The Tamron lacks stabilization and the stabilization on the 70-200 is insanely good and important for video if you wann shoot handheld. This alone makes the 70-200 the better choice in my use case. For photography alone I could agree with you.
I wish more of these reviews would take into account video shooters. For photography on a budget it's almost a nobrainer to get the tamron and save some bucks for an even longer focal while still getting a 2.8 aperture. But for video shooters, stabilization above 70mm is a must have (unless you have gimbal hands). And let's not get into focus breathing. Also, this review doesn't mention it, but the sony 70-200 f4 II is out at the same price as the 2.8 I (and it does macro), so it's worth considering if you have the money. It also makes the second hand market for the f4 I very affordable, and you can snatch it in pretty good condition around $700.
I opted not to buy a 70-200/2.8 when I moved to Sony and instead went with the Sigma 100-400 DG DN lens. Best decision ever, especially for the $750 price I paid for mine. The 35-150 is a nice lens but I didn't want *less* reach, and cropping a 150mm image to approximate a 200mm image will cost you 44% of your pixels. That might be okay with a 60mp camera but not with 24mp.
The Tamron 50 400 is now my go to Lens and covers all the focal lengths for my woodland photography. True is not as fast but it’s of no consequence to me😊👍
I borrowed that lens from Tamron to test for a few weeks and loved it. I have the 150-500 already but loved the images I got from the 50-400 a lot more. It is a much more versetile and a lighter lens too.
Tamron 50-400 is a really sensible lens. My issue is that I already own a Sigma 150-600 that I still sometimes wish had even longer reach when photographing small birds. The 35-150 makes the most sense to complement my "Bazooka" as well as a 20mm prime for the wide end. Several people mentioning the rather poor AF performance under different videos have got me a bit worried though. Weight is not an issue at all as I don't really feel the weight of the Canon 70-200 2.8 IS Mk1 I'm currently using, which is heavier still. The Samyang is a more sensible option at less than 1200 Euros brand new compared to 1600-1750 for the Tamron. The Sony 70-200 f4 Mark 1 is also priced extremely well right now at 800 euro after cashback. But f4 is too dim for the concerts I've been shooting lately. Even 2.8 is pushing it, I've had much better IQ results with the 85mm 1.8 and a 35mm 1.8. Decisions, decisions and yet another money pit that isn't making any money. 😁
The 70-200GM2 is superior when it comes to focus shift when zooming.. I have had 2 versions of the 35-150 now, and they are both sold again.. When zooming the Tamron 35-150 completely lose focus on moving subjects. So it's a great lens for static subjects..
Benefit of the Sony 70-200 over all the other zooms is the internal zoom. That says everything. Internal zoom and focus. That means the lens does not extend. There is no weight shift as the lens is zoomed in and out. It is also not very heavy. Couple this lens with the Sony 200-600 (also sports internal zoom), you will have an unbeatable combo. The cost of the Sony 70-200 f4 is well worth it.
As always, use case matters. For someone like me, this 35-150 would be a complete waste of money because I'd never take it out due to its size. Admittedly though, I typically don't use lenses longer than about 75-85mm so a wide zoom or prime plus a long prime will be a fraction of the size & weight of any long lens.
I don’t think so !! You forgot that cropping simply cuts out a portion of the photo. It doesn’t make the background tighter. I’ve been working with the Tamron 35-150mm f/2-2.8 for over a year, and I decided to switch to the Sony 70-200mm f/2.8 Mark II for exactly that reason - I want the background to be tighter.
I have this lens and the new 20-40 as an alternative to the “holy trinity”. It’s very versatile for street photography and weight is not a problem (many 24-70 are even heavier), but its bulkiness will certainly get people alerted that they’re being shot😂
I've had this fantastic lens for a few months now and I confirm everything: for me it is one of the best zoom lenses ever made: yes, the weight in the long run takes its toll, and it's not a compact zoom, but it has unbeatable versatility, coupled with superlative optical quality when you consider the focal range! I really recommend it to everyone!
in crop mode, the 24-105 is a 35-150. they are everywhere in the secondhand market now. if you live in a bright country, f2 is not useable. VND is a pain shooting into the sun.
I totally support your assessment. I made the same consideration on my DSLR, with the Tamron 35-150mm f/2.8-4 Di VC OSD. While it may not have a constant aperture of f/2.8 (or the f/2-2.8 aperture of this mirrorless version), it is a tack sharp lens along the whole zoom range, and it's smaller and holds half the weight of an average 70-200mm f/2.8. I like the zoom range better as well, giving me more on the wide end, although less on the tele end. But I wasn't using the 150-200mm end that much anyway.
Thank you for this . This lens is one of the main reason why I switched to the Sony FF body over all the other FF camera manufactures. When paired with the new Sony A7RV with 8-stop IBIS, the 60MP FF with the sharp Over Sampling 26MP APS-C images that is sharper than the 33MP image from the A7IV I had while providing incredible flexibilities that covers most of my needs. Tamron 35-150mm f/2.0-f/2.8 focal range including in APS-C mode: @ f/2.0: 35mm-39mm (APS-C range: 52.5mm - 58.5mm / Total available range: 35mm - 58.5mm) @ f/2.2: 40mm-59mm (APS-C range: 60.0mm - 88.5mm / Total available range: 40mm - 88.5mm) @ f/2.5: 60mm-79mm (APS-C range: 90.0mm - 118.0mm / Total available range: 60mm - 118.0mm) @ f/2.8: 80mm-150mm (APS-C range: 120.0mm- 225.0mm / Total available range: 80mm - 225.0mm) I rather carry this heavier lens on the camera body than have to miss precious moments during lens swap and still have to deal with increasing frequency of sensor cleaning and dust getting into the lenses while still have to carry the weight of the extra lenses on a much larger and heavier camera bag.
The 35-150 f2-2.8 weighs 1170 gm - while there 28-200 mm f2.8-5.6 is only 580 gm. If you can live with less brightness, and or you want to use it for several hours at a time, the 28-200 seems a better option. That’s if it’s of similar sharpness to the 35-150 - has anyone compared the two?
I have the 28-200. It's a super nice lens that I'll probably never sell (even if I also have the 50-400). I mostly shoot landscapes and think it's plenty sharp enough for my needs. Have no experience with the 35-150 but I would guess that lens is at another level (faster, sharper). But for my needs the 28-200 is the better option since it's sharp enough, and a lot smaller and lighter.
70-200 never appealed to me. Briefly owned the OG 70-200 GM and ended up selling it because I rarely used it, and my 70-300G has been sadly collecting dust for a few years now. For what I shoot, if I want to do wildlife, or "compressed" telephoto landscapes, I reach for the 100-400. If I want to blow out the background or do low-light street photography I love the 135 GM. Anything wider than that, while I have the Sigma 24-70, I don't use it much anymore and opt to shoot with fast primes. Usually some combo of the RIV and RIII and 24 GM, 50 G and 135 GM.
I'll stick to the lenses I have: the Sony 35mm 1.8 & the Tamron 70-180mm. I think cost & weight end up comparable, and they cover the same focal & aperture range, but having to always carry that beast of a 35-150 just wouldn't work for me.
How’s your lens? My 70-180 gets about 60-80% in focus shots but that 20% are always the shots I wanted. Leaning towards the Sony. I even sent it in to Tamron and they said all was good but still adjusted it just in case
Definitely relatable I'm a Sony shooter as well. Lens I use so far is: Sony 50MM f/1.8 oss, Sony 35MM f/1.8 oss, Tamron 17-70, Sony G 70-350 f/4.5 oss Sony G 90MM f/2.8 oss So I can definitely relate when it comes to investing in a lens system and being just a little bit picky about picking up a new one. But I do hope I can bring some life into my lens with the new a6700
@@bensabee Hm, definitely a lot better than that, but I have to say I don't really stress the AF - mainly static subjects. Could also be the body, mine is the A7iii.
The funny thing is, Tamron can give us high quality 35-150 f2-2.8 for reasonable cost yet Canon's pricing the 24-105 2.8 at roughly 4000 Euros and Nikon/Sony can't even release a competitor to either of those, at whatever price....yet. P.S. A 24-70 2.8 and a 100-500 would be a great match. Where the fast 35-150 instantly becomes a magic bullet is events like the symphony concerts I started attending every other week. 35-150 covers all of the different focal distances I need and it's plenty fast.
The 35-150 really is such a fantastic lens. It's so versatile. My whole review of it is all about how it's a lens to replace the holy trinity. Basically 2 lenses in 1
I am thinking about letting go of my 28-75 G2 and the 70-180 in favor of this lens. I do landscapes and this lens will cut down on lens swaps and dust issues in the field.
@@StefanMalloch I have the 17-28 and thinking of switching to 20-40 as well. I think tie 20-40 and 35-150 combo will cover 95% of what I photograph. BTW, I had the 20-40 on loan too from Tamron and found it more versatile than my 17-28.
It has to be significantly cheaper than the Tamron for me to go for the Samyang. Even if it is cheaper, Tamron's 6-year warranty would make me go for the Tamron. BTW, the rumors have the Samyang as a 35-150 f2-2.8 and the lens looks awful lot like the Tamron unless the images are fake!
@@bioliv1 I saw a lighter 35-150 f2.8 on the Tamron rumored lens list. I think they are responding to people wanting a smaller 35-150. We shall see what develops in the next few months. Competition is great.
Thanks for the video. As an APS-C hobbyist, I considered this lens to pair with my A6600 and FX30. 35mm 2.0 didn't make any major difference to me because there're tons of affordable options for APS-C cameras. So I decided to go with Tamron 70-180mm instead because of its weight and size. Heavy lenses kill the fun for me. And the price was perfect for my hobby expenses just around $900.
When I bought my A7III back in 2019, I started with the Sony G 24-105. I wanted to shoot a concert and rented the GM 70-200 to try, and eventually bought a used copy. I still have it, but I rarely use it now, as it has essentially been replaced by the GM 100-400; I really need the reach. The Tamron is interesting for sure; but wider but with a bit more telephoto is what I really want. Say a 20/24 to 120/150 with the same aperture 2.0-2.8 aperture.
I like the fact you don't mentioned one thing important and that is TAMRON LENS produce a reddish color VS Sony lens colors are neutral. Make sure you mention that on your next video.
Now I have this lens for several months,and it became my go to lens.I have a Sony a1 and a Sony a7rv,this lens always on my Sony a7rv.On my Sony a1 is a Sony 600mm f4.When I want to go lightweight I pair my Sony a1 with a Tamron 150-500mm.
That lens looks fantastic but there are two things that stop me from buying it: 1. I have an outstanding 35mm prime lens. 2. I prefer big and heavy lenses to zoom more.
@@StefanMalloch having both, I’m finding the 50-400 is just so useful and I’m using it more. Debating selling the 100-400 and getting the 70-200GMii as I already have the 1.4tc giving me a contrasting 100-280f4.
A nice video, but not entirely true. I love to shoot concerts, portraits, and weddings. The fast F2.8 matters in concerts and weddings. With a nice seat or depending where you stand, fast 2.8 70-200 beats out all the other ones. Maybe next time also have a more dedicated and detailed part of the video explaining when, why, who might need a faster lens.
I just picked up a new set up last week, a7RV with the Sony 70-200 2.8 Mark 2 and maybe it’s because I came from using the a6100 with the Sigma 24-70 2.8, this lens is absolutely amazing, I can’t find a flaw with it yet. Not to mention it’s an internal zoom, so it works great with gimbals and cuts that chance of get dust or inside of the lens.
I planned to get Sony A7RV camera, Sony 14mm F1.8 and Tamron 50-400mm F4.5-6.3 lenses and also Panasonic HC-X1500 25-600mm camcorder as my setup! Hope I will get them! But questions, is there a way to set picture profile for each of the lenses to make the result consistent because I think Tamron is slightly golden tone and Sony is slightly cooler tone? Any recommendations to reach 3-5:1 ultra macro on the tele lens? How about macro and even further tele attachment for the HC-X1500 camcorder?
Yeap,...I'm waiting for this week to see what sigma will launch, if another 70-200 I go this tamron, better for them to come out with a similar lens,..with oss, or maybe a 24-105 2.8...also with oss...
For me 35-150mm has managed to push 70-180mm off the camera, thanks to the extra width. I don't feel the loss on the long end that much, but the zoom ring is painful with its stiffness and roughness - I actually got red fingers from all that rubbing while shooting last week, never happened with 70-180mm... I wish the ring itself was like on 70-180mm, gentle and soft.
I have the E-mount Tamron 17-28... and a Sony 70-400 (A-mount)... no zoom in-between (just a bunch of G35/1.4, ZA50/1.4, 85/2.8 and ZA135/1.8 from my A-mount days), but the Tamron 35-150 seems like a nice contender to make me sell the 70-400, get the Sony 200-600 (because of the internal zoom) and throw the Tamron 35-150 as the new in-between lens.
For some people the 35-150mm lens is going to be pretty heavy. Since I also have the Canon R7 with my A7iv I chose the ef200mm f2.8L USM ll lens which I adapt to both cameras. It's only about 780grams plus the adapter and I get about four different focal lengths with and without the 1.4x teleconverter on the two cameras all in a lightweight package. I have several other prime lenses to cover other focal lengths.
I would love to see the comparison of these two in term of sharpess in particular. I could not have found anywhere and you might be the first one. Thanks
I have a Sony A9 and shoot basketball with my Sony 70-200mm 2.8 and a 28-75mm 2.8. Would you sell both lens and buy this lens or buy a second body and have two cameras to shoot basketball?
I prefer zooms with a more limited range...otherwise...primes. I agree with you about the 70-200mm ... how many folks have a 70mm prime? Even a 200mm...I know they have made them...but sparsely. Definitely an odd duck zoom range...never understood the appeal. I think this new Tam will sell...it's a nice hobby lens.
I had the Canon version of this (f/2.8-4), loved it and used it extensively so much so that I was even thinking of keeping a 6D body just for this lens when I was switching to Sony 4 years ago. But, it didn’t pan out and I sold it. Sony version (F/2-2.8) is very impressive but I just can’t deal with the weight and size. If I were a studio or even a landscape shooter, then maybe, but doing mostly doc/street/events, the weight is a deal breaker for me. I wish they had a f/4 version that’s half the weight/size.
look into the 28-200 f2.8-5.6; while its a 5.6 in the long end its probably gonna meet your weight and range requirements and the aperture range isn't so bad
@@vipersrt30 thank you. That lens has been on my radar for a while. I might just rent it and see how it goes. Right now I am threading along with the Tamron 70-180/2.8 but obviously it’s not wide enough for a do-it-all lens, and I end up also carrying a 24-70.
Ya it wouldn't be my first recommendation for aps-c. The 70-350 is great but in another class. Sounds like we might see some high end aps-c cameras and lenses in the near future. Fingers crossed.
Thing is I already have a 200-600 so a 70-200 would match that perfectly although I can't afford the 70-200 sony so I'd end up with the tamron 70-180. I think I'll wait a bit and maybe sigma or someone comes out with a 70-200
15 frames/sec is just not enough to do high speed sports photography. That's the reason sports photography did not exist before the debut of the A1 in 2021.
Yes the Tamron 28-200 is definitly the king of value and I can easily recommend this lens to anyone. This lens is optically very close (on some occasions even better) to both the Sony FE 24-105 F4 and FE 70-200 F4. Big drawback is the lack of VC though if Tamron can manage to get this in a G2 version and improve contrast a little it would be awesome (probably the greatest standerd zoomlens of all time). However these 35-150 F2-2.8 and 70-200 2.8 are different type of animals these are more specialist tools. To me the 35-150 excels in portraits & close-ups while the GM 70-200 2.8 (II) for example is more allround and a great choise for sports/action photography.
Not going to bother watching this, after reading the title of your video, sorry... It's misguiding people away from the fundamentals of what lenses are about, especially amateurs.
![CHILE vs. BRASIL [1-2] | RESUMEN | ELIMINATORIAS SUDAMERICANAS | FECHA 9](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/5ObJt_71AYc/mqdefault.jpg)
The Tamron lacks stabilization and the stabilization on the 70-200 is insanely good and important for video if you wann shoot handheld. This alone makes the 70-200 the better choice in my use case. For photography alone I could agree with you.
I wish more of these reviews would take into account video shooters. For photography on a budget it's almost a nobrainer to get the tamron and save some bucks for an even longer focal while still getting a 2.8 aperture. But for video shooters, stabilization above 70mm is a must have (unless you have gimbal hands). And let's not get into focus breathing.
Also, this review doesn't mention it, but the sony 70-200 f4 II is out at the same price as the 2.8 I (and it does macro), so it's worth considering if you have the money. It also makes the second hand market for the f4 I very affordable, and you can snatch it in pretty good condition around $700.
I opted not to buy a 70-200/2.8 when I moved to Sony and instead went with the Sigma 100-400 DG DN lens. Best decision ever, especially for the $750 price I paid for mine. The 35-150 is a nice lens but I didn't want *less* reach, and cropping a 150mm image to approximate a 200mm image will cost you 44% of your pixels. That might be okay with a 60mp camera but not with 24mp.
the issue is that if you shoot indoors like me the aperture is just not wide enough
I just bought the 70200gmii and I am so in love with it. Extremely fast and sharp. Zero regrets. Found a good price on a brand new open box.
Is he telling people not to buy it because it doesn’t work for him? That does not mean it wont work for anyone else
The Tamron 50 400 is now my go to Lens and covers all the focal lengths for my woodland photography. True is not as fast but it’s of no consequence to me😊👍
I borrowed that lens from Tamron to test for a few weeks and loved it. I have the 150-500 already but loved the images I got from the 50-400 a lot more. It is a much more versetile and a lighter lens too.
Fantastic lens! Specially after the firmware
Tamron 50-400 is a really sensible lens. My issue is that I already own a Sigma 150-600 that I still sometimes wish had even longer reach when photographing small birds. The 35-150 makes the most sense to complement my "Bazooka" as well as a 20mm prime for the wide end. Several people mentioning the rather poor AF performance under different videos have got me a bit worried though. Weight is not an issue at all as I don't really feel the weight of the Canon 70-200 2.8 IS Mk1 I'm currently using, which is heavier still. The Samyang is a more sensible option at less than 1200 Euros brand new compared to 1600-1750 for the Tamron. The Sony 70-200 f4 Mark 1 is also priced extremely well right now at 800 euro after cashback. But f4 is too dim for the concerts I've been shooting lately. Even 2.8 is pushing it, I've had much better IQ results with the 85mm 1.8 and a 35mm 1.8. Decisions, decisions and yet another money pit that isn't making any money. 😁
The 70-200GM2 is superior when it comes to focus shift when zooming.. I have had 2 versions of the 35-150 now, and they are both sold again.. When zooming the Tamron 35-150 completely lose focus on moving subjects. So it's a great lens for static subjects..
I see so its good for still subjects but not moving
Sorry to hear about your experiences. My copy of the 35-150 focuses perfectly in all situations. Glad the 70-200GM is working for you!
@@quirkworks4076 try to keep focus when zooming..
@@hestkjaerwhich camera are you using?
@@NurJesus A1, 7III and 7IV
Benefit of the Sony 70-200 over all the other zooms is the internal zoom. That says everything. Internal zoom and focus. That means the lens does not extend. There is no weight shift as the lens is zoomed in and out. It is also not very heavy. Couple this lens with the Sony 200-600 (also sports internal zoom), you will have an unbeatable combo. The cost of the Sony 70-200 f4 is well worth it.
As always, use case matters. For someone like me, this 35-150 would be a complete waste of money because I'd never take it out due to its size. Admittedly though, I typically don't use lenses longer than about 75-85mm so a wide zoom or prime plus a long prime will be a fraction of the size & weight of any long lens.
I don’t think so !!
You forgot that cropping simply cuts out a portion of the photo. It doesn’t make the background tighter. I’ve been working with the Tamron 35-150mm f/2-2.8 for over a year, and I decided to switch to the Sony 70-200mm f/2.8 Mark II for exactly that reason - I want the background to be tighter.
I have this lens and the new 20-40 as an alternative to the “holy trinity”. It’s very versatile for street photography and weight is not a problem (many 24-70 are even heavier), but its bulkiness will certainly get people alerted that they’re being shot😂
I've had this fantastic lens for a few months now and I confirm everything: for me it is one of the best zoom lenses ever made: yes, the weight in the long run takes its toll, and it's not a compact zoom, but it has unbeatable versatility, coupled with superlative optical quality when you consider the focal range! I really recommend it to everyone!
Got tired of the size and weight of my bag. Swapped A7IV for A6700 and an 11mm lens.
Busy working out what lenses to use for weddings
I always travel with my tamron 28-200. Amazing tool
in crop mode, the 24-105 is a 35-150. they are everywhere in the secondhand market now.
if you live in a bright country, f2 is not useable. VND is a pain shooting into the sun.
I totally support your assessment. I made the same consideration on my DSLR, with the Tamron 35-150mm f/2.8-4 Di VC OSD. While it may not have a constant aperture of f/2.8 (or the f/2-2.8 aperture of this mirrorless version), it is a tack sharp lens along the whole zoom range, and it's smaller and holds half the weight of an average 70-200mm f/2.8. I like the zoom range better as well, giving me more on the wide end, although less on the tele end. But I wasn't using the 150-200mm end that much anyway.
Thank you for this . This lens is one of the main reason why I switched to the Sony FF body over all the other FF camera manufactures. When paired with the new Sony A7RV with 8-stop IBIS, the 60MP FF with the sharp Over Sampling 26MP APS-C images that is sharper than the 33MP image from the A7IV I had while providing incredible flexibilities that covers most of my needs.
Tamron 35-150mm f/2.0-f/2.8 focal range including in APS-C mode:
@ f/2.0: 35mm-39mm (APS-C range: 52.5mm - 58.5mm / Total available range: 35mm - 58.5mm)
@ f/2.2: 40mm-59mm (APS-C range: 60.0mm - 88.5mm / Total available range: 40mm - 88.5mm)
@ f/2.5: 60mm-79mm (APS-C range: 90.0mm - 118.0mm / Total available range: 60mm - 118.0mm)
@ f/2.8: 80mm-150mm (APS-C range: 120.0mm- 225.0mm / Total available range: 80mm - 225.0mm)
I rather carry this heavier lens on the camera body than have to miss precious moments during lens swap and still have to deal with increasing frequency of sensor cleaning and dust getting into the lenses while still have to carry the weight of the extra lenses on a much larger and heavier camera bag.
The 35-150 f2-2.8 weighs 1170 gm - while there 28-200 mm f2.8-5.6 is only 580 gm. If you can live with less brightness, and or you want to use it for several hours at a time, the 28-200 seems a better option.
That’s if it’s of similar sharpness to the 35-150 - has anyone compared the two?
I have the 28-200. It's a super nice lens that I'll probably never sell (even if I also have the 50-400). I mostly shoot landscapes and think it's plenty sharp enough for my needs. Have no experience with the 35-150 but I would guess that lens is at another level (faster, sharper). But for my needs the 28-200 is the better option since it's sharp enough, and a lot smaller and lighter.
70-200 never appealed to me. Briefly owned the OG 70-200 GM and ended up selling it because I rarely used it, and my 70-300G has been sadly collecting dust for a few years now. For what I shoot, if I want to do wildlife, or "compressed" telephoto landscapes, I reach for the 100-400. If I want to blow out the background or do low-light street photography I love the 135 GM. Anything wider than that, while I have the Sigma 24-70, I don't use it much anymore and opt to shoot with fast primes. Usually some combo of the RIV and RIII and 24 GM, 50 G and 135 GM.
35-year pro shooter. The Tamron 35-150 is one of the best lenses I’ve ever owned (and boy am I a lens addict).
But image stabilization?😮
I'll stick to the lenses I have: the Sony 35mm 1.8 & the Tamron 70-180mm. I think cost & weight end up comparable, and they cover the same focal & aperture range, but having to always carry that beast of a 35-150 just wouldn't work for me.
How’s your lens? My 70-180 gets about 60-80% in focus shots but that 20% are always the shots I wanted. Leaning towards the Sony. I even sent it in to Tamron and they said all was good but still adjusted it just in case
Definitely relatable I'm a Sony shooter as well. Lens I use so far is:
Sony 50MM f/1.8 oss,
Sony 35MM f/1.8 oss,
Tamron 17-70,
Sony G 70-350 f/4.5 oss
Sony G 90MM f/2.8 oss
So I can definitely relate when it comes to investing in a lens system and being just a little bit picky about picking up a new one.
But I do hope I can bring some life into my lens with the new a6700
@@bensabee Hm, definitely a lot better than that, but I have to say I don't really stress the AF - mainly static subjects. Could also be the body, mine is the A7iii.
Love that lens. It’s excellent. So versatile. I use it for gig or concert photography and it’s brilliant for it and I get great results.
I was thinking you would say 70-180. But I 100% agree with you. And I never thought this could be so versatile before watching this. Thanks.
The funny thing is, Tamron can give us high quality 35-150 f2-2.8 for reasonable cost yet Canon's pricing the 24-105 2.8 at roughly 4000 Euros and Nikon/Sony can't even release a competitor to either of those, at whatever price....yet.
P.S. A 24-70 2.8 and a 100-500 would be a great match. Where the fast 35-150 instantly becomes a magic bullet is events like the symphony concerts I started attending every other week. 35-150 covers all of the different focal distances I need and it's plenty fast.
The 35-150 really is such a fantastic lens. It's so versatile. My whole review of it is all about how it's a lens to replace the holy trinity. Basically 2 lenses in 1
I am thinking about letting go of my 28-75 G2 and the 70-180 in favor of this lens. I do landscapes and this lens will cut down on lens swaps and dust issues in the field.
@@boristahmasian9604 I did. 0 Regrets. The 20-40 compliments it beautifully.
@@StefanMalloch I've got the 20-40 pair with mine as well!
@@StefanMalloch I have the 17-28 and thinking of switching to 20-40 as well. I think tie 20-40 and 35-150 combo will cover 95% of what I photograph. BTW, I had the 20-40 on loan too from Tamron and found it more versatile than my 17-28.
I'll get the Samyang 35-150 f/2.8-4, if the rumors are true.
It has to be significantly cheaper than the Tamron for me to go for the Samyang. Even if it is cheaper, Tamron's 6-year warranty would make me go for the Tamron. BTW, the rumors have the Samyang as a 35-150 f2-2.8 and the lens looks awful lot like the Tamron unless the images are fake!
@@boristahmasian9604 If they want to compete the lens needs to be smaller and lighter, so I think they better make it a f/2.8-4.
@@bioliv1 I saw a lighter 35-150 f2.8 on the Tamron rumored lens list. I think they are responding to people wanting a smaller 35-150. We shall see what develops in the next few months. Competition is great.
@@boristahmasian9604 Let's hope so!!!!!
What are the rumours? Please share
My always on lens. Fantastic versatile and of high quality in built picture quality. 5 years guarantee in Europe!
Thanks for the video. As an APS-C hobbyist, I considered this lens to pair with my A6600 and FX30. 35mm 2.0 didn't make any major difference to me because there're tons of affordable options for APS-C cameras. So I decided to go with Tamron 70-180mm instead because of its weight and size. Heavy lenses kill the fun for me. And the price was perfect for my hobby expenses just around $900.
When I bought my A7III back in 2019, I started with the Sony G 24-105. I wanted to shoot a concert and rented the GM 70-200 to try, and eventually bought a used copy. I still have it, but I rarely use it now, as it has essentially been replaced by the GM 100-400; I really need the reach.
The Tamron is interesting for sure; but wider but with a bit more telephoto is what I really want. Say a 20/24 to 120/150 with the same aperture 2.0-2.8 aperture.
I like the fact you don't mentioned one thing important and that is TAMRON LENS produce a reddish color VS Sony lens colors are neutral. Make sure you mention that on your next video.
Now I have this lens for several months,and it became my go to lens.I have a Sony a1 and a Sony a7rv,this lens always on my Sony a7rv.On my Sony a1 is a Sony 600mm f4.When I want to go lightweight I pair my Sony a1 with a Tamron 150-500mm.
That lens looks fantastic but there are two things that stop me from buying it: 1. I have an outstanding 35mm prime lens. 2. I prefer big and heavy lenses to zoom more.
the AF especially high speed objects , shooting speed and the weight of Tam can not beat 70-200 gm2 I would say. Other than that , it is fine.
Great but wide angle would be a pain without 28/24mm
That's why I own the Tamron 28 75 g2 and sony200 600
As someone who has professed your love for the 100-400GM, do you find the Tamron 50-400 has been more used by you now?
Hmm that's a tough one. The GM is my go to for fast action but the 50-400 is soooo versatile its crazy
@@StefanMalloch having both, I’m finding the 50-400 is just so useful and I’m using it more. Debating selling the 100-400 and getting the 70-200GMii as I already have the 1.4tc giving me a contrasting 100-280f4.
Agree, great lens, bright and sharp, hard to beat.
Keep up the good work.
A nice video, but not entirely true. I love to shoot concerts, portraits, and weddings. The fast F2.8 matters in concerts and weddings. With a nice seat or depending where you stand, fast 2.8 70-200 beats out all the other ones. Maybe next time also have a more dedicated and detailed part of the video explaining when, why, who might need a faster lens.
But its even faster..?
The Tamron mentioned in the video is f/2-f/2.8.
From 35-40mm it is f/2, from 40-60mm it is f/2.2 and from 60-150mm it is f/2.8.
I just picked up a new set up last week, a7RV with the Sony 70-200 2.8 Mark 2 and maybe it’s because I came from using the a6100 with the Sigma 24-70 2.8, this lens is absolutely amazing, I can’t find a flaw with it yet. Not to mention it’s an internal zoom, so it works great with gimbals and cuts that chance of get dust or inside of the lens.
People don’t take into account lens sharpness. That 70-200 mark2 is incredibly sharp. I want one for sure
I planned to get Sony A7RV camera, Sony 14mm F1.8 and Tamron 50-400mm F4.5-6.3 lenses and also Panasonic HC-X1500 25-600mm camcorder as my setup! Hope I will get them!
But questions, is there a way to set picture profile for each of the lenses to make the result consistent because I think Tamron is slightly golden tone and Sony is slightly cooler tone? Any recommendations to reach 3-5:1 ultra macro on the tele lens? How about macro and even further tele attachment for the HC-X1500 camcorder?
Try shooting video with the Tammy, then you'll know why the GM is a requirement.
The 35-150 is my go to video lens a lot of the time. I'm not a pro filmmaker though..
I forgot to put "motorsports" before video. I bought and sold over 7 lenses before finally settled with the 100-400GM
Have you tried the 70-200GM II with 2x TC instead of the 100-400? I’m still undecided between the 2.
Just bought the Sony a7r v and the Sony 70-200 2.8 II they will be here in two days cant wait to take them out to play with them
Yeap,...I'm waiting for this week to see what sigma will launch, if another 70-200 I go this tamron, better for them to come out with a similar lens,..with oss, or maybe a 24-105 2.8...also with oss...
For me 35-150mm has managed to push 70-180mm off the camera, thanks to the extra width. I don't feel the loss on the long end that much, but the zoom ring is painful with its stiffness and roughness - I actually got red fingers from all that rubbing while shooting last week, never happened with 70-180mm... I wish the ring itself was like on 70-180mm, gentle and soft.
Tamron give us an f4 version of this lens for travel pleeeeeaaaasssseeee! Great video Mate.
I have the E-mount Tamron 17-28... and a Sony 70-400 (A-mount)... no zoom in-between (just a bunch of G35/1.4, ZA50/1.4, 85/2.8 and ZA135/1.8 from my A-mount days), but the Tamron 35-150 seems like a nice contender to make me sell the 70-400, get the Sony 200-600 (because of the internal zoom) and throw the Tamron 35-150 as the new in-between lens.
I’m interesting on 70~200mm but it’s too expensive. So can you compare sigma vs taron lens?? Thank you
For some people the 35-150mm lens is going to be pretty heavy. Since I also have the Canon R7 with my A7iv I chose the ef200mm f2.8L USM ll lens which I adapt to both cameras. It's only about 780grams plus the adapter and I get about four different focal lengths with and without the 1.4x teleconverter on the two cameras all in a lightweight package. I have several other prime lenses to cover other focal lengths.
I would love to see the comparison of these two in term of sharpess in particular. I could not have found anywhere and you might be the first one. Thanks
I have a Sony A9 and shoot basketball with my Sony 70-200mm 2.8 and a 28-75mm 2.8. Would you sell both lens and buy this lens or buy a second body and have two cameras to shoot basketball?
I prefer zooms with a more limited range...otherwise...primes.
I agree with you about the 70-200mm ... how many folks have a 70mm prime? Even a 200mm...I know they have made them...but sparsely.
Definitely an odd duck zoom range...never understood the appeal.
I think this new Tam will sell...it's a nice hobby lens.
I had the Canon version of this (f/2.8-4), loved it and used it extensively so much so that I was even thinking of keeping a 6D body just for this lens when I was switching to Sony 4 years ago. But, it didn’t pan out and I sold it. Sony version (F/2-2.8) is very impressive but I just can’t deal with the weight and size. If I were a studio or even a landscape shooter, then maybe, but doing mostly doc/street/events, the weight is a deal breaker for me. I wish they had a f/4 version that’s half the weight/size.
look into the 28-200 f2.8-5.6; while its a 5.6 in the long end its probably gonna meet your weight and range requirements and the aperture range isn't so bad
@@vipersrt30 thank you. That lens has been on my radar for a while. I might just rent it and see how it goes. Right now I am threading along with the Tamron 70-180/2.8 but obviously it’s not wide enough for a do-it-all lens, and I end up also carrying a 24-70.
Great video but Sony lens only, clients love to see me walk in with that big white lens lol
Sony 70-200 2.8 lens is a great and sharper lens. I love it.
Nonsense. The Sony 75-350 is a better choice for A5 and 6 thousand cameras. Try to remember not everyone shoots full frame, and that by choice.
Ya it wouldn't be my first recommendation for aps-c. The 70-350 is great but in another class. Sounds like we might see some high end aps-c cameras and lenses in the near future. Fingers crossed.
If you are looking for a 70-200 replacement, the Tamron is a better option.
The Sony 70-350mm is more a replacement for a 100-400mm.
For me the 35-150 is to big and heavy to carry around while travelling.
This is ridiculous, the price of this lens in the Netherlands is 2000 euros
Thing is I already have a 200-600 so a 70-200 would match that perfectly although I can't afford the 70-200 sony so I'd end up with the tamron 70-180. I think I'll wait a bit and maybe sigma or someone comes out with a 70-200
I have been waiting for years now for Sigma to make a move.
Tamton 70-210mm f4?
At 1:00 you said „24-70s” where you meant „70-200s”.
15 frames/sec is just not enough to do high speed sports photography. That's the reason sports photography did not exist before the debut of the A1 in 2021.
Actually I think sports photography was invented when the A9 was released.
@@StefanMalloch I stand corrected! 🤣
I bought this lens and it looks great, but filming basketball it zooms very slow and is heavy asf filming 8 hours a day sometimes will be miserable 😂
Minolta 28 135 for 50 CHF😌
Tamron 28-200.
Yes the Tamron 28-200 is definitly the king of value and I can easily recommend this lens to anyone. This lens is optically very close (on some occasions even better) to both the Sony FE 24-105 F4 and FE 70-200 F4. Big drawback is the lack of VC though if Tamron can manage to get this in a G2 version and improve contrast a little it would be awesome (probably the greatest standerd zoomlens of all time). However these 35-150 F2-2.8 and 70-200 2.8 are different type of animals these are more specialist tools. To me the 35-150 excels in portraits & close-ups while the GM 70-200 2.8 (II) for example is more allround and a great choise for sports/action photography.
@@bwijdieks8864 i agree about VC.
I think this channel is really Tamron biased.
So i can`t take any advise seriously.
I review all lenses.. Tamron is some of the best for the money these days.
Remember I sold my gen 1 70-200mm f2.8 immediately when I got this lens. This becomes my go to lens for traveling.
Tamron doesn't have autofocus
There's also the Samyang if you want to save more 450 USD.
Never buying a Samyang zoom lens again 😭
Nah, I am good with my 70-200 GM II.
Incredible lens! A true masterpiece, but most will need another one with it, myself included.
@@StefanMalloch Exactly. That's why I got the 24-70 GM II. 😄
35-250mm would be ideal!
Disagree, don't want to walk around with a brick. If i want heavy camera and lenses, i can buy canon.
I feel the same way about the 70-200mm. lens 👍
Ugh, whatever you're doing with colour grading.. stop it. It's awful, the most terrible I have ever seen to be honest.
Samyang 35-150 is much better...
Thank you!! 😮😮😮😮5 months too late😩😩😩😩
Don't ever buy a Sony lens folks...buy the 3rd party lens for less than half the price and amazing glass....
Bought it, thanks for your misinformation! 🙄
Not going to bother watching this, after reading the title of your video, sorry...
It's misguiding people away from the fundamentals of what lenses are about, especially amateurs.
Uhhu
I’d take the extra 50mm any day over having the extra 35mm at the wider end.
It’s a beautiful lens but yeah not on par with the Gm 2