As usual, the full review is on my website: www.lightandmatter.org/2022/videos/lens-comparisons/tamron-35-150mm-f2-2-8-lens-review-best-lens-for-basketball/ I'll be updating it as I have time and more experience.
Hey Matthew - On your full website review (and at 4:20 in the video), you mentioned, "The only time that I lost focus, frequently, was when I was tracking a player and zooming the lens at the same time…" ^ Seems like the lens isn't parfocal; I'm experiencing the same thing with the Tamron 35-150mm my Z9. How do you shoot with this limitation when action rapidly comes toward you? Any other lenses you prefer instead?
From someone who uses this to shoot pro basketball games in Sweden, I can definitely recommend this lens 100%. I've also shot high-school/AAU basketball games as well as some events and when travelling and it works really well!
The only pro basketball that I shoot is WNBA, since Seattle lost its NBA team, and the wnba season hadn't started yet when I was testing this lens... but I'm glad to hear the confirmation 👍
@@MatthewGore Oh, cool! How is it shooting WNBA games? must be really cool because those arenas are crazy, I work for a team that has the "best" basketball arena in sweden but that is still sooooo far from what the WNBA/NBA has. Working in America is definitely the goal when working with sports
@@AntStyle WNBA is generally great to shoot, but it can be a little sketchy at times. Here in Seattle the Storm have a brand new arena that's wonderful, but last year during construction they played at a minor-leage hockey stadium up in Everett, which was not so great.
i have shot a wedding with it. i never fell like i needed to change lenses. 35mm was just good enough for group photos and 150mm f2.8 was perfect for head shots. i would also like to add that i paired it with A7R III and it sharp enough to make the best of all those megapixels.
Excellent Video! Love the comparison to some solid primes, really helps show its strengths. I picked up this lens and yes, while heavy, the performance has made me confident that it can replace multiple primes for me. So when looking at it from that context, the weight becomes less of an issue plus the bonus of not having to change lenses. Just the possible avoidance of dust on the Sony sensor (which seem to be dust magnets) that's a big plus. Thanks again!
Glad you found it useful. These Tamron lenses still seem pretty hard to find, unfortunately. Hope that the world gets its act together this year and lenses and Sony cameras find their way to store shelves again!
3:09 - so true! I thought hockey was bad in small Canadian arenas, but Volleyball and Basketball have me at a much higher ISO and 70mm is a bit tight at times and I found that I rarely go beyond 150 mm, so this is definitely a lens I’m considering.
Man you are awesome! The first thing I’ve shot was indoor children football cup. Last time before I’ve shot the same cup with Sigma 85 1.4 on A7R3, and cropped a lot, tamron gets the job done, I happy with this lens!
This is incredibly helpful for me. I'm a news/sports photographer and videographer and there are precious few professional photographers who also shoot sports that do videos. I'm VERY happy to have found your channel and I'm subbing. I've been interested in this lens so I'm grateful for this video. And I have the same Sony camera....
@@MarkReese I did not. I have the 24-50 and 70-200 GMII so this lens isnt really needed now. I would pick one up used if I could find it at a very low price, but I think that's a few years off.
Thank you for this review that really brings some very interesting information on this lens. Based on the 8.3% differences calculation and the comparison photos to see the framing differences between the three chosen lenses vs the Tamron lens, the Tamron 35-150 f/2-2.8 is more like 38-162.5mm f/2-2.8 which for me is actually a good thing for me to get a bit more reach than 150mm while pair up perfectly with the Sigma 16-28mm that actually does reach out a bit more than the Tamron 17-28mm at 28mm end. So the real rang and apertures of this lens are: 38mm-43mm @ f/2.0 44mm-65mm @ f/2.2 66mm-86mm @ f/2.5 87mm-162.5mm @ f/2.8 Not bad at all!
Hello George, I haven't done the formal calculations, but that sounds about right for the 35mm end of the zoom range. The percentage of difference doesn't remain constant across the zoom range, though, and although there is some difference at 150mm, I'd say that it's much closer there to 150mm... maybe 155 or so. Still, an excellent lens.
Thank you for this detailed review and lens comparison. Certainly an excellent lense for a professional photographer. I own two tamron zoom lenses and I love them. Unfortunately this one is too heavy and pricy for me.
It is a bit expensive. It ends up being a little lighter ( ~a half pound / 250g ) than carrying the Tamron 28-75 and 70-180mm f/2.8 zooms (both), and of course provides more light at the wide end, so if you were the type of photographer who could live with this lens's zoom range, it might be worth it to have all of that available in one lens... but yes, probably not for everyone.
The Tamron is a longer lens so the field of view will drop… it doesn’t mean it’s not 35mm you just have to step a few inches back to make this comparison fair 💁🏻♂️
Missed a point on comparing the focal lenght on the 35mm. Some lenses have more focus breathing than others, so the tamrom may (i dont know) be wider focal length at close focus
Actually, I always shoot these test shots with the lens focused at infinity (or very close) because of the possibility of focus breathing, among other things. When focal length of a lens is given, the industry standard is to give it for when the lens is focused at infinity (which is why, for example, the old Nikon 70-200 VR could be called a 200mm instead of a 160mm at the telephoto end). It's rare for lenses to increase in apparent focal length when focused closer, though not entirely unheard of... but it's not the issue here.
Thanks for the video man, rly appreciate it. I'm planning on using this lense for basketball vids. Is the stabilization good enough to shoot handheld for sports with this?
The lens itself doesn't actually have stabilization... so that will depend on your camera. I was using it with an A7RIII, primarily, so and I was pretty satisfied with it for hand-held video. The little clip in the video here was hand held. That said, I don't shoot much video, so I might not be the best person to ask about it :-)
Yes, I'm sure that it's not intended as a sports lens... but it works so nicely for things like basketball, it seemed worth mentioning :-) Good all-round lens.
From a sigma 24-70 art owner point of view, would you consider the purchase of the tamron 70-180 to complete the standard focals or would you go for the tam 35-150 instead? The choise has to be seen from the perspective of a travel photographer in love with enviromental portraits and street/wild shooting.
I'd personally go with the 70-180. It's amazingly lightweight, which makes a big difference when traveling, and of course, you'd get more range that isn't covered by the 24-70. If you wanted to leave the 24-70 at home, then I could see going for the 35-150... and it would be very convenient to never change lenses, but you'd be compromising on range. If you haven't already seen my video about the 30-180, its image quality is excellent.
@@MatthewGore Thank you Matthew. On the wide end I'd cover with a light prime such as 24 1.4 or 20 1.8. My issue borns with extreme light packing for plane/hike etc also in terms of volume - so the one lens setup is preferable. The 800g of the 24-70 aren't a problem to me so I guess the 1,1kg of the 35-150 won't either. Have you ever consider the tam 28-200 2.8/5.6 with a little of compromises of course..
@@eonrionel4751 No, the 28-200 (and similar) lenses are just too much of a compromise for me in terms of image quality and light loss. I'd rather carry a little more weight.
8:40 wild idea, but is it possible that some significant portion of the FOV difference is due to Tamron being about 9cm longer (over twice the length of Sigma)? Or both were shoot with lens front elements at the same spot?
If I had been shooting something up close, that could potentially make a difference, but not here. The buildings of downtown Seattle in this photo were approx. 2km from me, where I was shooting. I could have moved several meters forward or back, and it wouldn't have made a significant difference in the field of view.
cool vid cheers. alot of these reviews are overly positive tho . not just yours. I was particularly looking for reasons not to buy lol. but yeah... 3rd review watching so I'm a bit tainted by the 'sell' of the other youtubers already
Ha! Yeah, understood. With this lens in particular, it's hard not to be positive. But I tried to show all of the reasons for my judgement, so you should be able to judge for yourself :-)
That's correct... if you shoot an a9 or a1, the Tamron will limit you to about 15 frames per second. I'm using a7 series lenses, so I'm limited to about 10 anyway.
Please share your AF setup. I bought this lens yesterday and I'm having issues with it focusing very slow. I shoot in very dark situations (bars/clubs) and had a terrible time. I have a A7 IV.
Mine is pretty standard. I use AF-C for shooting sports, often with wide area, but sometimes a large manual-select AF area, "Balanced Emphasis", AF Track Sensitivity is 5 (Responsive), AF Illuminator is off, I'm not using back-button AF on my Sony like I used to with Canon, most everything else is set to default. Good luck!
Thank you so much for this video! I just bought this lens with my new Sony a7 iv yesterday, and im finding the eye tracking is not working properly, which was the entire reason for my switch from Nikon. What camera body are you using in this video? I skimmed it and couldn’t tell. But the AF seems to work great for you so it’s possible it’s the A7 iv not working properly
Hi Audrey, I used a Sony A7RIII in this video, and I didn't ever have any trouble with eye tracking. Eye tracking is only available in certain AF modes, so make sure that you're in something like wide-area, first. It's possible but unlikely that it's a problem with the camera or lens... it's much more likely to be something that needs to be changed or set up in the labyrinth of settings in the menu. Good luck!
@@MatthewGore Thank you so much for your reply! I’ve been messing with the settings a lot, and went on forums and it looks like the A7 iv itself is known for this problem. I’m going to call the shop and see what they say to do. Thank you!
@@audreymarie768 Thanks for the update! I'm glad to hear that you figured it out... and I'm glad that I'm not ignorant of the issue anymore :-) Enjoy your new camera!
The mount did feel night and tight, but not excessively so... just a good solid connection. I didn't notice any air suction while zooming the lens, but that's not really the sort of thing that I'd notice. I would have noticed extra dust on my sensor, but didn't. I think that some people are concerned about dust inside the lens, but that doesn't affect the image, so it's not really a concern for me.
@@MatthewGore ok, thanks for sharing your experience! The air suction I notice only if I do fast zooming, just normal zooming does not make any noise. Concerned that I might have a bad copy due to this.
Oh... I never had a problem with the hood in real use, though I did fumble with it while shooting the video... that wasn't a problem with the hood itself. I think I had taken it off to clean the front element for the video, and messed it up just that once... overall it was a good fit and the lock worked well.
@@MatthewGore i can handle the weight, but I don't think it would add 3 pounds of glass. maybe another pound at most. I'll sacrifice some reach if it keeps the price down and the weight somewhat low. 35-100mm f/1.8
@@charminbaer2323 Yes, the 3 pounds was a joke, I just mean that it would be expensive and heavy, and it's already expensive and heavy. Think of the Canon RF 28-70 f/2... $3100 and it weighs over three pounds... as much as a 70-200 f/2.8 (or more, in the case of the new Sony). Don't get me wrong... I totally agree with you. I'd love some f/1.8 zoom lenses for Sony. I'm just not sure I want to carry them around :-)
That's the truth. I was lucky that Tamron sent me one for a while. I'm not sure if it's just popular, or if it has something to do with the worldwide chip shortage or what. Hopefully it will be more widely available soon.
As usual, the full review is on my website: www.lightandmatter.org/2022/videos/lens-comparisons/tamron-35-150mm-f2-2-8-lens-review-best-lens-for-basketball/ I'll be updating it as I have time and more experience.
Good thing i found this review.. now this lens is in my bucket list of lenses.... Thanks
Thanks! Glad it was useful... it is a wonderful lens.
@@MatthewGore thank you again for the tips of this lens.. more power to your channel..🤘🤘💯
Hey Matthew - On your full website review (and at 4:20 in the video), you mentioned, "The only time that I lost focus, frequently, was when I was tracking a player and zooming the lens at the same time…"
^ Seems like the lens isn't parfocal; I'm experiencing the same thing with the Tamron 35-150mm my Z9. How do you shoot with this limitation when action rapidly comes toward you? Any other lenses you prefer instead?
This video was amazing. In-depth and precise. Instant sub. Thanks!
Thanks Jack, glad you found it useful!
Fantastic review! I appreciate the methodical and high level detail of your review! Subscribed!
From someone who uses this to shoot pro basketball games in Sweden, I can definitely recommend this lens 100%. I've also shot high-school/AAU basketball games as well as some events and when travelling and it works really well!
The only pro basketball that I shoot is WNBA, since Seattle lost its NBA team, and the wnba season hadn't started yet when I was testing this lens... but I'm glad to hear the confirmation 👍
@@MatthewGore Oh, cool! How is it shooting WNBA games? must be really cool because those arenas are crazy, I work for a team that has the "best" basketball arena in sweden but that is still sooooo far from what the WNBA/NBA has. Working in America is definitely the goal when working with sports
@@AntStyle WNBA is generally great to shoot, but it can be a little sketchy at times. Here in Seattle the Storm have a brand new arena that's wonderful, but last year during construction they played at a minor-leage hockey stadium up in Everett, which was not so great.
i have shot a wedding with it. i never fell like i needed to change lenses. 35mm was just good enough for group photos and 150mm f2.8 was perfect for head shots.
i would also like to add that i paired it with A7R III and it sharp enough to make the best of all those megapixels.
I agreed... I mostly shot it with an A7RIII, and it was wonderfully sharp. Glad to hear that it worked well for weddings.
Easiest sub today! Beautifully made video, calming voice over, and very detailed content. I *LOVE* your conclusion graphics!
great review. As a Tamron 35-150mm user, it’s insightful!
Excellent review and comparison, I like your system. Keep your system! Recommended!
Excellent Video! Love the comparison to some solid primes, really helps show its strengths. I picked up this lens and yes, while heavy, the performance has made me confident that it can replace multiple primes for me. So when looking at it from that context, the weight becomes less of an issue plus the bonus of not having to change lenses. Just the possible avoidance of dust on the Sony sensor (which seem to be dust magnets) that's a big plus. Thanks again!
Glad you found it useful. These Tamron lenses still seem pretty hard to find, unfortunately. Hope that the world gets its act together this year and lenses and Sony cameras find their way to store shelves again!
3:09 - so true! I thought hockey was bad in small Canadian arenas, but Volleyball and Basketball have me at a much higher ISO and 70mm is a bit tight at times and I found that I rarely go beyond 150 mm, so this is definitely a lens I’m considering.
Wow Mathew. This images are stellar. Making me rethink a lot of things…Thanks 😊
Glad you appreciated them :-) Thanks!
Thorough and useful review. Thank you very much for your effort.
Thanks for watching it, Lorenzo. Glad you found it useful.
Man you are awesome! The first thing I’ve shot was indoor children football cup. Last time before I’ve shot the same cup with Sigma 85 1.4 on A7R3, and cropped a lot, tamron gets the job done, I happy with this lens!
This is incredibly helpful for me. I'm a news/sports photographer and videographer and there are precious few professional photographers who also shoot sports that do videos. I'm VERY happy to have found your channel and I'm subbing.
I've been interested in this lens so I'm grateful for this video. And I have the same Sony camera....
Glad it was useful :-) Good luck!
Hey SlotCarNewsOfficial! Did you decide to purchase the Tamron 35-150mm?
@@MarkReese I did not. I have the 24-50 and 70-200 GMII so this lens isnt really needed now. I would pick one up used if I could find it at a very low price, but I think that's a few years off.
@@SlotCarNewsOfficial - Good combo with those 2. Thanks!
Thank you for this review that really brings some very interesting information on this lens. Based on the 8.3% differences calculation and the comparison photos to see the framing differences between the three chosen lenses vs the Tamron lens, the Tamron 35-150 f/2-2.8 is more like 38-162.5mm f/2-2.8 which for me is actually a good thing for me to get a bit more reach than 150mm while pair up perfectly with the Sigma 16-28mm that actually does reach out a bit more than the Tamron 17-28mm at 28mm end. So the real rang and apertures of this lens are:
38mm-43mm @ f/2.0
44mm-65mm @ f/2.2
66mm-86mm @ f/2.5
87mm-162.5mm @ f/2.8
Not bad at all!
Hello George, I haven't done the formal calculations, but that sounds about right for the 35mm end of the zoom range. The percentage of difference doesn't remain constant across the zoom range, though, and although there is some difference at 150mm, I'd say that it's much closer there to 150mm... maybe 155 or so. Still, an excellent lens.
Thank you for this detailed review and lens comparison. Certainly an excellent lense for a professional photographer. I own two tamron zoom lenses and I love them. Unfortunately this one is too heavy and pricy for me.
It is a bit expensive. It ends up being a little lighter ( ~a half pound / 250g ) than carrying the Tamron 28-75 and 70-180mm f/2.8 zooms (both), and of course provides more light at the wide end, so if you were the type of photographer who could live with this lens's zoom range, it might be worth it to have all of that available in one lens... but yes, probably not for everyone.
Subscribed while watching your review on the 150-500mm, but this one made the cut on my bucket list (1st Mirrorless). Thanks.
Nice video, just picked up this lens. for my Sony a7Iv. What the camera setting for shooting in GYM, for example shutter speed and ISO???
The Tamron is a longer lens so the field of view will drop… it doesn’t mean it’s not 35mm you just have to step a few inches back to make this comparison fair 💁🏻♂️
Missed a point on comparing the focal lenght on the 35mm.
Some lenses have more focus breathing than others, so the tamrom may (i dont know) be wider focal length at close focus
Actually, I always shoot these test shots with the lens focused at infinity (or very close) because of the possibility of focus breathing, among other things. When focal length of a lens is given, the industry standard is to give it for when the lens is focused at infinity (which is why, for example, the old Nikon 70-200 VR could be called a 200mm instead of a 160mm at the telephoto end). It's rare for lenses to increase in apparent focal length when focused closer, though not entirely unheard of... but it's not the issue here.
@@MatthewGore thats interesting, and kinda explains that nikon 70-200 that was like 140mm at the 200mm end when focusing at the closest focus distance
Thanks for the video man, rly appreciate it. I'm planning on using this lense for basketball vids. Is the stabilization good enough to shoot handheld for sports with this?
The lens itself doesn't actually have stabilization... so that will depend on your camera. I was using it with an A7RIII, primarily, so and I was pretty satisfied with it for hand-held video. The little clip in the video here was hand held. That said, I don't shoot much video, so I might not be the best person to ask about it :-)
Hey marcusmambavids5412 - Did you end up buying the Tamron 35-150mm?
@@MarkReese hey man, i did not. I ended up getting the tamron 28-75 and it still was a great lens for basketball
@@marcusmambavids5412 - Glad to hear the 28-75mm is working well!
Great review! However I think this lens was made for general people photography (wedding, portrait, fashion, ...). It's just perfect for that.
Yes, I'm sure that it's not intended as a sports lens... but it works so nicely for things like basketball, it seemed worth mentioning :-) Good all-round lens.
Perfect for anything, just need to be creative.
From a sigma 24-70 art owner point of view, would you consider the purchase of the tamron 70-180 to complete the standard focals or would you go for the tam 35-150 instead? The choise has to be seen from the perspective of a travel photographer in love with enviromental portraits and street/wild shooting.
I'd personally go with the 70-180. It's amazingly lightweight, which makes a big difference when traveling, and of course, you'd get more range that isn't covered by the 24-70. If you wanted to leave the 24-70 at home, then I could see going for the 35-150... and it would be very convenient to never change lenses, but you'd be compromising on range. If you haven't already seen my video about the 30-180, its image quality is excellent.
@@MatthewGore Thank you Matthew. On the wide end I'd cover with a light prime such as 24 1.4 or 20 1.8. My issue borns with extreme light packing for plane/hike etc also in terms of volume - so the one lens setup is preferable. The 800g of the 24-70 aren't a problem to me so I guess the 1,1kg of the 35-150 won't either. Have you ever consider the tam 28-200 2.8/5.6 with a little of compromises of course..
@@eonrionel4751 No, the 28-200 (and similar) lenses are just too much of a compromise for me in terms of image quality and light loss. I'd rather carry a little more weight.
Sigma lens is plagued with heavy CA. Impressive for the Tamron in this regard.
What about losing fps when using 3rd party lens .. I know that’s true on the A1
8:40 wild idea, but is it possible that some significant portion of the FOV difference is due to Tamron being about 9cm longer (over twice the length of Sigma)?
Or both were shoot with lens front elements at the same spot?
If I had been shooting something up close, that could potentially make a difference, but not here. The buildings of downtown Seattle in this photo were approx. 2km from me, where I was shooting. I could have moved several meters forward or back, and it wouldn't have made a significant difference in the field of view.
I'm waiting to get one... for basketball indoor (girls :) )
Hey mrfets01 - Did you end up buying the Tamron 35-150mm?
cool vid cheers.
alot of these reviews are overly positive tho . not just yours. I was particularly looking for reasons not to buy lol.
but yeah... 3rd review watching so I'm a bit tainted by the 'sell' of the other youtubers already
Ha! Yeah, understood. With this lens in particular, it's hard not to be positive. But I tried to show all of the reasons for my judgement, so you should be able to judge for yourself :-)
But you can't take full advantage of fps with a9 right? They only allow you to do that with G-master lenses?
That's correct... if you shoot an a9 or a1, the Tamron will limit you to about 15 frames per second. I'm using a7 series lenses, so I'm limited to about 10 anyway.
Please share your AF setup. I bought this lens yesterday and I'm having issues with it focusing very slow. I shoot in very dark situations (bars/clubs) and had a terrible time. I have a A7 IV.
Mine is pretty standard. I use AF-C for shooting sports, often with wide area, but sometimes a large manual-select AF area, "Balanced Emphasis", AF Track Sensitivity is 5 (Responsive), AF Illuminator is off, I'm not using back-button AF on my Sony like I used to with Canon, most everything else is set to default. Good luck!
Any updates? Improvements with different settings? I'm seriously considering this lens.
@@pretor706 it was totally my settings. No longer have that issue.
@@ArtKingjr thanks!
Thank you so much for this video! I just bought this lens with my new Sony a7 iv yesterday, and im finding the eye tracking is not working properly, which was the entire reason for my switch from Nikon. What camera body are you using in this video? I skimmed it and couldn’t tell. But the AF seems to work great for you so it’s possible it’s the A7 iv not working properly
Hi Audrey, I used a Sony A7RIII in this video, and I didn't ever have any trouble with eye tracking. Eye tracking is only available in certain AF modes, so make sure that you're in something like wide-area, first. It's possible but unlikely that it's a problem with the camera or lens... it's much more likely to be something that needs to be changed or set up in the labyrinth of settings in the menu. Good luck!
@@MatthewGore Thank you so much for your reply! I’ve been messing with the settings a lot, and went on forums and it looks like the A7 iv itself is known for this problem. I’m going to call the shop and see what they say to do. Thank you!
@@audreymarie768 Ahh, that's interesting... hadn't heard about that issue. If you get a chance, let me know how it turns out!
@@MatthewGore Thank you! Sony said it sounds like tracking wasn’t working properly so we had the body replaced and things seem good now!
@@audreymarie768 Thanks for the update! I'm glad to hear that you figured it out... and I'm glad that I'm not ignorant of the issue anymore :-) Enjoy your new camera!
Does your lens have air suction while zooming in and out? (While mounted)
And do you feel that the mount is a bit tight?
The mount did feel night and tight, but not excessively so... just a good solid connection. I didn't notice any air suction while zooming the lens, but that's not really the sort of thing that I'd notice. I would have noticed extra dust on my sensor, but didn't. I think that some people are concerned about dust inside the lens, but that doesn't affect the image, so it's not really a concern for me.
@@MatthewGore ok, thanks for sharing your experience!
The air suction I notice only if I do fast zooming, just normal zooming does not make any noise. Concerned that I might have a bad copy due to this.
That sigma 35 is significantly sharper and more contrasty and clear. The Tamron in comparison looks foggy
Been a while.. you good?
All good here, thanks!
The lens hood is the one thing that bothers me. I wish it was solid all around and fit on better
Oh... I never had a problem with the hood in real use, though I did fumble with it while shooting the video... that wasn't a problem with the hood itself. I think I had taken it off to clean the front element for the video, and messed it up just that once... overall it was a good fit and the lock worked well.
I would cough up an extra $500 and put up with the weight if someone made a 35mm-150mm f/1.8
Unfortunately, f/1.8 would probably add $1000+ and about 3 pounds of glass 🙂
@@MatthewGore i can handle the weight, but I don't think it would add 3 pounds of glass. maybe another pound at most. I'll sacrifice some reach if it keeps the price down and the weight somewhat low. 35-100mm f/1.8
@@charminbaer2323 Yes, the 3 pounds was a joke, I just mean that it would be expensive and heavy, and it's already expensive and heavy. Think of the Canon RF 28-70 f/2... $3100 and it weighs over three pounds... as much as a 70-200 f/2.8 (or more, in the case of the new Sony). Don't get me wrong... I totally agree with you. I'd love some f/1.8 zoom lenses for Sony. I'm just not sure I want to carry them around :-)
It never in stock.😂
That's the truth. I was lucky that Tamron sent me one for a while. I'm not sure if it's just popular, or if it has something to do with the worldwide chip shortage or what. Hopefully it will be more widely available soon.
Mine arrived from B&H after 6 months😂