Re: Official: Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD (Model A058)
ruthenium wrote:
I think this is perfectly normal for a lens to show a visible improvement when stopping 1 - 2 stops from the widest aperture. Take one of the best primes, e.g. the 35mm F1.4 GM, and you should see a major improvement in image quality by F2.8. It might be simply unrealistic to expect a 35-150 mm zoom to exhibit excellent sharpness at 150 mm when wide open. From my reading, I understand that such zooms are generally expected to be optically somewhat weak at the long end. I remember, for example, reading how Roger Cicala was surprised by the (unexpected) sharpness of the 24-105 mm F4 G lens at 105 mm. There need to be more testing done at the 150 mm end. I am thinking about ordering this Tamron lens, and I would not be alarmed should I find that the lens must be closed to F5.6 at 150 mm for the best performance for landscapes. For portraits at 150 mm, which tend to fill the frame, the difference between F2.8 and 5.6 may not be visible, or can be insignificant.
That's true, however we're talking here about a specific situation, specific lens. Obviously almost all lenses show some improvment when stopping down 1-2 stops from the widest aperture. However in this case, that haze isn't normal it's either a dud lens copy or he was very unlucky and cought heat distortion (since his shoots at home look much better at F2.8). I don't see any other reasonable explanation.
j4nu wrote:
The thing about Marc's testing approach is that it's very subjective (he also uses a rather close bookshelf for this, no? ), which not always lead to consistent (with others) results, e.g. AFAIR 14-24DN is "only" very good according to him. I enjoy his reviews but that part makes me less of a fan .
He labels them "very good" or "excellent", but doesn't show the difference between the two. It would be interesting to see the degradation going from 61MP to 50MP, which I honestly doubt is that big of a jump.
I'll gladly test the Tamron against 100-400GM on the long end and against 24-70DN in the mid range (both marked as "excellent"), if I ever get one .
I'm not really a fan of Marc tests. I have a respect for the work he puts in it however for me - when i test my lenses very extensively i often have different results than him and much closer to results of people like Dustin Abbot which i like to watch.
The point in that comment using Marcs metric was to emphasize that sensor resolution matters in lens testing. There is quite a big difference in how much flaws in a lens you will see on 24 Mpix camera vs 61 Mpix camera or even 42 Mpix. Lens X can be (for the sake of consistency) excelent on A7 III a cross the frame but "only" very good at A7R IV. As for your point - yes the difference in A1 vs A7R IV resolution in lens testing is very small (you can spot it in pixel peeping mode with certain lenses but in a real world images unless you print in billboard size there will be no difference).
zeitlos wrote:
After some testing, I can say that all my findings in the charts (the good, the bad) are mirrored in the distant shots I took. So I wouldn't generally say that charts don't work. At least for now I've come to the same conclusions.
Your copy of the lens is very good, nothing really to complain here.
Re: Official: Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD (Model A058)
ruthenium wrote:
I think this is perfectly normal for a lens to show a visible improvement when stopping 1 - 2 stops from the widest aperture. Take one of the best primes, e.g. the 35mm F1.4 GM, and you should see a major improvement in image quality by F2.8. It might be simply unrealistic to expect a 35-150 mm zoom to exhibit excellent sharpness at 150 mm when wide open. From my reading, I understand that such zooms are generally expected to be optically somewhat weak at the long end. I remember, for example, reading how Roger Cicala was surprised by the (unexpected) sharpness of the 24-105 mm F4 G lens at 105 mm. There need to be more testing done at the 150 mm end. I am thinking about ordering this Tamron lens, and I would not be alarmed should I find that the lens must be closed to F5.6 at 150 mm for the best performance for landscapes. For portraits at 150 mm, which tend to fill the frame, the difference between F2.8 and 5.6 may not be visible, or can be insignificant.
That's true, however we're talking here about a specific situation, specific lens. Obviously almost all lenses show some improvment when stopping down 1-2 stops from the widest aperture. However in this case, that haze isn't normal it's either a dud lens copy or he was very unlucky and cought heat distortion (since his shoots at home look much better at F2.8). I don't see any other reasonable explanation.
j4nu wrote:
The thing about Marc's testing approach is that it's very subjective (he also uses a rather close bookshelf for this, no? ), which not always lead to consistent (with others) results, e.g. AFAIR 14-24DN is "only" very good according to him. I enjoy his reviews but that part makes me less of a fan .
He labels them "very good" or "excellent", but doesn't show the difference between the two. It would be interesting to see the degradation going from 61MP to 50MP, which I honestly doubt is that big of a jump.
I'll gladly test the Tamron against 100-400GM on the long end and against 24-70DN in the mid range (both marked as "excellent"), if I ever get one .
I'm not really a fan of Marc tests. I have a respect for the work he puts in it however for me - when i test my lenses very extensively i often have different results than him and much closer to results of people like Dustin Abbot which i like to watch.
The point in that comment using Marcs metric was to emphasize that sensor resolution matters in lens testing. There is quite a big difference in how much flaws in a lens you will see on 24 Mpix camera vs 61 Mpix camera or even 42 Mpix. Lens X can be (for the sake of consistency) excelent on A7 III a cross the frame but "only" very good at A7R IV. As for your point yest the difference in A1 vs A7R IV resolution in lens testing is very small (you can spot it in pixel peeping mode with certain lenses but in a real world images unless you print in billboard size there will be no difference).
zeitlos wrote:
After some testing, I can say that all my findings in the charts (the good, the bad) are mirrored in the distant shots I took. So I wouldn't generally say that charts don't work. At least for now I've come to the same conclusions.
Your copy of the lens is very good, nothing really to complain here.
Nov 06, 2021 at 12:27 PM
Previous versions of Immortal's message #15759936 « Official: Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD (Model A058) »
.