide open the 35-150 is acceptably sharp, but on the Z8 it is a little soft even stopped down to f4. It's less noticeable on the Z6iii, and still completely acceptable for paid work, but I was a little disappointed.
Autofocus is works great. For events/weddings I usually use either the medium square with eye-detect, or 3D tracking depending on the composition of the shot. I was able to get my SS up to 1/1000 for the dance performance and I had no issues getting keepers even with myself and the subjects moving around a ton. The dance job was even more challenging because they were wearing full black bodysuits with mirrored sculptures attached to them, so face detect was completely ineffective!
Flaring is enough of an issue that I am selling it on, and going back to the 24-120 f4 S. I used the 35-150 for editorial portraits in studio, and the brief was a pure white background. I carefully metered the background and flagged the bg lights with v-flats, and the loss of contrast from the backlighting of the background was immediately apparent in Capture One. Once I dialed down the background lights a little the contrast loss/hazing went away for the most part, but still a bummer because I've used the 24-120 f4 S with strong sun behind the subject with no issues with loss of contrast.
From a handling standpoint, I found the zoom to be a little stiff, and a little awkward depending on my hand position. I got used to it after a few hours of usage, but it's of course not nearly as comfortable as the 24-120 f4 for long shoots. I also found that for the dance performance that 35mm felt a little too tight. I ended up putting a 14-30 f4 on my Z6iii for the wide shots.
I am going to use it for a wedding today, and I think that will decide whether I am keeping it or not. It's a great lens if you don't need to get too wide for events and you're careful about strong backlighting. Anyways, just my two cents
I had picked it up because I'd read glowing reviews on sharpness and potential as a one camera and lens solution fast paced jobs like weddings. I had also heard of the flaring issues in backlit environments, which was a concern because with daytime environmental portraits I often position the sun behind the subject, but wanted to see for myself.
Prior to getting the 35-150, I had been using the 24-120 f4 combined with a 50 1.8 S on a second body, and they perform great as a pair. Fast autofocus, razor sharp wide open, and 24mm is useful for weddings where you're often in cramped environments. I've found the S lens design to be remarkably resistant flaring and loss of contrast in backlit conditions.
In terms of sharpness, center of frame wide open the 35-150 is acceptably sharp, but on the Z8 it is a little soft even stopped down to f4. It's less noticeable on the Z6iii, and still completely acceptable for paid work, but I was a little disappointed.
Autofocus is works great. For events/weddings I usually use either the medium square with eye-detect, or 3D tracking depending on the composition of the shot. I was able to get my SS up to 1/1000 for the dance performance and I had no issues getting keepers even with myself and the subjects moving around a ton. The dance job was even more challenging because they were wearing full black bodysuits with mirrored sculptures attached to them, so face detect was completely ineffective!
Flaring is enough of an issue that I am selling it on, and going back to the 24-120 f4 S. I used the 35-150 for editorial portraits in studio, and the brief was a pure white background. I carefully metered the background and flagged the bg lights with v-flats, and the loss of contrast from the backlighting of the background was immediately apparent in Capture One. Once I dialed down the background lights a little the contrast loss/hazing went away for the most part, but still a bummer because I've used the 24-120 f4 S with strong sun behind the subject with no issues with loss of contrast.
From a handling standpoint, I found the zoom to be a little stiff, and a little awkward depending on my hand position. I got used to it after a few hours of usage, but it's of course not nearly as comfortable as the 24-120 f4 for long shoots. I also found that for the dance performance that 35mm felt a little too tight. I ended up putting a 14-30 f4 on my Z6iii for the wide shots.
I am going to use it for a wedding today, and I think that will decide whether I am keeping it or not. It's a great lens if you don't need to get too wide for events and you're careful about strong backlighting. Anyways, just my two cents
Sep 12, 2026 at 10:54 AM
p.1 #2Tamron 35-150 f2-2.8 thoughts
In short, if we don't need faster than f/4, the 24-120 is the best choice; it's sharper and has higher contrast in backlit shots.
Sep 12, 2026 at 11:57 AM
p.1 #3Tamron 35-150 f2-2.8 thoughts
I'd say after this wedding today, that it's a great lens for the ceremony, reception, toasts, first dance, candids later in the day especially. Today was a little overcast when we were doing outdoor formal portraits with the couple, and it had no issues with flaring, and the extra 30mm over the 24-120 on the tele end is very useful outdoors. I think the 24-120 f4 S and 35-150 could actually be somewhat complimentary in a wedding kit even though they seem to overlap in some ways, but for general event work the 24-120 f4 would be more than sufficient in my opinion. At higher ISO you don't notice the wide open softness as much, but it is noticeably softer than the 24-120 f4 and 24-70 f2.8 S wide open.
Also got to use my new Godox V100 a lot during the reception and first dance in the evening, and the TTL works great, on par with the Profoto A10 that's usually my go-to for events. It did seem a little magenta, but not enough that it's an issue. I think it's pretty easy to unscrew the cover on the fresnel and add a small piece of color correction gel if it bugs you enough. I love that you can charge the battery with just a USB-C cord.
Also got to use my new Godox V100 a lot during the reception and first dance in the evening, and the TTL works great, on par with the Profoto A10 that's usually my go-to for events. It did seem a little magenta, but not enough that it's an issue. I think it's pretty easy to unscrew the cover on the fresnel and add a small piece of color correction gel if it bugs you enough. I love that you can charge the battery with just a USB-C cord.
Sep 12, 2026 at 10:57 PM
p.1 #4Tamron 35-150 f2-2.8 thoughts
This was my impression of it too. I had it for about a year and then sold it to get the 28-135 f/4 PZ. I do phot and video. The best way I’ve heard the 35-150 image quality is; sharp but with a 1/8 mist filter on it. Which actually works for video and some wedding photography. But it’s maybe not as technical for headshots. What gives it a nice rendering with backlighting for sunset photos doesn’t work well for back lit speeches or headshots etc.
- The zoom was very stiff. I didn’t expect that. It took two twists to go from 35-150
- f/2 sounds great but it’s still a variable aperture lens and with it a variable ISO lens. With modern cameras high iso is fine, but if you have a flash on and that’s on manual, you’ll get different exposures at 35 or 50 or 85mm. Flash values have to change too.
As I mentioned I had it for a year but sold it and the proceeds went to a lens I use more often for video than I did with that. No regrets there. And funnily enough I recently bought its little brother; the 35-100 2.8 and enjoy that lens more. The zoom turn is easier. Far lighter and about as tall/long as my 14-24. Makes for a nice two lens kit.
- The zoom was very stiff. I didn’t expect that. It took two twists to go from 35-150
- f/2 sounds great but it’s still a variable aperture lens and with it a variable ISO lens. With modern cameras high iso is fine, but if you have a flash on and that’s on manual, you’ll get different exposures at 35 or 50 or 85mm. Flash values have to change too.
As I mentioned I had it for a year but sold it and the proceeds went to a lens I use more often for video than I did with that. No regrets there. And funnily enough I recently bought its little brother; the 35-100 2.8 and enjoy that lens more. The zoom turn is easier. Far lighter and about as tall/long as my 14-24. Makes for a nice two lens kit.
Sep 13, 2026 at 06:30 AM
p.1 #5Tamron 35-150 f2-2.8 thoughts
I've been using it for indoor events on a Z7 for two years now. This is going on eight years with the Z7. I haven't come across any lighting conditions that causes flaring, everything is available light, set ISO.
I'd have to say that any perceived lack of sharpness I've come across is strictly on me and my BBF skills. Shooting f/2-f/2.8 doesn't leave a lot of room for error. The extra reach has been useful but probably not all that important, I could probably manage with 35-70. But not with f/4. Done that on a number of events. Shot a wedding (complete, as an attendee) with the then new Z7 and the 24-70 S at 12,800 and it kept creeping into marginal shutter speeds (and I'll take the Z7 at 12,800 without any qualms). The 35-150 eliminates the shutter speed issue. I could probably add to it or swap it out with the 24-70 S f/2.8 or the new Tamron 35-100/2.8 but 35/2 on a zoom, for event coverage, is hard to match.
I'd have to say that any perceived lack of sharpness I've come across is strictly on me and my BBF skills. Shooting f/2-f/2.8 doesn't leave a lot of room for error. The extra reach has been useful but probably not all that important, I could probably manage with 35-70. But not with f/4. Done that on a number of events. Shot a wedding (complete, as an attendee) with the then new Z7 and the 24-70 S at 12,800 and it kept creeping into marginal shutter speeds (and I'll take the Z7 at 12,800 without any qualms). The 35-150 eliminates the shutter speed issue. I could probably add to it or swap it out with the 24-70 S f/2.8 or the new Tamron 35-100/2.8 but 35/2 on a zoom, for event coverage, is hard to match.
Sep 13, 2026 at 07:06 AM
p.1 #6Tamron 35-150 f2-2.8 thoughts
The 35-150 is a fantastic lens. I never expected it to be Nikon S level sharpness, but I was pleasantly surprised at how good it is and not that far off even at wide-open apertures.
WRT flare issues, yeah idk...to me, it's an issue if there is severe negative effect on the contrast, which has never been the case for me.
WRT flare issues, yeah idk...to me, it's an issue if there is severe negative effect on the contrast, which has never been the case for me.
Sep 13, 2026 at 08:41 AM
p.1 #7Tamron 35-150 f2-2.8 thoughts
M_Black wrote:
This was my impression of it too. I had it for about a year and then sold it to get the 28-135 f/4 PZ. I do phot and video. The best way I’ve heard the 35-150 image quality is; sharp but with a 1/8 mist filter on it. Which actually works for video and some wedding photography. But it’s maybe not as technical for headshots. What gives it a nice rendering with backlighting for sunset photos doesn’t work well for back lit speeches or headshots etc.
- The zoom was very stiff. I didn’t expect that. It took two twists...Show more →
The variable aperture bugged me more than I thought it would. I could see how the 35-100 f2.8 would more enjoyable to use, especially as a lens for mixed work and personal use. Agree with how you describe it as sharp but like it has a slight mist filter, which I don't necessarily think is a negative for some shots, gives it a bit of a vintage vibe.
It's hard for me to make up my mind on it. Yes it's a little soft wide open, but it's still acceptably sharp for portraits where I don't necessarily need or want razor sharpness on every blemish. It is softer on the wide end than tele, and I found it noticeably sharper at 150 f2.8 than at 35 f2. The loss of contrast in backlit high key lighting in studio makes me want the 24-120 f4 back, which is sharper than the 35-150 at f4. I could see myself having both the 35-150 f2-2.8 and 24-120, but for that amount of money I could just go with the tried and true 24-70 f2.8 and 70-200 f2.8 combo. Regardless, the last wedding of the year for me so I have some time to think about it!
This was my impression of it too. I had it for about a year and then sold it to get the 28-135 f/4 PZ. I do phot and video. The best way I’ve heard the 35-150 image quality is; sharp but with a 1/8 mist filter on it. Which actually works for video and some wedding photography. But it’s maybe not as technical for headshots. What gives it a nice rendering with backlighting for sunset photos doesn’t work well for back lit speeches or headshots etc.
- The zoom was very stiff. I didn’t expect that. It took two twists...Show more →
The variable aperture bugged me more than I thought it would. I could see how the 35-100 f2.8 would more enjoyable to use, especially as a lens for mixed work and personal use. Agree with how you describe it as sharp but like it has a slight mist filter, which I don't necessarily think is a negative for some shots, gives it a bit of a vintage vibe.
It's hard for me to make up my mind on it. Yes it's a little soft wide open, but it's still acceptably sharp for portraits where I don't necessarily need or want razor sharpness on every blemish. It is softer on the wide end than tele, and I found it noticeably sharper at 150 f2.8 than at 35 f2. The loss of contrast in backlit high key lighting in studio makes me want the 24-120 f4 back, which is sharper than the 35-150 at f4. I could see myself having both the 35-150 f2-2.8 and 24-120, but for that amount of money I could just go with the tried and true 24-70 f2.8 and 70-200 f2.8 combo. Regardless, the last wedding of the year for me so I have some time to think about it!
Sep 13, 2026 at 01:52 PM
p.1 #8Tamron 35-150 f2-2.8 thoughts
sungphoto wrote:
Prior to getting the 35-150, I had been using the 24-120 f4
... and that's when I knew how the story will end
The 24-120mm f/4 S is an impossible lens. The fact that it exists, weights just 600g, and sells for under $1K proves that we live in a computer simulation and the AI in charge is just fucking with us.
Prior to getting the 35-150, I had been using the 24-120 f4
... and that's when I knew how the story will end
The 24-120mm f/4 S is an impossible lens. The fact that it exists, weights just 600g, and sells for under $1K proves that we live in a computer simulation and the AI in charge is just fucking with us.Sep 13, 2026 at 03:01 PM
p.1 #9Tamron 35-150 f2-2.8 thoughts
old-gregg wrote:
... and that's when I knew how the story will end The 24-120mm f/4 S is an impossible lens. The fact that it exists, weights just 600g, and sells for under $1K proves that we live in a computer simulation and the AI in charge is just fucking with us.
Yeah, the 24-120 f4 S is a goldilocks lens, which is why I'm getting one again regardless of whether I sell the 35-150 on or not.
sungphoto wrote
Prior to getting the 35-150, I had been using the 24-120 f4 The 24-120mm f/4 S is an impossible lens. The fact that it exists, weights just 600g, and sells for under $1K proves that we live in a computer simulation and the AI in charge is just fucking with us.Yeah, the 24-120 f4 S is a goldilocks lens, which is why I'm getting one again regardless of whether I sell the 35-150 on or not.
Sep 13, 2026 at 03:37 PM
p.1 #10Tamron 35-150 f2-2.8 thoughts
dalegaspi wrote:
The 35-150 is a fantastic lens. I never expected it to be Nikon S level sharpness, but I was pleasantly surprised at how good it is and not that far off even at wide-open apertures.
WRT flare issues, yeah idk...to me, it's an issue if there is severe negative effect on the contrast, which has never been the case for me.
The loss of contrast/hazing that occurred in studio is hard to show without making comparison sets at different exposures, but it was visible stopped down to f5.6-6.3. I found that so long as I was carefully keeping the background metered to around 240 across the board RGB that the contrast loss was minimized, but it didn't completely go away until we switched setups to a mid-grey background that wasn't being directly lit.
The 35-150 is a fantastic lens. I never expected it to be Nikon S level sharpness, but I was pleasantly surprised at how good it is and not that far off even at wide-open apertures.
WRT flare issues, yeah idk...to me, it's an issue if there is severe negative effect on the contrast, which has never been the case for me.
The loss of contrast/hazing that occurred in studio is hard to show without making comparison sets at different exposures, but it was visible stopped down to f5.6-6.3. I found that so long as I was carefully keeping the background metered to around 240 across the board RGB that the contrast loss was minimized, but it didn't completely go away until we switched setups to a mid-grey background that wasn't being directly lit.
Sep 13, 2026 at 03:55 PM
|
p.1 #11Tamron 35-150 f2-2.8 thoughts
sungphoto wrote:
WRT flare issues, yeah idk...to me, it's an issue if there is severe negative effect on the contrast, which has never been the case for me.The loss of contrast/hazing that occurred in studio is hard to show without making comparison sets at different exposures, but it was visible stopped down to f5.6-6.3. I found that so long as I was carefully keeping the background metered to around 240 across the board RGB that the contrast loss was minimized, but it didn't completely go away until we switched setups to a mid-grey background that wasn't being directly lit.
https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/56bdf0db01dbaeb8c76c21cd/ed5f9ee0-e02c-4181-9fe1-d8805ccef067/BW_090926_Kemi_Adeyemi_ViewpointMag0452.jpg
idk what i'm looking at here but in terms of the veiling issue you never mentioned which focal length? is it all of them? also...looking at the position of the lights, is it possible that the veiling that you see is simply from the light spill?
The loss of contrast/hazing that occurred in studio is hard to show without making comparison sets at different exposures
tedious, but not hard. I don't see how you can't do this with your equipment. I see you're using Profoto so it's relatively trivial to adjust lighting without having to recompute exposure (I use Profoto, too)
you also mentioned it's not sharp enough even at f4 (with nothing to support that claim) which does not reflect my experience...maybe I got a unicorn sample of the 35-150. but note that my experience is in line with what I've seen from Dustin Abott, Christopher Frost, and Photography Life reviews.
but here are the https://adobe.ly/4dj4xZR%22]photos[/url] (so you can download full resolution hosted at Adobe) also shot with Profoto lights, with the Z9 on the tripod and exposure delay set to 1s. below are the 58mm with the Tamron at f2.4 and the 24-70S II at f2.8...the 3rd one is from the reference lens 58S at f2.8 in case you doubt that I may have a coke bottle sample of the 24-70. the embedded ones are hosted on Flickr.
idk man ...looks sharp to me beyond "acceptably sharp" ..note that the Tamron is even at a disadvantage at f2.4 (my bad, i meant to shoot at f2.8)...had to zoom at 300% to really start noticing meaningful differences. I would say though that Tamron has a bit more astigmatism on OOF and more onion ring bokeh, but those are not the properties that are cast in doubt.
Tamron 35-150
Nikon 24-70S II
Noct
dalegaspi wrote
The 35-150 is a fantastic lens. I never expected it to be Nikon S level sharpness, but I was pleasantly surprised at how good it is and not that far off even at wide-open apertures.WRT flare issues, yeah idk...to me, it's an issue if there is severe negative effect on the contrast, which has never been the case for me.
https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/56bdf0db01dbaeb8c76c21cd/ed5f9ee0-e02c-4181-9fe1-d8805ccef067/BW_090926_Kemi_Adeyemi_ViewpointMag0452.jpg
idk what i'm looking at here but in terms of the veiling issue you never mentioned which focal length? is it all of them? also...looking at the position of the lights, is it possible that the veiling that you see is simply from the light spill?
The loss of contrast/hazing that occurred in studio is hard to show without making comparison sets at different exposures
tedious, but not hard. I don't see how you can't do this with your equipment. I see you're using Profoto so it's relatively trivial to adjust lighting without having to recompute exposure (I use Profoto, too)
you also mentioned it's not sharp enough even at f4 (with nothing to support that claim) which does not reflect my experience...maybe I got a unicorn sample of the 35-150. but note that my experience is in line with what I've seen from Dustin Abott, Christopher Frost, and Photography Life reviews.
but here are the https://adobe.ly/4dj4xZR%22]photos[/url] (so you can download full resolution hosted at Adobe) also shot with Profoto lights, with the Z9 on the tripod and exposure delay set to 1s. below are the 58mm with the Tamron at f2.4 and the 24-70S II at f2.8...the 3rd one is from the reference lens 58S at f2.8 in case you doubt that I may have a coke bottle sample of the 24-70. the embedded ones are hosted on Flickr.
idk man ...looks sharp to me beyond "acceptably sharp" ..note that the Tamron is even at a disadvantage at f2.4 (my bad, i meant to shoot at f2.8)...had to zoom at 300% to really start noticing meaningful differences. I would say though that Tamron has a bit more astigmatism on OOF and more onion ring bokeh, but those are not the properties that are cast in doubt.
Tamron 35-150
Nikon 24-70S II
Noct
Sep 13, 2026 at 05:27 PM
p.1 #12Tamron 35-150 f2-2.8 thoughts
It’s just to show the lighting setup for the editorial shoot I did recently. We shot the images at around 100-120mm at f5.6.
The loss of contrast isn’t occurring from light spill. Both background strips are fully flagged with v-flats so no direct spill is coming from them, and the subject was approximately 8-10 ft away from the background itself. I’ve shot with the exact same lighting setup with the 24-120mm, 24-70 f2.8E, 24-70 2.8 S v1, 70-200 f2.8E and other Nikon lenses and did not get the same loss of contrast.
In the images with the subject, the loss of contrast is occurring across the frame, which is typically means the lens is flaring a bit. There’s workarounds of course, like shoot a half stop or more under and just raising the entire exposure up in post in capture one, but I prefer to get it right in camera.
As for sharpness, everyone has their preferences. It was acceptably sharp but in comparison with the 24-120 f4 S, the difference is immediately noticeable at f5.6-6.3 which is usually where I shoot studio portraits, and even more noticeable at f4 on the 35-150
dalegaspi wrote:
WRT flare issues, yeah idk...to me, it's an issue if there is severe negative effect on the contrast, which has never been the case for me.The loss of contrast/hazing that occurred in studio is hard to show without making comparison sets at different exposures, but it was visible stopped down to f5.6-6.3. I found that so long as I was carefully keeping the background metered to around 240 across the board RGB that the contrast loss was minimized, but it didn't completely go away until we switched setups to a mid-grey background that wasn't being directly lit.
https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/56bdf0db01dbaeb8c76c21cd/ed5f9ee0-e02c-4181-9fe1-d8805ccef067/BW_090926_Kemi_Adeyemi_ViewpointMag0452.jpgidk what i'm looking at here but in terms of the veiling issue you never mentioned which focal length? is it all of them? also...looking at the position of the lights, is it possible that the veiling that you see is simply from the light spill?
tedious, but not hard. I don't see how you can't do this with your equipment. I see you're using Profoto so it's relatively trivial to adjust lighting without having to recompute exposure (I use Profoto, too)
you also mentioned it's not sharp enough even at f4 (with nothing to support that claim) which does not reflect...Show more →
The loss of contrast isn’t occurring from light spill. Both background strips are fully flagged with v-flats so no direct spill is coming from them, and the subject was approximately 8-10 ft away from the background itself. I’ve shot with the exact same lighting setup with the 24-120mm, 24-70 f2.8E, 24-70 2.8 S v1, 70-200 f2.8E and other Nikon lenses and did not get the same loss of contrast.
In the images with the subject, the loss of contrast is occurring across the frame, which is typically means the lens is flaring a bit. There’s workarounds of course, like shoot a half stop or more under and just raising the entire exposure up in post in capture one, but I prefer to get it right in camera.
As for sharpness, everyone has their preferences. It was acceptably sharp but in comparison with the 24-120 f4 S, the difference is immediately noticeable at f5.6-6.3 which is usually where I shoot studio portraits, and even more noticeable at f4 on the 35-150
dalegaspi wrote:
sungphoto wrote
dalegaspi wrote
The 35-150 is a fantastic lens. I never expected it to be Nikon S level sharpness, but I was pleasantly surprised at how good it is and not that far off even at wide-open apertures.WRT flare issues, yeah idk...to me, it's an issue if there is severe negative effect on the contrast, which has never been the case for me.
https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/56bdf0db01dbaeb8c76c21cd/ed5f9ee0-e02c-4181-9fe1-d8805ccef067/BW_090926_Kemi_Adeyemi_ViewpointMag0452.jpg
Earlier quote
The loss of contrast/hazing that occurred in studio is hard to show without making comparison sets at different exposuresyou also mentioned it's not sharp enough even at f4 (with nothing to support that claim) which does not reflect...Show more →
Sep 13, 2026 at 05:38 PM
p.1 #13Tamron 35-150 f2-2.8 thoughts
sharpness may be subjective but they can be compared which is what i did.
is it possible that you got a bad sample? not being sharp at that aperture seems highly suspect.
sungphoto wrote:
It’s just to show the lighting setup for the editorial shoot I did recently. We shot the images at around 100-120mm at f5.6.
The loss of contrast isn’t occurring from light spill. Both background strips are fully flagged with v-flats so no direct spill is coming from them, and the subject was approximately 8-10 ft away from the background itself. I’ve shot with the exact same lighting setup with the 24-120mm, 24-70 f2.8E, 24-70 2.8 S v1, 70-200 f2.8E and other Nikon lenses and did not get the same loss of contrast.
In the images with the subject, the loss of contrast...Show more →
WRT flare issues, yeah idk...to me, it's an issue if there is severe negative effect on the contrast, which has never been the case for me.The loss of contrast/hazing that occurred in studio is hard to show without making comparison sets at different exposures, but it was visible stopped down to f5.6-6.3. I found that so long as I was carefully keeping the background metered to around 240 across the board RGB that the contrast loss was minimized, but it didn't completely go away until we switched setups to a mid-grey background that wasn't being directly lit.
https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/56bdf0db01dbaeb8c76c21cd/ed5f9ee0-e02c-4181-9fe1-d8805ccef067/BW_090926_Kemi_Adeyemi_ViewpointMag0452.jpgidk what i'm looking at here but in terms of the veiling issue you never mentioned which focal length? is it all of them? also...looking at the position of the lights, is it possible that the veiling that you see is simply from the light spill?
tedious, but not hard. I don't see how you can't do this with your equipment. I see you're using Profoto so it's relatively trivial to adjust lighting without having to recompute exposure (I use Profoto, too)
you also mentioned it's not sharp enough even at f4 (with nothing to support that claim) which does not reflect my experience...maybe I got a unicorn sample of the 35-150. but note that my experience is in line with what I've seen from Dustin Abott, Christopher Frost, and Photography Life reviews.
but here are the https://adobe.ly/4dj4xZR%22]photos[/url] (so you can download full resolution hosted at Adobe) also shot with Profoto lights, with the Z9 on the tripod and exposure delay set to 1s. below are the 58mm with the Tamron at f2.4 and the 24-70S II at f2.8...the 3rd one is from the reference lens 58S at f2.8 in case you doubt that I may have a coke bottle sample of the 24-70. the embedded ones are hosted on Flickr.
idk man ...looks sharp to me beyond "acceptably sharp" ..note that the Tamron is even at a disadvantage at f2.4 (my bad, i meant to shoot at f2.8)...had to zoom at 300% to really start noticing meaningful differences. I would say though that Tamron has a bit more astigmatism on OOF and more onion ring bokeh, but those are not the properties that are cast in doubt.
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/55526748903_2e75ea010c_h.jpg
Tamron 35-150
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/55526749328_7e56a611c2_h.jpg
Nikon 24-70S II
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/55525630047_82578ff9af_h.jpg
Noct
is it possible that you got a bad sample? not being sharp at that aperture seems highly suspect.
sungphoto wrote:
It’s just to show the lighting setup for the editorial shoot I did recently. We shot the images at around 100-120mm at f5.6.
The loss of contrast isn’t occurring from light spill. Both background strips are fully flagged with v-flats so no direct spill is coming from them, and the subject was approximately 8-10 ft away from the background itself. I’ve shot with the exact same lighting setup with the 24-120mm, 24-70 f2.8E, 24-70 2.8 S v1, 70-200 f2.8E and other Nikon lenses and did not get the same loss of contrast.
In the images with the subject, the loss of contrast...Show more →
dalegaspi wrote
sungphoto wrote
dalegaspi wrote
The 35-150 is a fantastic lens. I never expected it to be Nikon S level sharpness, but I was pleasantly surprised at how good it is and not that far off even at wide-open apertures.WRT flare issues, yeah idk...to me, it's an issue if there is severe negative effect on the contrast, which has never been the case for me.
https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/56bdf0db01dbaeb8c76c21cd/ed5f9ee0-e02c-4181-9fe1-d8805ccef067/BW_090926_Kemi_Adeyemi_ViewpointMag0452.jpg
Earlier quote
The loss of contrast/hazing that occurred in studio is hard to show without making comparison sets at different exposuresyou also mentioned it's not sharp enough even at f4 (with nothing to support that claim) which does not reflect my experience...maybe I got a unicorn sample of the 35-150. but note that my experience is in line with what I've seen from Dustin Abott, Christopher Frost, and Photography Life reviews.
but here are the https://adobe.ly/4dj4xZR%22]photos[/url] (so you can download full resolution hosted at Adobe) also shot with Profoto lights, with the Z9 on the tripod and exposure delay set to 1s. below are the 58mm with the Tamron at f2.4 and the 24-70S II at f2.8...the 3rd one is from the reference lens 58S at f2.8 in case you doubt that I may have a coke bottle sample of the 24-70. the embedded ones are hosted on Flickr.
idk man ...looks sharp to me beyond "acceptably sharp" ..note that the Tamron is even at a disadvantage at f2.4 (my bad, i meant to shoot at f2.8)...had to zoom at 300% to really start noticing meaningful differences. I would say though that Tamron has a bit more astigmatism on OOF and more onion ring bokeh, but those are not the properties that are cast in doubt.
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/55526748903_2e75ea010c_h.jpg
Tamron 35-150
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/55526749328_7e56a611c2_h.jpg
Nikon 24-70S II
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/55525630047_82578ff9af_h.jpg
Noct
Sep 13, 2026 at 06:06 PM
p.1 #14Tamron 35-150 f2-2.8 thoughts
I’ve put around 7k shots through the lens in the last week or so in varying lighting conditions, exposure settings, subjects, focal lengths and apertures so a pretty solid test sample. It’s mainly because the new S lenses, like the 24-120 f4 S, 50 1.8 S and 24-70 2.8 are so razor sharp wide open, they make a very challenging benchmark.
The 35-150 is sharp enough for editorial, weddings and events but not sharp enough for some of the commercial jobs and large format printing I do, and the loss of contrast/hazing is a major issue for me. For the types of jobs I do, it makes the lens a little limiting, even for its versatility otherwise.
dalegaspi wrote:
sharpness may be subjective but they can be compared which is what i did.
is it possible that you got a bad sample? not being sharp at that aperture seems highly suspect.
The loss of contrast isn’t occurring from light spill. Both background strips are fully flagged with v-flats so no direct spill is coming from them, and the subject was approximately 8-10 ft away from the background itself. I’ve shot with the exact same lighting setup with the 24-120mm, 24-70 f2.8E, 24-70 2.8 S v1, 70-200 f2.8E and other Nikon lenses and did not get the same loss of contrast.
In the images with the subject, the loss of contrast is occurring across the frame, which is typically means the lens is flaring a bit. There’s workarounds of course, like shoot a half stop or more under and just raising the entire exposure up in post in capture one, but I prefer to get it right in camera.
As for sharpness, everyone has their preferences. It was acceptably sharp but in comparison with the 24-120 f4 S, the difference is immediately noticeable at f5.6-6.3 which is usually where I shoot studio portraits, and even more noticeable at f4 on the 35-150
WRT flare issues, yeah idk...to me, it's an issue if there is severe negative effect on the contrast, which has never been the case for me.The loss of contrast/hazing that occurred in studio is hard to show without making comparison sets at different exposures, but it was visible stopped down to f5.6-6.3. I found that so long as I was carefully keeping the background metered to around 240 across the board RGB that the contrast loss was minimized, but it didn't completely go away until we switched setups to a mid-grey background that wasn't being directly lit.
https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/56bdf0db01dbaeb8c76c21cd/ed5f9ee0-e02c-4181-9fe1-d8805ccef067/BW_090926_Kemi_Adeyemi_ViewpointMag0452.jpgidk what i'm looking at here but in terms of the veiling issue you never mentioned which focal length? is it all of them? also...looking at the position of the lights, is it possible that the veiling that you see is simply from the light spill?
tedious, but not hard. I don't see how you can't do this with your equipment. I see you're using Profoto so it's relatively trivial to adjust lighting without having to recompute exposure (I use Profoto, too)
you also mentioned it's not sharp enough even at f4 (with nothing to support that claim) which does not reflect my experience...maybe I got a unicorn sample of the 35-150. but note that my experience is in line with what I've seen from Dustin Abott, Christopher Frost, and Photography Life reviews.
but here are the https://adobe.ly/4dj4xZR%22]photos[/url] (so you can download full resolution hosted at Adobe) also shot with Profoto lights, with the Z9 on the tripod and exposure delay set to 1s. below are the 58mm with the Tamron at f2.4 and the 24-70S II at f2.8...the 3rd one is from the reference lens 58S at f2.8 in case you doubt that I may have a coke bottle sample of the 24-70. the embedded ones are hosted on Flickr.
idk man ...looks sharp to me beyond "acceptably sharp" ..note that the Tamron is even at a disadvantage at f2.4 (my bad, i meant to shoot at f2.8)...had to zoom at 300% to really start noticing meaningful differences. I would say though that Tamron has a bit more astigmatism on OOF and more onion ring bokeh, but those are not the properties that are cast in doubt.
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/55526748903_2e75ea010c_h.jpg
Tamron 35-150
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/55526749328_7e56a611c2_h.jpg
Nikon 24-70S II
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/55525630047_82578ff9af_h.jpg
Noct
The 35-150 is sharp enough for editorial, weddings and events but not sharp enough for some of the commercial jobs and large format printing I do, and the loss of contrast/hazing is a major issue for me. For the types of jobs I do, it makes the lens a little limiting, even for its versatility otherwise.
dalegaspi wrote:
sharpness may be subjective but they can be compared which is what i did.
is it possible that you got a bad sample? not being sharp at that aperture seems highly suspect.
sungphoto wrote
It’s just to show the lighting setup for the editorial shoot I did recently. We shot the images at around 100-120mm at f5.6.The loss of contrast isn’t occurring from light spill. Both background strips are fully flagged with v-flats so no direct spill is coming from them, and the subject was approximately 8-10 ft away from the background itself. I’ve shot with the exact same lighting setup with the 24-120mm, 24-70 f2.8E, 24-70 2.8 S v1, 70-200 f2.8E and other Nikon lenses and did not get the same loss of contrast.
In the images with the subject, the loss of contrast is occurring across the frame, which is typically means the lens is flaring a bit. There’s workarounds of course, like shoot a half stop or more under and just raising the entire exposure up in post in capture one, but I prefer to get it right in camera.
As for sharpness, everyone has their preferences. It was acceptably sharp but in comparison with the 24-120 f4 S, the difference is immediately noticeable at f5.6-6.3 which is usually where I shoot studio portraits, and even more noticeable at f4 on the 35-150
dalegaspi wrote
sungphoto wrote
dalegaspi wrote
The 35-150 is a fantastic lens. I never expected it to be Nikon S level sharpness, but I was pleasantly surprised at how good it is and not that far off even at wide-open apertures.WRT flare issues, yeah idk...to me, it's an issue if there is severe negative effect on the contrast, which has never been the case for me.
https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/56bdf0db01dbaeb8c76c21cd/ed5f9ee0-e02c-4181-9fe1-d8805ccef067/BW_090926_Kemi_Adeyemi_ViewpointMag0452.jpg
Earlier quote
The loss of contrast/hazing that occurred in studio is hard to show without making comparison sets at different exposuresyou also mentioned it's not sharp enough even at f4 (with nothing to support that claim) which does not reflect my experience...maybe I got a unicorn sample of the 35-150. but note that my experience is in line with what I've seen from Dustin Abott, Christopher Frost, and Photography Life reviews.
but here are the https://adobe.ly/4dj4xZR%22]photos[/url] (so you can download full resolution hosted at Adobe) also shot with Profoto lights, with the Z9 on the tripod and exposure delay set to 1s. below are the 58mm with the Tamron at f2.4 and the 24-70S II at f2.8...the 3rd one is from the reference lens 58S at f2.8 in case you doubt that I may have a coke bottle sample of the 24-70. the embedded ones are hosted on Flickr.
idk man ...looks sharp to me beyond "acceptably sharp" ..note that the Tamron is even at a disadvantage at f2.4 (my bad, i meant to shoot at f2.8)...had to zoom at 300% to really start noticing meaningful differences. I would say though that Tamron has a bit more astigmatism on OOF and more onion ring bokeh, but those are not the properties that are cast in doubt.
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/55526748903_2e75ea010c_h.jpg
Tamron 35-150
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/55526749328_7e56a611c2_h.jpg
Nikon 24-70S II
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/55525630047_82578ff9af_h.jpg
Noct
Sep 13, 2026 at 06:13 PM
p.1 #15Tamron 35-150 f2-2.8 thoughts
this is where you show images to support your claim.
"trust me, bro" isn't going to cut it because my own experience and reviews online don't agree with you.
sungphoto wrote:
I’ve put around 7k shots through the lens in the last week or so in varying lighting conditions, exposure settings, subjects, focal lengths and apertures so a pretty solid test sample. It’s mainly because the new S lenses, like the 24-120 f4 S, 50 1.8 S and 24-70 2.8 are so razor sharp wide open, they make a very challenging benchmark.
The 35-150 is sharp enough for editorial, weddings and events but not sharp enough for some of the commercial jobs and large format printing I do, and the loss of contrast/hazing is a major issue for me. For the types...Show more →
dalegaspi wrote
sharpness may be subjective but they can be compared which is what i did.is it possible that you got a bad sample? not being sharp at that aperture seems highly suspect.
sungphoto wrote
It’s just to show the lighting setup for the editorial shoot I did recently. We shot the images at around 100-120mm at f5.6.The loss of contrast isn’t occurring from light spill. Both background strips are fully flagged with v-flats so no direct spill is coming from them, and the subject was approximately 8-10 ft away from the background itself. I’ve shot with the exact same lighting setup with the 24-120mm, 24-70 f2.8E, 24-70 2.8 S v1, 70-200 f2.8E and other Nikon lenses and did not get the same loss of contrast.
In the images with the subject, the loss of contrast is occurring across the frame, which is typically means the lens is flaring a bit. There’s workarounds of course, like shoot a half stop or more under and just raising the entire exposure up in post in capture one, but I prefer to get it right in camera.
As for sharpness, everyone has their preferences. It was acceptably sharp but in comparison with the 24-120 f4 S, the difference is immediately noticeable at f5.6-6.3 which is usually where I shoot studio portraits, and even more noticeable at f4 on the 35-150
dalegaspi wrote
sungphoto wrote
dalegaspi wrote
The 35-150 is a fantastic lens. I never expected it to be Nikon S level sharpness, but I was pleasantly surprised at how good it is and not that far off even at wide-open apertures.WRT flare issues, yeah idk...to me, it's an issue if there is severe negative effect on the contrast, which has never been the case for me.
https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/56bdf0db01dbaeb8c76c21cd/ed5f9ee0-e02c-4181-9fe1-d8805ccef067/BW_090926_Kemi_Adeyemi_ViewpointMag0452.jpg
Earlier quote
The loss of contrast/hazing that occurred in studio is hard to show without making comparison sets at different exposuresyou also mentioned it's not sharp enough even at f4 (with nothing to support that claim) which does not reflect my experience...maybe I got a unicorn sample of the 35-150. but note that my experience is in line with what I've seen from Dustin Abott, Christopher Frost, and Photography Life reviews.
but here are the https://adobe.ly/4dj4xZR%22]photos[/url] (so you can download full resolution hosted at Adobe) also shot with Profoto lights, with the Z9 on the tripod and exposure delay set to 1s. below are the 58mm with the Tamron at f2.4 and the 24-70S II at f2.8...the 3rd one is from the reference lens 58S at f2.8 in case you doubt that I may have a coke bottle sample of the 24-70. the embedded ones are hosted on Flickr.
idk man ...looks sharp to me beyond "acceptably sharp" ..note that the Tamron is even at a disadvantage at f2.4 (my bad, i meant to shoot at f2.8)...had to zoom at 300% to really start noticing meaningful differences. I would say though that Tamron has a bit more astigmatism on OOF and more onion ring bokeh, but those are not the properties that are cast in doubt.
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/55526748903_2e75ea010c_h.jpg
Tamron 35-150
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/55526749328_7e56a611c2_h.jpg
Nikon 24-70S II
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/55525630047_82578ff9af_h.jpg
Noct
Sep 13, 2026 at 06:28 PM
p.1 #16Tamron 35-150 f2-2.8 thoughts
Typically I'd be expecting Scott to chime in and say the 24-120 is better and all you need
jokes aside, it definitely checks a lot of boxes: sharp, fast, wide, and zooms. The weight is there, compared to the 24-120. It really is an all in one lens and I am always happy with the sharpness. But what got to me was, when I bought a brand new one a bit ago, I used it ONCE, and when I got home to clean it, it already had a big dust spec in it. I still think its the most versatile wedding lens out there. The 35-100 from Tamron doesn't count, its like a non S-Line lens, no where near as sharp or corrected. I wouldn't mind having this lens and a prime on my second bodySep 13, 2026 at 06:30 PM
p.1 #17Tamron 35-150 f2-2.8 thoughts
Just sharing my experience. I don’t typically share images of recent paid jobs on this forum for a variety of reasons. You can google my work or find me on Instagram if you’re curious. Other posters here have shared similar experiences in terms of how sharp the lens is, and the issues with flaring is mentioned in every online review you’ll find on the lens.
dalegaspi wrote:
this is where you show images to support your claim.
"trust me, bro" isn't going to cut it because my own experience and reviews online don't agree with you.
The 35-150 is sharp enough for editorial, weddings and events but not sharp enough for some of the commercial jobs and large format printing I do, and the loss of contrast/hazing is a major issue for me. For the types of jobs I do, it makes the lens a little limiting, even for its versatility otherwise.
is it possible that you got a bad sample? not being sharp at that aperture seems highly suspect.
The loss of contrast isn’t occurring from light spill. Both background strips are fully flagged with v-flats so no direct spill is coming from them, and the subject was approximately 8-10 ft away from the background itself. I’ve shot with the exact same lighting setup with the 24-120mm, 24-70 f2.8E, 24-70 2.8 S v1, 70-200 f2.8E and other Nikon lenses and did not get the same loss of contrast.
In the images with the subject, the loss of contrast is occurring across the frame, which is typically means the lens is flaring a bit. There’s workarounds of course, like shoot a half stop or more under and just raising the entire exposure up in post in capture one, but I prefer to get it right in camera.
As for sharpness, everyone has their preferences. It was acceptably sharp but in comparison with the 24-120 f4 S, the difference is immediately noticeable at f5.6-6.3 which is usually where I shoot studio portraits, and even more noticeable at f4 on the 35-150
https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/56bdf0db01dbaeb8c76c21cd/ed5f9ee0-e02c-4181-9fe1-d8805ccef067/BW_090926_Kemi_Adeyemi_ViewpointMag0452.jpgidk what i'm looking at here but in terms of the veiling issue you never mentioned which focal length? is it all of them? also...looking at the position of the lights, is it possible that the veiling that you see is simply from the light spill?
tedious, but not hard. I don't see how you can't do this with your equipment. I see you're using Profoto so it's relatively trivial to adjust lighting without having to recompute exposure (I use Profoto, too)
you also mentioned it's not sharp enough even at f4 (with nothing to support that claim) which does not reflect my experience...maybe I got a unicorn sample of the 35-150. but note that my experience is in line with what I've seen from Dustin Abott, Christopher Frost, and Photography Life reviews.
but here are the https://adobe.ly/4dj4xZR%22]photos[/url] (so you can download full resolution hosted at Adobe) also shot with Profoto lights, with the Z9 on the tripod and exposure delay set to 1s. below are the 58mm with the Tamron at f2.4 and the 24-70S II at f2.8...the 3rd one is from the reference lens 58S at f2.8 in case you doubt that I may have a coke bottle sample of the 24-70. the embedded ones are hosted on Flickr.
idk man ...looks sharp to me beyond "acceptably sharp" ..note that the Tamron is even at a disadvantage at f2.4 (my bad, i meant to shoot at f2.8)...had to zoom at 300% to really start noticing meaningful differences. I would say though that Tamron has a bit more astigmatism on OOF and more onion ring bokeh, but those are not the properties that are cast in doubt.
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/55526748903_2e75ea010c_h.jpg
Tamron 35-150
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/55526749328_7e56a611c2_h.jpg
Nikon 24-70S II
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/55525630047_82578ff9af_h.jpg
Noct
dalegaspi wrote:
this is where you show images to support your claim.
"trust me, bro" isn't going to cut it because my own experience and reviews online don't agree with you.
sungphoto wrote
I’ve put around 7k shots through the lens in the last week or so in varying lighting conditions, exposure settings, subjects, focal lengths and apertures so a pretty solid test sample. It’s mainly because the new S lenses, like the 24-120 f4 S, 50 1.8 S and 24-70 2.8 are so razor sharp wide open, they make a very challenging benchmark.The 35-150 is sharp enough for editorial, weddings and events but not sharp enough for some of the commercial jobs and large format printing I do, and the loss of contrast/hazing is a major issue for me. For the types of jobs I do, it makes the lens a little limiting, even for its versatility otherwise.
dalegaspi wrote
sharpness may be subjective but they can be compared which is what i did.is it possible that you got a bad sample? not being sharp at that aperture seems highly suspect.
sungphoto wrote
It’s just to show the lighting setup for the editorial shoot I did recently. We shot the images at around 100-120mm at f5.6.The loss of contrast isn’t occurring from light spill. Both background strips are fully flagged with v-flats so no direct spill is coming from them, and the subject was approximately 8-10 ft away from the background itself. I’ve shot with the exact same lighting setup with the 24-120mm, 24-70 f2.8E, 24-70 2.8 S v1, 70-200 f2.8E and other Nikon lenses and did not get the same loss of contrast.
In the images with the subject, the loss of contrast is occurring across the frame, which is typically means the lens is flaring a bit. There’s workarounds of course, like shoot a half stop or more under and just raising the entire exposure up in post in capture one, but I prefer to get it right in camera.
As for sharpness, everyone has their preferences. It was acceptably sharp but in comparison with the 24-120 f4 S, the difference is immediately noticeable at f5.6-6.3 which is usually where I shoot studio portraits, and even more noticeable at f4 on the 35-150
dalegaspi wrote
sungphoto wrote
The loss of contrast/hazing that occurred in studio is hard to show without making comparison sets at different exposures, but it was visible stopped down to f5.6-6.3. I found that so long as I was carefully keeping the background metered to around 240 across the board RGB that the contrast loss was minimized, but it didn't completely go away until we switched setups to a mid-grey background that wasn't being directly lit.https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/56bdf0db01dbaeb8c76c21cd/ed5f9ee0-e02c-4181-9fe1-d8805ccef067/BW_090926_Kemi_Adeyemi_ViewpointMag0452.jpg
Earlier quote
The loss of contrast/hazing that occurred in studio is hard to show without making comparison sets at different exposuresyou also mentioned it's not sharp enough even at f4 (with nothing to support that claim) which does not reflect my experience...maybe I got a unicorn sample of the 35-150. but note that my experience is in line with what I've seen from Dustin Abott, Christopher Frost, and Photography Life reviews.
but here are the https://adobe.ly/4dj4xZR%22]photos[/url] (so you can download full resolution hosted at Adobe) also shot with Profoto lights, with the Z9 on the tripod and exposure delay set to 1s. below are the 58mm with the Tamron at f2.4 and the 24-70S II at f2.8...the 3rd one is from the reference lens 58S at f2.8 in case you doubt that I may have a coke bottle sample of the 24-70. the embedded ones are hosted on Flickr.
idk man ...looks sharp to me beyond "acceptably sharp" ..note that the Tamron is even at a disadvantage at f2.4 (my bad, i meant to shoot at f2.8)...had to zoom at 300% to really start noticing meaningful differences. I would say though that Tamron has a bit more astigmatism on OOF and more onion ring bokeh, but those are not the properties that are cast in doubt.
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/55526748903_2e75ea010c_h.jpg
Tamron 35-150
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/55526749328_7e56a611c2_h.jpg
Nikon 24-70S II
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/55525630047_82578ff9af_h.jpg
Noct
Sep 13, 2026 at 06:32 PM
p.1 #18Tamron 35-150 f2-2.8 thoughts
I agree, it’s a wonderful wedding lens. If I had more weddings to shoot this year I’d probably keep it. Having 150mm 2.8 in my bag to carve out a tiny spot of waterfront for portraits was a lifesaver the other day, when all of the other locations we’d scouted ended up being obstructed the day of.
PixiPhotography wrote:
Typically I'd be expecting Scott to chime in and say the 24-120 is better and all you need jokes aside, it definitely checks a lot of boxes: sharp, fast, wide, and zooms. The weight is there, compared to the 24-120. It really is an all in one lens and I am always happy with the sharpness. But what got to me was, when I bought a brand new one a bit ago, I used it ONCE, and when I got home to clean it, it already had a big dust spec in it. I still think its the...Show more →
PixiPhotography wrote:
Typically I'd be expecting Scott to chime in and say the 24-120 is better and all you need
jokes aside, it definitely checks a lot of boxes: sharp, fast, wide, and zooms. The weight is there, compared to the 24-120. It really is an all in one lens and I am always happy with the sharpness. But what got to me was, when I bought a brand new one a bit ago, I used it ONCE, and when I got home to clean it, it already had a big dust spec in it. I still think its the...Show more →Sep 13, 2026 at 06:51 PM
p.1 #19Tamron 35-150 f2-2.8 thoughts
@sungphoto Thanks for the usual insightful observations. I was on the fence about Tamron as a brand to augment my E-mount lenses. In particular, the 24/2.8 and the new 35-100. Tamron lenses appear to serve the cost-sensitive market with limited special glass—I get that. However, lack of control for stray light is a disapointment, and indicates cost-reduced engineering. I choose to avoid lenses with veiling glare since it's a straight-up flaw. Tamron is certainly capable of better products (e.g. Batis) with CZ oversight (and a bigger budget).
Those fat prices we pay to the majors for S and GM lenses are often justifiable for hard-to-measure build details like flocking, black paint, and baffles.
Those fat prices we pay to the majors for S and GM lenses are often justifiable for hard-to-measure build details like flocking, black paint, and baffles.
Sep 13, 2026 at 09:19 PM
p.1 #20Tamron 35-150 f2-2.8 thoughts
rico wrote:
@sungphoto@ Thanks for the usual insightful observations. I was on the fence about Tamron as a brand to augment my E-mount lenses. In particular, the 24/2.8 and the new 35-100. Tamron lenses appear to serve the cost-sensitive market with limited special glass—I get that. However, lack of control for stray light is a disapointment, and indicates cost-reduced engineering. I choose to avoid lenses with veiling glare since it's a straight-up flaw. Tamron is certainly capable of better products (e.g. Batis) with CZ oversight (and a bigger budget).
Those fat prices we pay to the majors for S and GM lenses are...Show more →
Thanks Rico! It's a fun lens to play with for sure, and in terms of sharpness I'd say on par with some of the better G and E mount glass, but it makes the new Z-mount S line glass seem that much more impressive. I just found myself feeling like this
@sungphoto@ Thanks for the usual insightful observations. I was on the fence about Tamron as a brand to augment my E-mount lenses. In particular, the 24/2.8 and the new 35-100. Tamron lenses appear to serve the cost-sensitive market with limited special glass—I get that. However, lack of control for stray light is a disapointment, and indicates cost-reduced engineering. I choose to avoid lenses with veiling glare since it's a straight-up flaw. Tamron is certainly capable of better products (e.g. Batis) with CZ oversight (and a bigger budget).
Those fat prices we pay to the majors for S and GM lenses are...Show more →
Thanks Rico! It's a fun lens to play with for sure, and in terms of sharpness I'd say on par with some of the better G and E mount glass, but it makes the new Z-mount S line glass seem that much more impressive. I just found myself feeling like this
Sep 13, 2026 at 11:19 PM