Re: Official: Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD (Model A058)
ruthenium wrote: j4nu wrote: ruthenium wrote: j4nu wrote:
Regarding trolling, the most important thing is that the truth always prevails.
No amount of lies can change that .
This set me wondering as to what is "the truth"? For many, the truth is what they want/choose to believe. Definitely, someone buying a very expensive lens may desperately want the glass to be on par with the top lenses out there. It is easy to be biased; this is human nature.
I looked at the images in the Marc Alhadeff’s Tamron 35-150mm post. There is nothing wrong with them. At 35mm F2 vs F5.6, the corners are softer as expected, but the F2 images are certainly useable. What caught my attention however was that outside the central zone, the image taken with the brighter aperture was noisier than the one closed down to F5.6. I guess this is a result of heavy vignetting at F2 (see the comparison below, in a corner).
Hmm, well the nice thing about the truth is that there is only one .
I agree though that what I said might seem a bit unclear, as there was a lot of discussion in this thread. I'll clarify:
by my previous comment, I meant only the blatant and ridiculous trolling attempts to discredit this lens by the "pr0" dex user...
I like to think I succeed at keeping an open mind, so I certainly didn't mean yours (or anyone else) comments about why one would prefer other lens over this one.
Some confusion and differences of opinions here might be due to Tamron's aggressive marketing the 35-150 as an all-in-one travel lens. It is from this point of view, one may start feeling uncomfortable about (1) the size and weight, and (2) why I would need the F2 when Mark Alhadeff noted "For optimum results use F5.6" (for non-portrait work). Someone already wondered (above) as to what this lens might have been if it had the constant F2.8 aperture. Furthermore, the price is confusing. Was it set to be on par with some Sony GM glass because the new lens is of the GM quality? Or, was it decided to be that high on the basis of the idea that this new Tamron lens can replace two other existing Tamron lenses and thus should priced as the two combined?
Haha , I think it's hard to use words " truth" and "marketing" in one sentence, so I won't comment on the latter as it does not impact in any way my planned usage of the lens.
As for your questions, they are all good points (and interesting at that), but we can only speculate. I've already said what I think about the choices made by Tamron and the best usecase I see for this lens.
Personally, I think there's little to no point in paying the "extra" in weight and price (and loss of wide end), if you're not going to be shooting at large apertures often. Well, *maybe* if you like the range, which saves you from swapping lenses or using multiple bodies.
The price is what it is, because (again, that's my point of view) it's a unique lens due to its combination of ~4x zoom range starting from "normal wide" up to medium(?) tele regions. If it wasn't that fast or the range was more "standard", the Tamron would simply not be able to ask so much for it . That's also why I see it as a more "interesting" choice than the new 70-200GMII (which on the other hand will be the choice for pros I presume).
To me, this is a lens that could even sway some people from RF's 28-70 f2 appeal...
Re: Official: Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD (Model A058)
ruthenium wrote: j4nu wrote: ruthenium wrote: j4nu wrote:
Regarding trolling, the most important thing is that the truth always prevails.
No amount of lies can change that .
This set me wondering as to what is "the truth"? For many, the truth is what they want/choose to believe. Definitely, someone buying a very expensive lens may desperately want the glass to be on par with the top lenses out there. It is easy to be biased; this is human nature.
I looked at the images in the Marc Alhadeff’s Tamron 35-150mm post. There is nothing wrong with them. At 35mm F2 vs F5.6, the corners are softer as expected, but the F2 images are certainly useable. What caught my attention however was that outside the central zone, the image taken with the brighter aperture was noisier than the one closed down to F5.6. I guess this is a result of heavy vignetting at F2 (see the comparison below, in a corner).
Hmm, well the nice thing about the truth is that there is only one .
I agree though that what I said might seem a bit unclear, as there was a lot of discussion in this thread. I'll clarify:
by my previous comment, I meant only the blatant and ridiculous trolling attempts to discredit this lens by the "pr0" dex user...
I like to think I succeed at keeping an open mind, so I certainly didn't mean yours (or anyone else) comments about why one would prefer other lens over this one.
Some confusion and differences of opinions here might be due to Tamron's aggressive marketing the 35-150 as an all-in-one travel lens. It is from this point of view, one may start feeling uncomfortable about (1) the size and weight, and (2) why I would need the F2 when Mark Alhadeff noted "For optimum results use F5.6" (for non-portrait work). Someone already wondered (above) as to what this lens might have been if it had the constant F2.8 aperture. Furthermore, the price is confusing. Was it set to be on par with some Sony GM glass because the new lens is of the GM quality? Or, was it decided to be that high on the basis of the idea that this new Tamron lens can replace two other existing Tamron lenses and thus should priced as the two combined?
Haha , I think it's hard to use words " truth" and "marketing" in one sentence, so I won't comment on the latter as it does not impact in any way my planned usage of the lens.
As for your questions, they are all good points (and interesting at that), but we can only speculate. I've already said what I think about the choices made by Tamron and the best usecase I see for this lens.
Personally, I think there's little to no point in paying the "extra" in weight and price (and loss of wide end), if you're not going to be shooting at large apertures often. Well, *maybe* if you like the range, which saves you from swapping lenses or using multiple bodies.
The price is what it is, because (again, that's my point of view) it's a unique lens due to its combination of ~4x zoom range starting from "normal wide" up to medium(?) tele regions. If it wasn't that fast or the range was more "standard", the Tamron would simply not be able to ask so much for it . That's also why I see it as a more "interesting" choice than the new 70-200GMII.
To me, this is a lens that could even sway some people from RF's 28-70 f2 appeal...
Nov 03, 2021 at 08:54 AM
Previous versions of j4nu's message #15756477 « Official: Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD (Model A058) »
.
.