Re: Official: Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD (Model A058)
I forgot to first test whether the copy I received is centered, so I'll have to do that tomorrow. I'll also retest all of this at mid day to see whether my initial impressions are consistent with tomorrow's result. I went up the hill and took some comparison shots this evening against my Sigma 24-70DGDN, 35GM, and 100-400GM and have some initial first impressions about sharpness (though I'll test more tomorrow. Apologies that I don't have time right now to crop and upload everything, but I'll try to when I have time)
[Okay, my copy is just slightly decentered, but probably not enough to worry about. I've retested nearly all of these shots to make sure camera shake wasn't an issue, taking 3 of each shot and picking the best of the three. But you don't have to take my word for it. All of my test shots are available here: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/s5qyefoat8yw8aj/AADtwwpuKQOh3o9jbpe7hSgYa?dl=0 ]
Obviously the 35GM is by far the best of the three lenses. The GM at f/2 is sharper than either zoom at any aperture (no surprise there).
@f/2.8: The 24-70DGDN and 35-150 appear equal in the center. The Sigma a smidge sharper at mid image. The Tamron is noticeable sharper and with more contrast in the corners.
@f/4: Both appear equal in the center. Sigma noticeably sharper mid frame. Tamron noticeably sharper corners.
@f/5.6: Both appear equal in the center. Sigma noticeably sharper mid frame. Tamron noticeably sharper corners.
@f/8: Diffraction starts and IQ suffers compared to f/5.6. Tamron just a smidge sharper in the center and corners. Sigma a smidge sharper mid frame.
@50mm:
@f/2.8: Sigma is a smidge sharper in the center and mid frame. Tamron noticeably sharper in the corners.
@f/4: Sigma still barely leads in the center and mid frame, but the Tamron is catching up and still clearly sharper in the corners.
@f/5.6: Both appear equal in the center. Sigma just a smidge sharper mid frame. Tamron still noticeably sharper in the corners.
@f/8: Just like at 35mm, diffraction starts and IQ suffers compared to f/5.6 on both but appears to affect the Sigma more and earlier. Tamron becomes sharper in the center and corners and matches mid frame.
@70mm:
@f/2.8: Both are equally sharp in the center. Tamron is a smidge sharper in mid frame and noticeably sharper in corners.
@f/4: Both equally sharp in the center. Tamron is sharper in mid frame and corners.
@f/5.6: Tamron is sharper across the frame.
@f/8: Diffraction starts and IQ suffers compared to f/5.6 on both. Tamron sharper across the frame.
Sigma/Tamron Sharpness Comparison Summary: Both the Sigma and Tamron appear to be equal in the center of the frame except for a slight edge to Sigma at 50mm. Sigma 24-70 is generally a smidge sharper mid frame than the Tamron at most focal lengths, but the Tamron is significantly sharper in the corners at all focal lengths.
@100mm: Sony 100-400GM/Tamron 35-150:
@f/4.0 (Tamron) & f/4.5 (GM): Tamron sharper with more contrast center and mid frame. GM sharper in the corners.
@f/5.6: Tamron is just a smidge sharper in the center and mid frame. GM sharper in the corners.
@f/8: Both appear equal across the frame.
@135mm (133mm for the GM):
@f/4 (Tamron) & f/5 (GM): Tamron sharper in the center and mid frame. GM sharper in the corners.
@5.6: Tamron sharper in the center. Both are equal mid frame. GM is sharper in the corners.
@f/8: Tamron sharper in the center. Both are equal mid frame. GM is sharper in the corners.
@150 (160mm for GM - hard to nail 150 without a mark on the zoom):
@f/4 (Tamron) & f/5 (GM): Tamron just a smidge sharper in the center and mid frame. Equal in the corners.
@f/5.6: Both appear equal across the frame.
@f/8: Both appear equal in the center. GM a smidge sharper mid frame and visibly sharper in the corners.
GM/Tamron Sharpness Comparison Summary: The Tamron is generally sharper in the center at all overlapping focal lengths. They are equal mid frame, and the GM is better in the corners at all focal lengths.
Regarding sun flare and ghosting: although the Tamron is much better than the 100-400GM at controlling flare, it is significantly worse than the Sigma 24-70 (when at f/16). (and obviously the 35GM is great at controlling flare)
[**Revised Conclusion**] My overall initial impression was disappointment and that it probably wouldn't work for me as a replacement for my current three lens setup of 14-24/24-70/100-400 for a two-zoom backpacking landscape setup of 16-35/35-150. The flare and ghosting is prominent, and sunstars aren't exceptional. So it isn't an ideal lens for sunrise/sunset images at f/16.
That being said, after sleeping on it for a couple nights now and with the additional testing, my initial disappointment is gone, and I am beginning to think that it is actually pretty extraordinary for a lens with this range to be trading blows with two of the sharpest zooms on the market. There may be shots here or there where the Sigma or GM would provide a sharper section of an image, but what the Sigma can't do is get a sharp image at 35mm and then immediately crank up to 150mm for a shot without a lens change. I'm now beginning to think Tamron really pulled off something pretty incredible with this lens.
**[Edited to add]** Now that I've slept and thought about it further, that initial disappointment is tampered a bit given that I must acknowledge that I likely had overly ambitious and unrealistic expectations/hope that an <$2k third party zoom would completely trounce a traditional 24-70 (my copy is excellent in its own right) as well as one of the best GM zooms. The fact that a lens with this focal range even trades blows and bests the 24-70 and 100-400 in some areas and at some focal lengths is itself quite impressive. Also, the sun flare/ghosting issue is actually quite well handled at wide aperture, so it may just be that I will have to dedicate f/16 sunstar shots to my 35GM. It may also turn out to actually be an ideal lens for my wife's uses, but I'm still torn on this lens and will probably change my mind several times within the return window between a 16-35GM/35-150 setup versus a holy trinity of GM (mk2) zooms.
**Additional edit to add info for 100mm, 135mm, and 150mm**
Re: Official: Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD (Model A058)
I forgot to first test whether the copy I received is centered, so I'll have to do that tomorrow. I'll also retest all of this at mid day to see whether my initial impressions are consistent with tomorrow's result. I went up the hill and took some comparison shots this evening against my Sigma 24-70DGDN, 35GM, and 100-400GM and have some initial first impressions about sharpness (though I'll test more tomorrow. Apologies that I don't have time right now to crop and upload everything, but I'll try to when I have time):
@35mm:
Obviously the 35GM is by far the best of the three lenses. The GM at f/2 is sharper than either zoom at any aperture (no surprise there).
@f/2.8: The 24-70DGDN and 35-150 appear equal in the center. The Sigma has slightly more noticeable microcontrast and detail in foliage at mid image. The Tamron is noticeable sharper and with more contrast in the corners.
@f/4: Both appear equal again. Sigma still has more contrast and detail mid frame. Tamron still sharper in far corners.
@f/5.6: The Sigma leads in the center and mid frame and ties the Tamron in the corners.
@f/8: Diffraction starts and IQ suffers compared to f/5.6 on both but appears to affect the Sigma more. The Tamron slightly edges out in the center and far corners and basically catches up in the mid frame.
@50mm:
@f/2.8: Sigma is sharper in the center and mid frame. Tamron noticeably sharper in the corners.
@f/4: Sigma still has just a bit more microcontrast in the center and mid frame, but the Tamron is catching up and still clearly sharper in the corners.
@f/5.6: Same as f/4 - Sigma stronger in the center and mid while Tamron is better in the corners.
@f/8: Just like at 35mm, diffraction starts and IQ suffers compared to f/5.6 on both but appears to affect the Sigma more and earlier. Tamron becomes sharper in the center and corners and matches mid frame.
@70mm:
@f/2.8: Both are equally sharp in the center. Tamron is sharper in mid frame and corners.
@f/4: Both equally sharp in the center. Tamron is sharper in mid frame and corners.
@f/5.6: Both are tied in the center and mid frame. Tamron sharper in the corners.
@f/8: Diffraction starts and IQ suffers compared to f/5.6 on both. Tamron sharper across the frame.
@100:
@f/4.0 (Tamron) & f/4.5 (GM): Tamron noticeably sharper with more contrast across the frame.
@f/5.6: Tamron still noticeably sharper with more contrast across the frame.
@f/8: I'll have to retry this as I believe there was camera shake that caused a decrease in sharpness in the Tamron. But as is, on a tripod, the GM's OSS provided a sharper image across the frame
@150: I'll have to retry this as every shot with the Tamron had a slight amount of movement detected. As such, the GM was better in every shot. I'm surprised, as it was tripod mounted with only a slight breeze. I'll try again tomorrow.
Regarding sun flare and ghosting: although the Tamron is much better than the 100-400GM, it is significantly worse than the Sigma 24-70. (and obviously the 35GM is great at controlling flare)
My overall initial impression is disappointingly that it probably won't work for me as a replacement for the 24-70/100-400 for a two-zoom backpacking landscape setup with the 16-35. The flare and ghosting is just too prominent for what I would want to use it for. I think it would be great for other applications, but sunrise/sunset landscapes is certainly not one of them.
**[Edited to add]** Now that I've slept and thought about it further, that initial disappointment is tampered a bit given that I must acknowledge that I likely had overly ambitious and unrealistic expectations/hope that an <$2k third party zoom would completely trounce a traditional 24-70 (my copy is excellent in its own right) as well as one of the best GM zooms. The fact that a lens with this focal range even trades blows and bests the 24-70 and 100-400 in some areas and at some focal lengths is itself quite impressive. Also, the sun flare/ghosting issue is actually quite well handled at wide aperture, so it may just be that I will have to dedicate f/16 sunstar shots to my 35GM. It may also turn out to actually be an ideal lens for my wife's uses, but I'm still torn on this lens and will probably change my mind several times within the return window between a 16-35GM/35-150 setup versus a holy trinity of GM (mk2) zooms.
Once I wrap up work today, I'll try to head back up the hill in brighter conditions, verify that my copy is centered, and redo the same tests with better light in triplicate to make sure that frames don't suffer from camera shake etc.
Re: Official: Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD (Model A058)
I forgot to first test whether the copy I received is centered, so I'll have to do that tomorrow. I'll also retest all of this at mid day to see whether my initial impressions are consistent with tomorrow's result. I went up the hill and took some comparison shots this evening against my Sigma 24-70DGDN, 35GM, and 100-400GM and have some initial first impressions about sharpness (though I'll test more tomorrow. Apologies that I don't have time right now to crop and upload everything, but I'll try to when I have time):
@35mm:
Obviously the 35GM is by far the best of the three lenses. The GM at f/2 is sharper than either zoom at any aperture (no surprise there).
@f/2.8: The 24-70DGDN and 35-150 appear equal in the center. The Sigma has slightly more noticeable microcontrast and detail in foliage at mid image. The Tamron is noticeable sharper and with more contrast in the corners.
@f/4: Both appear equal again. Sigma still has more contrast and detail mid frame. Tamron still sharper in far corners.
@f/5.6: The Sigma leads in the center and mid frame and ties the Tamron in the corners.
@f/8: Diffraction starts and IQ suffers compared to f/5.6 on both but appears to affect the Sigma more. The Tamron slightly edges out in the center and far corners and basically catches up in the mid frame.
@50mm:
@f/2.8: Sigma is sharper in the center and mid frame. Tamron noticeably sharper in the corners.
@f/4: Sigma still has just a bit more microcontrast in the center and mid frame, but the Tamron is catching up and still clearly sharper in the corners.
@f/5.6: Same as f/4 - Sigma stronger in the center and mid while Tamron is better in the corners.
@f/8: Just like at 35mm, diffraction starts and IQ suffers compared to f/5.6 on both but appears to affect the Sigma more and earlier. Tamron becomes sharper in the center and corners and matches mid frame.
@70mm:
@f/2.8: Both are equally sharp in the center. Tamron is sharper in mid frame and corners.
@f/4: Both equally sharp in the center. Tamron is sharper in mid frame and corners.
@f/5.6: Both are tied in the center and mid frame. Tamron sharper in the corners.
@f/8: Diffraction starts and IQ suffers compared to f/5.6 on both. Tamron sharper across the frame.
@100:
@f/4.0 (Tamron) & f/4.5 (GM): Tamron noticeably sharper with more contrast across the frame.
@f/5.6: Tamron still noticeably sharper with more contrast across the frame.
@f/8: I'll have to retry this as I believe there was camera shake that caused a decrease in sharpness in the Tamron. But as is, on a tripod, the GM's OSS provided a sharper image across the frame
@150: I'll have to retry this as every shot with the Tamron had a slight amount of movement detected. As such, the GM was better in every shot. I'm surprised, as it was tripod mounted with only a slight breeze. I'll try again tomorrow.
Regarding sun flare and ghosting: although the Tamron is much better than the 100-400GM, it is significantly worse than the Sigma 24-70. (and obviously the 35GM is great at controlling flare)
My overall initial impression is disappointingly that it probably won't work for me as a replacement for the 24-70/100-400 for a two-zoom backpacking landscape setup with the 16-35. The flare and ghosting is just too prominent for what I would want to use it for. I think it would be great for other applications, but sunrise/sunset landscapes is certainly not one of them.
**[Edited to add]** Now that I've slept and thought about it further, that initial disappointment is tampered a bit given that I must acknowledge that I likely had overly ambitious and unrealistic expectations/hope that an <$2k third party zoom would completely trounce a traditional 24-70 (my copy is excellent in its own right) as well as one of the best GM zooms. The fact that a lens with this focal range even trades blows and bests the 24-70 and 100-400 in some areas and at some focal lengths is itself quite impressive.
Once I wrap up work, I'll head back up the hill in brighter conditions, verify that my copy is centered, and redo the same tests with better light in triplicate to make sure that frames don't suffer from camera shake etc.
Re: Official: Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD (Model A058)
I forgot to first test whether the copy I received is centered, so I'll have to do that tomorrow. I'll also retest all of this at mid day to see whether my initial impressions are consistent with tomorrow's result. I went up the hill and took some comparison shots this evening against my Sigma 24-70DGDN, 35GM, and 100-400GM and have some initial first impressions about sharpness (though I'll test more tomorrow. Apologies that I don't have time right now to crop and upload everything, but I'll try to when I have time):
@35mm:
Obviously the 35GM is by far the best of the three lenses. The GM at f/2 is sharper than either zoom at any aperture (no surprise there).
@f/2.8: The 24-70DGDN and 35-150 appear equal in the center. The Sigma has slightly more noticeable microcontrast and detail in foliage at mid image. The Tamron is noticeable sharper and with more contrast in the corners.
@f/4: Both appear equal again. Sigma still has more contrast and detail mid frame. Tamron still sharper in far corners.
@f/5.6: The Sigma leads in the center and mid frame and ties the Tamron in the corners.
@f/8: Diffraction starts and IQ suffers compared to f/5.6 on both but appears to affect the Sigma more. The Tamron slightly edges out in the center and far corners and basically catches up in the mid frame.
@50mm:
@f/2.8: Sigma is sharper in the center and mid frame. Tamron noticeably sharper in the corners.
@f/4: Sigma still has just a bit more microcontrast in the center and mid frame, but the Tamron is catching up and still clearly sharper in the corners.
@f/5.6: Same as f/4 - Sigma stronger in the center and mid while Tamron is better in the corners.
@f/8: Just like at 35mm, diffraction starts and IQ suffers compared to f/5.6 on both but appears to affect the Sigma more and earlier. Tamron becomes sharper in the center and corners and matches mid frame.
@70mm:
@f/2.8: Both are equally sharp in the center. Tamron is sharper in mid frame and corners.
@f/4: Both equally sharp in the center. Tamron is sharper in mid frame and corners.
@f/5.6: Both are tied in the center and mid frame. Tamron sharper in the corners.
@f/8: Diffraction starts and IQ suffers compared to f/5.6 on both. Tamron sharper across the frame.
@100:
@f/4.0 (Tamron) & f/4.5 (GM): Tamron noticeably sharper with more contrast across the frame.
@f/5.6: Tamron still noticeably sharper with more contrast across the frame.
@f/8: I'll have to retry this as I believe there was camera shake that caused a decrease in sharpness in the Tamron. But as is, on a tripod, the GM's OSS provided a sharper image across the frame
@150: I'll have to retry this as every shot with the Tamron had a slight amount of movement detected. As such, the GM was better in every shot. I'm surprised, as it was tripod mounted with only a slight breeze. I'll try again tomorrow.
Regarding sun flare and ghosting: although the Tamron is much better than the 100-400GM, it is significantly worse than the Sigma 24-70. (and obviously the 35GM is great at controlling flare)
My overall initial impression is disappointingly that it probably won't work for me as a replacement for the 24-70/100-400 for a two-zoom backpacking landscape setup with the 16-35. The flare and ghosting is just too prominent for what I would want to use it for. I think it would be great for other applications, but sunrise/sunset landscapes is certainly not one of them.
Oct 28, 2021 at 09:15 PM
Previous versions of photosbyjaron's message #15750556 « Official: Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD (Model A058) »
