Thanks so much for this excellent review and comparison of these lenses. I returned the 28-75mm & 70-180mm and got the 35-150mm few months ago after switching from Fuji X-H1 system to the A7IV with this lens and shot over 30+ events so far and can't be happier not have to think about swapping lenses (& less sensor cleaning) while have the ability to use lower ISO between 35-80mm range and still gets excellent sharp IQ. I am surprised how little I actually miss the 24/28mm range by just stepping one large step back (when possible) while getting the same image without the wide-angle distortion even though I always had the little Sigma 16-28mm f/2.8 in my bag at all times to rescue me (only used it in one event so far). Pared with the Tamron 50-400mm with its 1:2 Macro capability to complete my "Trinity lenses" set pulse a Godox V1 flash & a Sony mic that fits all in a small Think Tank Turn Style 20 sling bag, it is now ready to cover all the ranges I would need. Thanks again for your excellent review that helped me to choose the right lens for the Sony system as I almost went with the "traditional" Trinity setup without knowing Tamron make so many "Thinking Out of Box" lenses.
I've got the 16-35gm and the 28 to 200. Either want the 35-150 or the new 24-70gm ... Tough choice, think the lack of 24mm will make me change lenses more often than I'd like and it's big and heavy for hiking
@@josesalgado2796 I am super happy. The lens is sharp and fast focusing. A little vignetting specially on the wide end, but I never really mind that on any lenses. Downsides are that it´s a bit heavy and at 150 mm OIS would have been great. Compared to the 24-70 GM there is nothing I miss and I would say they are similar in IQ and focus speed. I use it on an A7iv som I don´t get the fastes fps anyway.
@@michaellarsson I'll have a to wait a little longer to experience it myself. Some camera stores in my area had 1-2 delivered but they didn't last a day and I missed out. The FPS cap was something I thought about but 15 is still plenty, plus it wasn't really made for fast action anyways. I wanted a second opinion on if it replaced a 24-70 with no significant losses
A general comment about your channel, which I find very useful and have subscribed to. But I wanted to thank you in particular for your accompanying written reviews, which are neglected by most of your RUclips colleagues. I find them very useful, often preferable to video content (which may reflect the dinosaur wiring of my brain). Thanks
Fantastic review. I’ve been lucky to have received a copy of the 35-150 from BH in late October and I was just blown away by the IQ. I wasn’t expecting to like this lens as much as I did but here we are. This coming from a prime lens user who has only had zooms for the few events I’ve done. It’s a keeper for sure!!!
Very reasonable and helpful review. In January, I only had an A1 and the 35-150 zoom. (I was lucky enough to get one in the first batch to hit the US.) It is a heavy zoom but I love the features and the performance for everything except hiking and gimbal video. So I bought a Samyang 24/1.8 to cover the wide and light end. Next was the 150-500 for kids sports. Very happy with all of these. Then, for Father's Day, my wife presented me with a Tamron 28-75 G2. All is right with the world!!! Perfect for off-tripod video and hiking/landscape. But my 35-150 is still on the A1 80% of the time, especially when on a tripod and/or close to the car. I've added a Hoage tripod mount ring to the 35-150 also, and that helps a bunch with the handling and balance in my opinion.
I think the 35-150 makes the perfect portrait or travel lens. Great comparison, I think you really helped point out why someone would choose this lens over the alternatives.
@@seanhe4606 wrong. That's exactly why it's great. It's an all in one zoom at Amazing aperture that's a full pound of not more lighter than 2.8 setups. F4 is a cop out for anything useful travel related (portraits, etc)
Define “travel lens”. If you are going to trek 5-6 h in Dolomites, Patagonia or Nepal, you don’t need 2.8 (unless you are doing a portrait session there😅) . But you need something light. A combo with f4 apertures will be better. If it is just a walk around old town with your family or SO, or shooting from a parking, than yes , it is a travel lens
@nicholasbrown3443 When you're traveling size and weight matters. Good luck pulling this behemoth of a lens out for a spur of the moment shot. The 35 to 150 is almost the same size weight as sony's 70 to 200. It's certainly would be great for shooting an event, but for travel no way
I sold off my 28-75 and 70-180mm two weeks ago, and ordered the 35-150. At the end of the day, reducing lens requirements from 2 to 1 is a no brainer. Regardless, Tamron has hit it out of the park with the emount.
@@shawndavismedia I do not, I can always move my feet to close that 30mm. The 7mm on the wide end is a bit harder to compensate for though given space limitations.
@@realBatman That’s understandable, I just wanted to hear your opinion since I basically just bought it as of yesterday partially from what you and others have said. And the wider end might be a little harder. But at least I will always have my 17-28mm with me 😂. It’ll be much better though than having to carry an extra two lenses.
Thanks for the videos as always. I’ve decided to opt for the 35-150mm rather than a 24-70mm / 28-75mm coupled with a 70-180+mm based on your detailed videos about this lens. It really does seem to be such a great performer for that range - amazing how Tamron managed to get it so good… when Sony’s own all in one is so bad. I thought the 28-200mm from Tamron was a gem, but this is even better! Granted 35-150mm isn’t the same range, but it’s not a bad range. And I can get 225mm with super 35mm mode on my A7R IV and still get a 26MP shot! Thanks a lot for the vid, Dustin!
It's amazing that whenever I think about a lens comparison, you already have a video about it. I guess unlike most of other Tubers you are indeed a real world photographer :)
I don't trust alot of the reviewers on you tube that seem to Cowtow to the manufacturers to ensure that they get the next lens to review but I do trust Dustin. Always open and excellent reviews.
Excellent comparison. This will certainly clear the confusion for many enthusiasts like me who were facing the dilemma of what lens to purchase. Thanks 🙏🙏🙏
I’m in that one group you mentioned. I would take a loss selling my lenses for the 35-150. I do some event photography 5-7 times a year and use my 28-75 and 70-180 for that. But most of my shooting is travel, so I like a small kit with the Sony 20mm f/1.8 G, Sigma 65mm f/2, and Sigma 90mm f/2.8.
Great review Dustin. This is exactly what I did, I kept the 35-150 and sold my Tamron 70-180 and a Sigma 24-70. I already had a Samyang 24 MM F1.8 so I think for my purposes I'm covered across enough focal ranges. I also own the Tamron 150-500. I really liked going to one lens and when I'm walking in the woods, I don't need to take both lenses, just the 35-150.
Great review. But for a single camera setup, do most people not care about carrying a more than double the weight (of the 28-75) and significantly larger lens ALL THE TIME? granted the combined weight of the combo is larger than the 35-150, but if I can do 75-90% of my shots on the 28-75 or the 70-180 and have to swap for the other when needed from the bag, I wouldn't be carrying something 43% heavier or more than double the weight (70-180, 28-75) all the time on the camera body in hand.
Here we are with the weight argument. Maybe consider that with one 35-150 you get to leave another body and just use one lens instead of 2 or 3. If that's too heavy for you, then maybe get a decent comfy strap or man up a bit. People dont complain about the weight of both the 24-70 GM and 70-200 GM. Then now people complain about the 35-150 which like the weight if a 70-200? Come on.. the point of the 35-150 is that you do not have to swap or bring another body to cover that focal range, which is crucial in things like wedding photography
@@papsny lol ok strong guy. My point is people wouldn't complain of the weight of the 24-70 and 70-200 because they don't have both mounted at the same time with the combined weight on the camera. I agree with you it would be great for wedding photography but for a walk araound lens or travel Lena that's a bit cumbersome.
@@jdannug517 I completely agree with you. I used to have a canon with their 70 200 2.8, beautiful lens but I hated walking around with it all day. I've switched to an A7C with the 28 75. My neck and schouders are so much happier
Thanks Dustin , this is the exact question that I’m pondering on, using my A7C with the Tamron 28-75 G2 for concerts and other stuff, 85mm 1.8 and Sigma 100-400 being my longer lenses 🙂
I'm glad I'm not the only one who was thinking about this comparison. I was planning on getting the 2 lenses since I don't own any good 2.8 zoom lenses, but the 35-150mm made me stop and think
Very interesting comparison, the 35-150 holds it own quite well in terms of sharpness with the exception of extreme corners. Color rendition is slightly richer on the 35-150 and the bokeh is also as good in most situations and sometimes better. All this makes the selections even more difficult with a slight advantage to the 35-150 if you don't already on the other two. Thank you for this excellent review/comparison.
Wonder how this matchup fairs now with the new Tam 70-180 G2 (with closer focus, VC stabilization, button and custom function switch, and USB C port)! I'm thinking the newer G2 combo might be a better at the moment despite having to change lenses. If the 35-150 had stabilization it would be absolutely unbeatable.
What an excellent and useful comparison, Dustin! I'll switch to Sony full frame within in the next couple of months. Always thought that buying the "holy trinity" (17-28, 28-75, 70-180) as a decent base to start off would be the way to go. But this new 35-150 and your review/comparison let me think again because I find it very tempting to just have one lens in a range of (formerly) two. But since it's quite big and heavy and has no tripod mount I wonder if it's not _too_ heavy for shooting landscape pics on a tripod for some longer than a few minutes. I personally would have loved to see a constant aperture of f2.8 since this would have saved size and weight (and price) or could have increased the range. Or both. If I need more bokeh I'd grab a prime anyway. I'd also like to see a 16-35 f2.8 from Tamron to close the gap to the 35-150 at the wide end.
Thanks for the video! I am a college student and just preordered my first camera(a7 IV), and I was wondering to choose either Sigma 24-70 f2.4 or this new Tamron 35-150 as my first lens. Could you make a comparison video between the two? Ps: I'm willing to eat a little less for a while to compensate the price difference if it's worth it. So the $700 price difference is out of consideration.
Hi Dustin! Great video, as usual. I own the 35-150 and the 28-75 G1 + 70-180 combo myself - I am about to upgrade from the two set to the 1 lens solution same way as You. What I have figured out is, that my copy performs slightly worse on 150mm compared to yours, however it seems like it is slightly better on the wide end (at least my copy beats the 28-75 significantly... What is definitely observable (and you might want to check it too), that if you get closer to the min. focus distance, the 35-150 starts to perform worse and worse. I think for me on 150mm the deadline is around 3m, if you get closer (i.e. 1m) the 35-150 is noticeably worse @150mm compared to the 70-180 @150mm. So the minimum focusing distance is somehow affecting the product more than the other Tamrons. Or maybe it's just my copy.
Hi Dustin, really enjoyed the video, very useful for me trying to work out if I replace the cheaper 28-200 for the faster 35-150. Difficult one! If you'd be open to feedback, your shutter speed/ shutter angle seems a bit high on your video. The hand and body movements seem very jittery for the frame rate and it can be a bit disorientating. I imagine you probably know already and it was just a constraint of filming with available light and video settings. Love the content you put out !
Had tried the 28-200mm before buying the 35-150mm and stayed with the 35-150mm due to f/2-2.8 that provides much cleaner & lower ISO images and just crop my 33MP image down to 24MP to get the 200mm. 28-200mm is still excellent when traveling lightweight like vacations and I may buy it again as a secondhand lens when I see an excellent deal in the future.
I have most lenses for my A7IV and A7III and was (guilty-ridden) trying to NOT think about seriously dropping down $2,000 for yet ANOTHER lens. Of all the comments/reviews I have come across, I had not yet heard one of the "cons" of carrying this one lens, is there is NO redundancy...no contingency plan. It's the "All eggs in one basket" scenario. You then PRAY that this ONE lens...at a wedding or valued vacation, does not fail. Whereas with a two or three lens carry, we failed to follow as default before buying this one lens and ONLY relying on that one lens. Otherwise..I am really hoping to borrow and perhaps one day purchase this baby!! (If the price lowers!!). Thanks for this comparative review!!👍🏾👍🏾📸
Thanks for this great review . I am still wanting more to know the 3d pop u mention .I once got the 3d pop in Leica lens when I shooting in film era . If it's true I won't mind carry a little heavy lens .3d pop usually due to higer resolving micro contrast .
I have the 24-105mm f/4 G Lens (among others). I do primarily landscape and astro photography with virtually no video. In your opinion, would the faster aperture and longer reach on this be worth the expense of upgrading from the 24-105 f/4 to this lens?
I would say your primary advantage would be your astro work, but if those are really your two priorities, you might want to consider just adding something like the 20mm F1.8 G lens for astro (and a wider perspective when you want it).
Thank you @@DustinAbbottTWI. For wide angle astro, I use either my 14mm f/1.8 GM, Tamron 17-28mm f/2.8, or my Sigma 35mm f/2. For astro use, I was thinking of how practical it would be to shoot fairly large Deep Space Objects such as the Orion Nebula or Andromeda where a little more reach at a fast aperture might come in handy.
I currently have the other two Tamron and the 70-180 is my portrait work horse, but now I'm thinking of renting the 35-150 to check it out when available.
Not really, just saw another comparison where the new 35-150 missed more than double numbers of photos on moving subjects. Worth to try, won’t be boring for sure!
I already had the 17-28 and 70-180 so I decided to replace my Sony kit lens with the 28-75 G2. If I didn't already have these two lenses I might have gone for the 35-150 instead, it's such a hassle to switch lenses when you're outdoors and pairing it with a 16-35 GM and 200-600 G would be a dream I think, despite the weight of each individual lens. Bottom line both solutions are nice.
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.
First of all, I'm truly surprised that Sigma hasn't brought us a 70-200 yet. If you can live with only 35mm on the wide end, I just find the combination of focal length and aperture on the 35-150mm so incredibly compelling. That's the route I've gone.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Thank you for your precious opinion. You're right, there surely is some explanation of market placement. On the wider end I could cover with an easy packing prime like the 24 1.4 or 20 1.8. But for what concerning me the most during travels is to have a versatile and quick ally for every situation and also isolating the subject/model in busy situation where the tele-end excels.
Hi there. Great comparison. How heavy is that 35-150 going to feel with OCF ? Will it strain your arms for an event, like few hours ? The range is quite appealing, but im afraid the weight will cause some fatigue for me... Thanks.
That was my concern as well since I dump the Canon DSLR 5 years ago due to the weight issue and the thought of holding the weight of a Canon 70-200mm L II again was not a pretty one even though it was an excellent lens. The 35-150mm is nowhere as heavy on hand for a person who switched from Fuji system that also have the 50-150mm f/2.8 lens. I have shot a few full day events with the camera with a hand strap and on a shoulder strap and have no issue at all. I prefer to have more ranges on my camera ready to shoot than carrying them in my bag that I have to stop & swap (and miss shots) or spend the money to buy a second body that is guarantied to decrease its value right after I take it out of the store.
@@gogoasa333 with my Godox pretty well living on top of the camera body every time I take the camera out I understand the thinking behind it; however, in reality the setup is actually less stressful to my hands since the flash actually adds weight towards the back of the camera and counterweight the front weight of the lens. Adding the additional grip helps even more.
I've had trouble with the 70-180 in low-light. It seems to hunt and miss focus sometimes. I shoot concerts so this is important to me. Does the 35-150 have the same issue?
@@DustinAbbottTWI Sony A7III. A couple other people have reported the same thing to me. It works great when there is sufficient light but when it gets dark enough, it seems to struggle.
@@JeanMarcLavoie I have issues with it hunting. There was a firmware update the year it was released… I havent noticed any difference after but others have. Make sure its up to date and maybe it might help. There was a focal range I can’t remember off top of my head that was affected and the need for the firmware update.
Hi Dustin! Great review! Do you think is a sense of buying Sony 35mm 1.8 or Sigma 35mm 2.0 when I have Tamron 28-75 G2? Will be significant difference in bokeh quality and overall rendering in plus for Sony/Sigma? Or maybe I should to buy Sigma 35mm 1.4 DG DN to feel significant difference? What do You think?
@@DustinAbbottTWI Wow, thank you!! i'd like to know if if it's worth selling both 17-28 2.8 (which is great in flare and contrast against the sun) and samyang 45 1.8 (which i love for his character. And i don't know if tamron 20-40 is a lens for only videomakers
So excited for this lens… only dilemma is whether to match it with the Tamron 17-28 or if I really need the sony 16-35 GM so I don’t have a gap from 28 to 35.
Normally you chose 24 or 28 mm and than step up to 35. So the gap between 28 and 35 is not really an issue cause u barely use focal length like 30 most of the time
@@DustinAbbottTWI Typical Sony move, skipping the dedicated and quality lens review channels and going with other content creators first... I guess they are scared of your judgment.
I always wondered if the design goal in the beginning was to make a 2.0-2.8 lens, as opposed to a constant 2.8. Or if it just became a realization that 2.0 was easily possible. As much as I like the lens, I've found the weight to be too much. I now use 28-75 and 70-180. Even though it's more weight total, it's not while using the camera. I would pay more just to loose weight and a stop of light but keep the focal range.
@@DustinAbbottTWI The IQ comparison will be interesting between the older/ lighter f4 version(A043) with this one. I use A043 on my 5Ds and R series body.
This comparison is a fantastic one and cleared lots of my doubts. However, I am a little concerned about the lack of VC/OSS in this lens and so wanted to know about your opinion. I am currently a A7 III owner and I am not sure if the In Body image stabilisation is enough for handheld video shoot during travel time especially if I am walking slowly without a gimbal. Do you have any advice for the same?
@@DustinAbbottTWI An outstanding review! It's good to know about the limitation of IBIS in regards to longer focal lengths. If I were to use the Tamron 35-150mm f2.0-2.8 for events, I would pair that lens with the Sony a7 IV, and then set the controls to f5.6, 1/250 sec, and auto ISO, *if* the a7 IV would allow me to do so. (I don't own the camera, so I'm guessing.) Honestly, I struggled to see any meaningful difference in image quality among the three lens that you reviewed. If necessary, any small shortcoming with these three Tamron lenses can be fixed in post processing. However, I have several issues with the Tamron 35-150mm. First, its size, weight, and bulk, its price, and the lens flare, which Tamron needs to fix, are a problem for me. Second, the lens only goes to 35mm, which means I would need to carry a second a7 IV (not a problem) with something like Tamron's 20-40mm f2.8. So, in reality, just one lens can't do it all for events. Third, because of the size of the Tamron 35-150mm, some event attendees *might* be intimidated by it; whereas, professional models would not.
Thanks Dustin for the review. I'm currently in the process of selling off my canon DSLRS, transitioning to the Sony A7IV (decided also as a result of your review), and planning to buy this as my main lens.
This is an interesting focal length. I'm glad to hear your thoughts as it compares to the typical 24-70 & 70-200 combo. I like my primes and 70-200 equiv, but this would be a serious contender if I were in the system and looking for zooms. Keeping the lens kit spontaneous and fresh with new lenses like these is a joy unto itself.
I found this lens to have a major focussing flaw.. back focus when shooting moving objects in low light situations. I shoot dance competitions and when the dancers are near the audience the focus finds the audience faces and goes from the dancers. Using lock on tracking wide with sticky 0 and it still jumps on my A9 with v6 update. A firmware update needed for sure!
Your reviews abt. the 35-150mm makes me wondering whether I should replace my Sony 24-105 which is a great lens. But the reach of the Tamron in combination with 2.0/2.8 seems a great advantage. And in fact I don't mind the weight and the Tamron would fit my A7IV perfectly as an allround lens.
Great comparison! Also curious how much of a difference there is for an amateur photographer between this 35-180 and Tamron's 28-200. Do you have any quick thoughts on when the 35-180 would be a better recommendation?
It seems that the main trade-offs would be a shorter focal range and higher price, in exchange for the sharper image, faster aperture, better build quality, and extra inputs on the 35-180?
Dustin quick question plz Im not a pro photographer I just shoot for kids and family. I do have the a7c body, will this lens be a good combo with Sony a7c since it isn't IBIS lens ? ..
The a7C has pretty decent IBIS, so any of these lenses will work reasonably well. In terms of stabilization, their order is 1) 28-75 2) 35-150 and 3) 70-180mm. That's just because IBIS (in camera) works better with shorter focal lengths.
I had considered the 35-150mm range always as the ideal range for shooting kids indoors and the next moment outdoors. Unfortunately this zoom range hasn't been available for quite a long time until Tamron launched the 35-150 f/2.8-4 for Canon and Nikon mount about 2 years ago. And now this faster lens for E mount. Now I just hope that Tamron will be able to offer the same lens for Z mount as well soon.
Love this sort of comparison, where you go into more detail on its rendering and bokeh of the lens, since MTF charts are really just one side of the story. I've got to say I'm truly impressed with the lens since the first day of owning it, which has given me numerous epic photos already in 3 weeks' time. The range, large aperture, excellent IQ and quick AF make it an extremely versatile lens that could basically cover most situations outside of super-telephoto, ultrawide or macro. The additional 35-70mm or 75-150mm (depending on how you see it) is just invaluable. I could take group shots of the sideline audience at 35mm then instantly cover for the sports action at 150mm in just a twist of zoom (although 150mm falls a bit short for courts larger than basketball or volleyball), or go from taking photos of dogs sprinting at 150mm then quickly go back to 35mm for the friendly puppy appearing right in front me. Under the same situation, I might have to give up certain moments or take the risk of switching lenses and get nothing if I was using primes or a two f2.8 zooms. IMO the weight is fine for what it is and what it's capable of, I just wish it could be built like a GM (the plastic casing doesn't seem as sturdy or robust) with a round hood and rubber feet, and a locking switch that could be disengaged upon zooming (like Sigma).
Excellent comparison as always! I own the 28-75 1st gen and I was considering selling it to get the 35-150 and have all my bases covered, short/med/tele. I shoot photos for myself and select events and I mostly do wedding video work professionaly on a RSC2. So that's my only trouble. Will the Ronin + 35-150 hold up for gimbal work? Will my right bicep? :) How would you like it on a gimbal? I think that since the video work is ultimately paying for all of this, I should stick with the tested, lighter setup, and since I just upgraded to an a7m4, go through an event season to get some money an re-evaluate things next year about my telephoto plans. But damn, that's a good lens! As always a pleasure going through another one of your videos! Have a great year, and I wish you all the best!
Heavier lenses are never as good on gimbals because your range of motion is more limited, though at the same time this lens is well within the weight limitations of your gimbal. You may need to do a little tuning to get best performance out of it.
I'm curious about comparing the TAMROM 35-150mm f/2.0-2.8 with the Sony 28-70 f/2.8 GM2 and 70-200 f/2.8 GM2, because there is a big difference in $$$$ :) Thanks for these great videos..
I haven't done that comparison, obviously, but since I own the Tamron I may look at the focal lengths and where they overlap when I finally get review copies of the Sony lenses.
Great review Dustin! I didn’t see you testing the 180 vs 150mm at 2.8 just to see the difference in bokeh and how much you lose by going with a shorter focal length. Can you share your thoughts about it as I’m interested in going with a 70-180 or 35-150, thanks!
@@DustinAbbottTWI Probably I didn't ask the corect question. Having the 70-180 at 180 and 35-150 at 150mm then comparing the bokeh, curious if for a 30mm focal length there's a noticeable difference in bokeh or not.
The decision is hard. Do I choose a filet mignon or a ribeye with bone? Or do I just settle for a Fatburger and be done with it. The question is what do I do with my 24-105 Sony? All these lens are so good I almost see a lack of desire for a prime lens save for a 20mm wide and possibly 85mm portrait tele. That 35-150 fits the bill so wel that I would choose it as the ultimate travel lens, covering so much. I can deal with the 35mm minimum most of the time. For the ultra wide, I will grab my 14-24 Sigma. I can see a person with very few lenses, this is the "perfect" solution. Just looking at the combined costs of prime lens to cover this range, this lens is a steal. I would not be surprised that pros gravitate to this lens once they see just how nice it is to not to keep switching lens. The 2 to 2.8 aperture is unbelievable. Tamron has really given the competition a real fight. I can't see any lens that can compete with. If I had this back in the 70s on, I would have been in heaven.
@@DustinAbbottTWI By looking at your video again, it's a toss up between as each has its weakness and strengths in detail and contrast. So, I still think the 35-150 is the best overall. It's the lens that rule them all. One thing that is nice is that Tameron has introduced a 20-40mm lens you have reviewed, I believe. That should satisfy the need for those who need an ultrawide to near normal lens. Tamron is on a roll.
I currently use a Sonys 24-105 for landscape, paired with a 100-400 GM and a 16-35 GM. I’m not fully satisfied with the sharpness of the 24-105, especially with narrower apertures (narrower than f/8). At or below f/8, I find the 24-105: excellentIn. Ones I’m considering are Tamron 28-200, Tamron 35-150, Tamron 50-100, and Sony 24-105 G. I’m concerned the 35mm crossover would require me to change lenses too often, but that’s a trade-off I might be willing to make for a significant sharpness boost.
What camera body are you using, David. Smaller apertures (typically after F11) will show more softness due to diffraction, and that shows up faster on high resolution bodies. I would consider the Tamron 35-150mm to be the greatest compliment to your GM lenses in terms of performance.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Thanks, very much, for your suggestion. Your reviews are excellent - light on the fluff, heavy on the roe ant information. I use the A7RIV for landscape, and love it! I’m aware narrower apertures cause diffraction, but I was thinking some lenses might be tuned better for narrower apertures than others. Typically, reviews test wider apertures, and ignore the narrower ones, making that information hard to come by. Focus stacking is not particularly useful with plants in a breeze, making sharpness at narrower apertures valuable information for landscape photographers. I thought it might be a novel approach for a review.
Its very impressive what tamron is doing with their zoom lenses & the ranges/aperture/weight-size spectrum. And now they are also integrating software controls. Its an optimal lens for many kinds of event work (particularly interior) but for travel - it depends on the kind of travel. I find I need longer focal lengths for architectural motifs as in some ancient temple cities which have extensive detailed sculpture at higher echelons - same with more modern cities if one is looking at design detail in cityscapes. The tamron 70-300 works in these cases better & in combination with a lightweight fast prime - making it lighter & more ergonomic to carry (one 200-500gm lens on the camera & the other in a waist pouch/pocket). However the above lens just adds another dimension to their excellent zoom range. They have it all covered from ultrawide to tele - from faster to slower apertures with excellent AF
Hey Dustin, thank you for your reviews, really. In your opinion is the Sony 24-105mm F4 even a competitor at this point. I know the price, image stabilization and size differences. I am only asking from IQ, autofocus, build quality and overall performance. Let me know what you think. Cheers!!!
Hi Dustin, very meningful comparison. I already have the 28-75+70-180mm and I am happy with them. I also saw the 35-150mm and it delivers very good quality. But there is one no go with this lens. It is too heavy. For me the weight of the 70-180mm is max what I like to use longer time on my heavy R5. Since I start my foto trips often with 2 bodies, there is no need to change lenses. For UWW I use the 14-24mm from Sigma. Than I have to decide before a foto shot which lenses I will need this day. 14-24+35-150 would reduce this dilemma. But the weight of the 35-150 is an exclusion criteria....
Hey Dustin I have suggestion for your AF testing. How about build a simple, small swing with a weight and some kind of "Dustin AF target (c)" stick on it. Then you swing it, everytime from the same point, with same weight which give same speed everytime. Then put a camera on tripod and test focused shots on target (maybe even with different f stops?). Should give comparable results at least for similar focal lenghts. Just a thought :) If you like it I hope for a premiere in Samyang 50mm 1.4 FE II review :P edit: forgot to thank you for another fantastic review!
Great comparison Dustin. Thank you. I can't help thinking Tamron better off having one stop less light, circa 650g, a little bit bigger than 28-75, $1000ish the 35-150/2.8-4 maybe in Tamron's mind there is a different definition of travel lens than most of us. Currently as good as 35-150 is, I consider it to be an event, wedding, environmental portrait lens. No travel, no streets, no high school sports. Not as versatile as focal range suggested because of weight size and close focus capability. Again for a lot of wedding shooters, 24mm wide end is more comfortable and they need something 0.5x for the ring shot. So really how useful this one lens solution is, IMO not enough to sell two zooms.
Hi Frank, for me this lens hits the spot. I think it will be perfect for event and wedding work. Less of a travel or street lens, yes. I wouldn't want it any different, myself.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Thanks Dustin. Shooting mostly local, fast pace, certain location restrain requires fast aperture and long reach at the same time without changing lenses. It fits that ideally. Outside of that, it doesn't really shine for many other applications. It is kind of more specialty than general purpose as the focal range might imply. If you go out shooting with no specific subjects in mind, you usually grab a lens like 24-105 or 24-200, those are more of all-in-one.
This is probably the best review of this lens. Thank you! I am with you, and I think that if you haven't got the Tamron trio already, consider this lens as a replacement of 28-75 and 70-180, leaving some space in your bag for a wide angle and may be adding 150-500 for the extra reach and wild life, or a dedicated prime of your favourite focal length, like a portrait fast lens, for example. 👍🤔👍 The only thing that stops me for the moment and still makes me toss and turn in choosing between these Tamron lenses is the minimal focal distance that is far more superior in the later two of the trio lenses, that reduces the need for a macro lens. That and a tiny extra reach on both ends with a better flare control still let's the two lenses combo hold their ground. The choice much depends on your shooting needs, preferences and styles. Once you carefully consider them, you can chose what better suits you and be happy about your choice, as either way you go, the image quality will not let you down. 😉
@@DustinAbbottTWI Before I got A043, I use 24-105L w/ 1.6Xmode on 5Ds for events shooting. Benefit for a "RF style" VF experience and more space for post rotating/ cropping.
This is, as always, some truly high-quality work. No surprise Gerald Undone recently recommended your channel, even though I didn't need it to subscribe months ago. Thank you for this level of investment, so appreciated ! This release is a much needed one, and sheds a crucial light on what may well be a tiny revolution in the world of photo optics. Very few were expecting such a "surprise" from Tamron, even though the older ones remember their 1980/90s off-stream offerings (catadioptric tele-lenses, macro 1:1 zooms, and else). But this offering is well refined, not just an in-the-trend gadget. And that makes it a considerable option for professionals.
Hey @gordonyz4, I am also thinking about the same combo. However, what do you think about the missing Image stabilisation on 35-150? Especially for travel, if I shoot videos handheld while I am walking, will it cope up?
This is the huge comparison right now and I want to dive in to create a two-lens combination. Honestly can’t justify it at the moment just yet.. but who knows
The size and weight does put me off. if i was stuck with only one lens to use it would be 28-75mm G2. Keeps my mirrorless camera compact, light enough that i actually want to bring it with me.
I'm quite interested in the 35-150 as a replacement for my sigma dn dg 24-70 and tamron 70-180. I also have the 17-28. That's my Trinity zoom for FE mount. What're are your thoughts on the IQ of the sigma 24-70 vs tamron 35-150? Also on 150 vs 180? Great vid as always. Thanks in advance.
Thanks for the informative video. I've been taking pictures for over 40 years. Started with Canon AE1P and then Nikon D100, D200 and D800. I have a lot of the Nikon F2.8 lenses. Currently I thinking to get a mirrorless camera body. I'm looking at the Nikon vs Sony. With Nikon I may be able to use an adapter to keep current F2.8 lenses.....with Sony body I would need get the new lenses (Tamron or Sony). I was taking a lot of concert/special event photos but now I do mostly photos of homeless dogs and cats for various animal rescue organizations.
![Seungmin "그렇게, 천천히, 우리(As we are)" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kAzmhLHePqU/mqdefault.jpg)
Thanks so much for this excellent review and comparison of these lenses. I returned the 28-75mm & 70-180mm and got the 35-150mm few months ago after switching from Fuji X-H1 system to the A7IV with this lens and shot over 30+ events so far and can't be happier not have to think about swapping lenses (& less sensor cleaning) while have the ability to use lower ISO between 35-80mm range and still gets excellent sharp IQ. I am surprised how little I actually miss the 24/28mm range by just stepping one large step back (when possible) while getting the same image without the wide-angle distortion even though I always had the little Sigma 16-28mm f/2.8 in my bag at all times to rescue me (only used it in one event so far). Pared with the Tamron 50-400mm with its 1:2 Macro capability to complete my "Trinity lenses" set pulse a Godox V1 flash & a Sony mic that fits all in a small Think Tank Turn Style 20 sling bag, it is now ready to cover all the ranges I would need. Thanks again for your excellent review that helped me to choose the right lens for the Sony system as I almost went with the "traditional" Trinity setup without knowing Tamron make so many "Thinking Out of Box" lenses.
This really is an amazing lens - pretty much perfect for events.
Great video as always, thank you. I´m trading in the 24-70 GM for this lens and keeping the 16-35 GM in my bag for the wide shots.
I've got the 16-35gm and the 28 to 200. Either want the 35-150 or the new 24-70gm ... Tough choice, think the lack of 24mm will make me change lenses more often than I'd like and it's big and heavy for hiking
how was it in comparison to 24-70GM? Rendering, sharpness and contrast wise
Can you give an update on your experience so far? Is there anything you feel that the 24-70 GM did better?
@@josesalgado2796 I am super happy. The lens is sharp and fast focusing. A little vignetting specially on the wide end, but I never really mind that on any lenses. Downsides are that it´s a bit heavy and at 150 mm OIS would have been great. Compared to the 24-70 GM there is nothing I miss and I would say they are similar in IQ and focus speed. I use it on an A7iv som I don´t get the fastes fps anyway.
@@michaellarsson I'll have a to wait a little longer to experience it myself. Some camera stores in my area had 1-2 delivered but they didn't last a day and I missed out. The FPS cap was something I thought about but 15 is still plenty, plus it wasn't really made for fast action anyways. I wanted a second opinion on if it replaced a 24-70 with no significant losses
A general comment about your channel, which I find very useful and have subscribed to. But I wanted to thank you in particular for your accompanying written reviews, which are neglected by most of your RUclips colleagues. I find them very useful, often preferable to video content (which may reflect the dinosaur wiring of my brain). Thanks
There's a lot of truth to that. I'm one of the few that tackles both mediums.
@@DustinAbbottTWI I agree with the commenter-great to have both written and video
Fantastic review. I’ve been lucky to have received a copy of the 35-150 from BH in late October and I was just blown away by the IQ. I wasn’t expecting to like this lens as much as I did but here we are. This coming from a prime lens user who has only had zooms for the few events I’ve done. It’s a keeper for sure!!!
Agreed that the IQ is surprisingly rich. I used it in a casual setting for a birthday and was delighted with the photos.
Very reasonable and helpful review. In January, I only had an A1 and the 35-150 zoom. (I was lucky enough to get one in the first batch to hit the US.) It is a heavy zoom but I love the features and the performance for everything except hiking and gimbal video. So I bought a Samyang 24/1.8 to cover the wide and light end. Next was the 150-500 for kids sports. Very happy with all of these. Then, for Father's Day, my wife presented me with a Tamron 28-75 G2. All is right with the world!!! Perfect for off-tripod video and hiking/landscape. But my 35-150 is still on the A1 80% of the time, especially when on a tripod and/or close to the car. I've added a Hoage tripod mount ring to the 35-150 also, and that helps a bunch with the handling and balance in my opinion.
They are both really nice lenses.
I think the 35-150 makes the perfect portrait or travel lens. Great comparison, I think you really helped point out why someone would choose this lens over the alternatives.
My pleasure, David.
not really for travel. every gram counts when u r on foot.
@@seanhe4606 wrong. That's exactly why it's great. It's an all in one zoom at Amazing aperture that's a full pound of not more lighter than 2.8 setups. F4 is a cop out for anything useful travel related (portraits, etc)
Define “travel lens”. If you are going to trek 5-6 h in Dolomites, Patagonia or Nepal, you don’t need 2.8 (unless you are doing a portrait session there😅) . But you need something light. A combo with f4 apertures will be better. If it is just a walk around old town with your family or SO, or shooting from a parking, than yes , it is a travel lens
@nicholasbrown3443 When you're traveling size and weight matters. Good luck pulling this behemoth of a lens out for a spur of the moment shot. The 35 to 150 is almost the same size weight as sony's 70 to 200. It's certainly would be great for shooting an event, but for travel no way
I sold off my 28-75 and 70-180mm two weeks ago, and ordered the 35-150. At the end of the day, reducing lens requirements from 2 to 1 is a no brainer. Regardless, Tamron has hit it out of the park with the emount.
Agreed.
Do you miss the extra 30mm at 150mm, compared to the 180mm on the 70-180mm?
@@shawndavismedia I do not, I can always move my feet to close that 30mm. The 7mm on the wide end is a bit harder to compensate for though given space limitations.
@@realBatman That’s understandable, I just wanted to hear your opinion since I basically just bought it as of yesterday partially from what you and others have said. And the wider end might be a little harder. But at least I will always have my 17-28mm with me 😂. It’ll be much better though than having to carry an extra two lenses.
I have this lens, and the 28-75 G1. I'll keep the smaller lighter 28-75 for gimbal work and B roll.
You are my friend one of the best reviewers on RUclips! Thanks for all your efforts! Cheers
That's such a kind compliment. Thank you.
Thanks for the videos as always. I’ve decided to opt for the 35-150mm rather than a 24-70mm / 28-75mm coupled with a 70-180+mm based on your detailed videos about this lens. It really does seem to be such a great performer for that range - amazing how Tamron managed to get it so good… when Sony’s own all in one is so bad. I thought the 28-200mm from Tamron was a gem, but this is even better! Granted 35-150mm isn’t the same range, but it’s not a bad range. And I can get 225mm with super 35mm mode on my A7R IV and still get a 26MP shot!
Thanks a lot for the vid, Dustin!
It is really useful all around. I love mine.
It's amazing that whenever I think about a lens comparison, you already have a video about it. I guess unlike most of other Tubers you are indeed a real world photographer :)
Thanks on all counts!
I don't trust alot of the reviewers on you tube that seem to Cowtow to the manufacturers to ensure that they get the next lens to review but I do trust Dustin. Always open and excellent reviews.
Thanks for the vote of confidence.
Super informative review second to none! This is the bible for my next Tamron purchase, thank you!
Thanks for the nice feedback.
Going to 24mm causes all kinds of engineering complications, if experience serves
Your comparison sounds so much more professional and competent compared to other RUclipsrs. Keep up!
My pleasure.
Excellent comparison. This will certainly clear the confusion for many enthusiasts like me who were facing the dilemma of what lens to purchase.
Thanks 🙏🙏🙏
Glad it was helpful!
Just a quickie please take a look at your time frame 34:38 - Conclusion and Pricing
The time stamps didn't get updated. I'll fix them.
I’m in that one group you mentioned. I would take a loss selling my lenses for the 35-150. I do some event photography 5-7 times a year and use my 28-75 and 70-180 for that. But most of my shooting is travel, so I like a small kit with the Sony 20mm f/1.8 G, Sigma 65mm f/2, and Sigma 90mm f/2.8.
I ended up doing the same.
Great review Dustin. This is exactly what I did, I kept the 35-150 and sold my Tamron 70-180 and a Sigma 24-70. I already had a Samyang 24 MM F1.8 so I think for my purposes I'm covered across enough focal ranges. I also own the Tamron 150-500. I really liked going to one lens and when I'm walking in the woods, I don't need to take both lenses, just the 35-150.
I ended up trading in my 28-75 and 70-180 for this one, too.
Back in the film days my walk around lens was a Soligor 35-140mm F3.5 Macro zoom. I do hope the 35-150mm becomes available in the RF mount.
Great review. But for a single camera setup, do most people not care about carrying a more than double the weight (of the 28-75) and significantly larger lens ALL THE TIME? granted the combined weight of the combo is larger than the 35-150, but if I can do 75-90% of my shots on the 28-75 or the 70-180 and have to swap for the other when needed from the bag, I wouldn't be carrying something 43% heavier or more than double the weight (70-180, 28-75) all the time on the camera body in hand.
Fair enough.
Here we are with the weight argument. Maybe consider that with one 35-150 you get to leave another body and just use one lens instead of 2 or 3.
If that's too heavy for you, then maybe get a decent comfy strap or man up a bit. People dont complain about the weight of both the 24-70 GM and 70-200 GM. Then now people complain about the 35-150 which like the weight if a 70-200? Come on.. the point of the 35-150 is that you do not have to swap or bring another body to cover that focal range, which is crucial in things like wedding photography
@@papsny lol ok strong guy. My point is people wouldn't complain of the weight of the 24-70 and 70-200 because they don't have both mounted at the same time with the combined weight on the camera. I agree with you it would be great for wedding photography but for a walk araound lens or travel Lena that's a bit cumbersome.
@@jdannug517 I completely agree with you. I used to have a canon with their 70 200 2.8, beautiful lens but I hated walking around with it all day. I've switched to an A7C with the 28 75. My neck and schouders are so much happier
Thanks Dustin , this is the exact question that I’m pondering on, using my A7C with the Tamron 28-75 G2 for concerts and other stuff, 85mm 1.8 and Sigma 100-400 being my longer lenses 🙂
I'm glad I'm not the only one who was thinking about this comparison. I was planning on getting the 2 lenses since I don't own any good 2.8 zoom lenses, but the 35-150mm made me stop and think
It has a way of doing that!
Very interesting comparison, the 35-150 holds it own quite well in terms of sharpness with the exception of extreme corners. Color rendition is slightly richer on the 35-150 and the bokeh is also as good in most situations and sometimes better. All this makes the selections even more difficult with a slight advantage to the 35-150 if you don't already on the other two. Thank you for this excellent review/comparison.
It's not an easy decision, but I agree that the 35-150 holds its own very well.
Wonder how this matchup fairs now with the new Tam 70-180 G2 (with closer focus, VC stabilization, button and custom function switch, and USB C port)! I'm thinking the newer G2 combo might be a better at the moment despite having to change lenses. If the 35-150 had stabilization it would be absolutely unbeatable.
Perhaps, though I continue to be impressed by the 35-150mm again and again. It's an amazing lens.
Great comparison as always. The 35-150 is a crazy range and the IQ is stellar, especially the bokeh.
It's a pretty sweet lenhs.
Great videos! I just hope you would have comparisons of focus shrinking on portraits
I'm not sure what you mean by this.
What an excellent and useful comparison, Dustin! I'll switch to Sony full frame within in the next couple of months. Always thought that buying the "holy trinity" (17-28, 28-75, 70-180) as a decent base to start off would be the way to go. But this new 35-150 and your review/comparison let me think again because I find it very tempting to just have one lens in a range of (formerly) two. But since it's quite big and heavy and has no tripod mount I wonder if it's not _too_ heavy for shooting landscape pics on a tripod for some longer than a few minutes.
I personally would have loved to see a constant aperture of f2.8 since this would have saved size and weight (and price) or could have increased the range. Or both. If I need more bokeh I'd grab a prime anyway. I'd also like to see a 16-35 f2.8 from Tamron to close the gap to the 35-150 at the wide end.
I haven't had an issue with the lens on a tripod. I've actually used it for stable video even on a travel tripod. It's heavy...but not THAT heavy.
Thanks for the video! I am a college student and just preordered my first camera(a7 IV), and I was wondering to choose either Sigma 24-70 f2.4 or this new Tamron 35-150 as my first lens. Could you make a comparison video between the two?
Ps: I'm willing to eat a little less for a while to compensate the price difference if it's worth it. So the $700 price difference is out of consideration.
You are one rich college student if you can even consider a $1900 lens. And you are shooting with a Sony to boot!
@@idahomountainlover754 I'm not rich. I just like to save up my money for things I love until I can afford to buy an item that lasts:)
Hi Albert, I personally think this Tamron is the more special lens. I think it's worth saving a bit more.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Thank you!
The beauty with the a7iv is you do have room to crop if you want to save money and get a lens with less focal range
Hi Dustin! Great video, as usual. I own the 35-150 and the 28-75 G1 + 70-180 combo myself - I am about to upgrade from the two set to the 1 lens solution same way as You.
What I have figured out is, that my copy performs slightly worse on 150mm compared to yours, however it seems like it is slightly better on the wide end (at least my copy beats the 28-75 significantly... What is definitely observable (and you might want to check it too), that if you get closer to the min. focus distance, the 35-150 starts to perform worse and worse. I think for me on 150mm the deadline is around 3m, if you get closer (i.e. 1m) the 35-150 is noticeably worse @150mm compared to the 70-180 @150mm. So the minimum focusing distance is somehow affecting the product more than the other Tamrons. Or maybe it's just my copy.
I didn't really notice that per se.
Hi Dustin, really enjoyed the video, very useful for me trying to work out if I replace the cheaper 28-200 for the faster 35-150. Difficult one!
If you'd be open to feedback, your shutter speed/ shutter angle seems a bit high on your video. The hand and body movements seem very jittery for the frame rate and it can be a bit disorientating. I imagine you probably know already and it was just a constraint of filming with available light and video settings.
Love the content you put out !
if you don’t mind the weight difference and price… but two completely different lenses for different purposes
Had tried the 28-200mm before buying the 35-150mm and stayed with the 35-150mm due to f/2-2.8 that provides much cleaner & lower ISO images and just crop my 33MP image down to 24MP to get the 200mm. 28-200mm is still excellent when traveling lightweight like vacations and I may buy it again as a secondhand lens when I see an excellent deal in the future.
Fantastic Video Dustin, Thank you so much for your hard work!
Glad you enjoyed it!
I have most lenses for my A7IV and A7III and was (guilty-ridden) trying to NOT think about seriously dropping down $2,000 for yet ANOTHER lens. Of all the comments/reviews I have come across, I had not yet heard one of the "cons" of carrying this one lens, is there is NO redundancy...no contingency plan. It's the "All eggs in one basket" scenario. You then PRAY that this ONE lens...at a wedding or valued vacation, does not fail. Whereas with a two or three lens carry, we failed to follow as default before buying this one lens and ONLY relying on that one lens. Otherwise..I am really hoping to borrow and perhaps one day purchase this baby!! (If the price lowers!!). Thanks for this comparative review!!👍🏾👍🏾📸
i wonder if the 35-150mm could replace my 24-70 2.8 gm if i also bought a viltrox 16mm 2.8
It is my personal go-to lens for weddings, events, portraits, etc... I'd personally take it over the original 24-70GM every day of the week.
Thanks Dustin, you and your tests and reviews are great .
Glad you like them!
How do they compare in regards to distortion and vignette?
There's really not a significant difference across them.
Thanks for this great review . I am still wanting more to know the 3d pop u mention .I once got the 3d pop in Leica lens when I shooting in film era . If it's true I won't mind carry a little heavy lens .3d pop usually due to higer resolving micro contrast .
It's definitely something the 35-150mm has. I love it.
Always the best reviews are by you. Thank you :)
Glad you like them!
I have the 24-105mm f/4 G Lens (among others). I do primarily landscape and astro photography with virtually no video. In your opinion, would the faster aperture and longer reach on this be worth the expense of upgrading from the 24-105 f/4 to this lens?
I would say your primary advantage would be your astro work, but if those are really your two priorities, you might want to consider just adding something like the 20mm F1.8 G lens for astro (and a wider perspective when you want it).
Thank you @@DustinAbbottTWI. For wide angle astro, I use either my 14mm f/1.8 GM, Tamron 17-28mm f/2.8, or my Sigma 35mm f/2. For astro use, I was thinking of how practical it would be to shoot fairly large Deep Space Objects such as the Orion Nebula or Andromeda where a little more reach at a fast aperture might come in handy.
I currently have the other two Tamron and the 70-180 is my portrait work horse, but now I'm thinking of renting the 35-150 to check it out when available.
It's definitely worth a look.
Great comparison!
I would like to see the same 1 vs 2 lenses regarding AUTO Focus, please!
They all use the same focus motor, so that would be a pretty boring episode ;)
Not really, just saw another comparison where the new 35-150 missed more than double numbers of photos on moving subjects. Worth to try, won’t be boring for sure!
I already had the 17-28 and 70-180 so I decided to replace my Sony kit lens with the 28-75 G2. If I didn't already have these two lenses I might have gone for the 35-150 instead, it's such a hassle to switch lenses when you're outdoors and pairing it with a 16-35 GM and 200-600 G would be a dream I think, despite the weight of each individual lens. Bottom line both solutions are nice.
Very true - and either way Tamron comes out a winner.
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.
First of all, I'm truly surprised that Sigma hasn't brought us a 70-200 yet. If you can live with only 35mm on the wide end, I just find the combination of focal length and aperture on the 35-150mm so incredibly compelling. That's the route I've gone.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Thank you for your precious opinion. You're right, there surely is some explanation of market placement. On the wider end I could cover with an easy packing prime like the 24 1.4 or 20 1.8. But for what concerning me the most during travels is to have a versatile and quick ally for every situation and also isolating the subject/model in busy situation where the tele-end excels.
Hi there. Great comparison. How heavy is that 35-150 going to feel with OCF ? Will it strain your arms for an event, like few hours ? The range is quite appealing, but im afraid the weight will cause some fatigue for me...
Thanks.
That's a legitimate concern that only you can answer for yourself. I don't find a problem with it, myself, but I'm physically strong.
That was my concern as well since I dump the Canon DSLR 5 years ago due to the weight issue and the thought of holding the weight of a Canon 70-200mm L II again was not a pretty one even though it was an excellent lens. The 35-150mm is nowhere as heavy on hand for a person who switched from Fuji system that also have the 50-150mm f/2.8 lens. I have shot a few full day events with the camera with a hand strap and on a shoulder strap and have no issue at all. I prefer to have more ranges on my camera ready to shoot than carrying them in my bag that I have to stop & swap (and miss shots) or spend the money to buy a second body that is guarantied to decrease its value right after I take it out of the store.
@@Jeo-What I can appreciate the range, but when you need to use it with flash on camera, it will feel quite heavy after a little while...
@@gogoasa333 with my Godox pretty well living on top of the camera body every time I take the camera out I understand the thinking behind it; however, in reality the setup is actually less stressful to my hands since the flash actually adds weight towards the back of the camera and counterweight the front weight of the lens. Adding the additional grip helps even more.
I've had trouble with the 70-180 in low-light. It seems to hunt and miss focus sometimes. I shoot concerts so this is important to me. Does the 35-150 have the same issue?
I haven't encountered that issue with the 70-180, and not with the 35-150 either. What camera body?
@@DustinAbbottTWI Sony A7III. A couple other people have reported the same thing to me. It works great when there is sufficient light but when it gets dark enough, it seems to struggle.
@@JeanMarcLavoie I have issues with it hunting. There was a firmware update the year it was released… I havent noticed any difference after but others have. Make sure its up to date and maybe it might help. There was a focal range I can’t remember off top of my head that was affected and the need for the firmware update.
I own a 90mm sony lens for most of my portraits, please recommend which Tamron will help me as a zoom lens ( 70-180 or 35-150 ?)
If you can get the 35-150, go for it. It's an amazingly flexible lens.
Hi Dustin! Great review! Do you think is a sense of buying Sony 35mm 1.8 or Sigma 35mm 2.0 when I have Tamron 28-75 G2? Will be significant difference in bokeh quality and overall rendering in plus for Sony/Sigma? Or maybe I should to buy Sigma 35mm 1.4 DG DN to feel significant difference? What do You think?
I would probably go a different route, and maybe add something more complimentary. The new Sigma 24mm F2 is nice.
@@DustinAbbottTWI is this sigma better then Samyang AF 24mm 1.8 in term of IQ?
Great video! I've been strongly considering this lens!
It's a tempting one!
Hello, you have in plain to review the new tamron 20-40 f/2.8 vxd for sony?
I'm working on my final review right now.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Wow, thank you!! i'd like to know if if it's worth selling both 17-28 2.8 (which is great in flare and contrast against the sun) and samyang 45 1.8 (which i love for his character. And i don't know if tamron 20-40 is a lens for only videomakers
So excited for this lens… only dilemma is whether to match it with the Tamron 17-28 or if I really need the sony 16-35 GM so I don’t have a gap from 28 to 35.
That's a valid question. I think the 17-28 works for me, but your mileage may vary.
Normally you chose 24 or 28 mm and than step up to 35. So the gap between 28 and 35 is not really an issue cause u barely use focal length like 30 most of the time
Lovely comparison, I was also curious how these lenses would compare with each other. Hope you will also be reviewing the new Sony 70-200 f2.8 GM II.
I do plan to, though I don't have an ETA from Sony as to when a loaner will arrive.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Typical Sony move, skipping the dedicated and quality lens review channels and going with other content creators first... I guess they are scared of your judgment.
I always wondered if the design goal in the beginning was to make a 2.0-2.8 lens, as opposed to a constant 2.8. Or if it just became a realization that 2.0 was easily possible. As much as I like the lens, I've found the weight to be too much. I now use 28-75 and 70-180. Even though it's more weight total, it's not while using the camera. I would pay more just to loose weight and a stop of light but keep the focal range.
They did make an F2.8-4 lens with the same focal range on DSLRs, so maybe there's room for something like that in the future.
@@DustinAbbottTWI The IQ comparison will be interesting between the older/ lighter f4 version(A043) with this one. I use A043 on my 5Ds and R series body.
Can I use this Tamron 28-75 f2.8 which I bought for Nikon is it possible to use the same lens to canon r6
I'm afraid not.
This comparison is a fantastic one and cleared lots of my doubts. However, I am a little concerned about the lack of VC/OSS in this lens and so wanted to know about your opinion. I am currently a A7 III owner and I am not sure if the In Body image stabilisation is enough for handheld video shoot during travel time especially if I am walking slowly without a gimbal. Do you have any advice for the same?
It's going to depend on what focal length you are filming at. IBIS works better below 100mm, I think
@@DustinAbbottTWI An outstanding review!
It's good to know about the limitation of IBIS in regards to longer focal lengths.
If I were to use the Tamron 35-150mm f2.0-2.8 for events, I would pair that lens with the Sony a7 IV, and then set the controls to f5.6, 1/250 sec, and auto ISO, *if* the a7 IV would allow me to do so. (I don't own the camera, so I'm guessing.)
Honestly, I struggled to see any meaningful difference in image quality among the three lens that you reviewed. If necessary, any small shortcoming with these three Tamron lenses can be fixed in post processing.
However, I have several issues with the Tamron 35-150mm. First, its size, weight, and bulk, its price, and the lens flare, which Tamron needs to fix, are a problem for me. Second, the lens only goes to 35mm, which means I would need to carry a second a7 IV (not a problem) with something like Tamron's 20-40mm f2.8. So, in reality, just one lens can't do it all for events. Third, because of the size of the Tamron 35-150mm, some event attendees *might* be intimidated by it; whereas, professional models would not.
Super interested in this comparison!
Enjoy!
Thanks Dustin for the review. I'm currently in the process of selling off my canon DSLRS, transitioning to the Sony A7IV (decided also as a result of your review), and planning to buy this as my main lens.
You'll love the lens. It's amazing.
This is an interesting focal length. I'm glad to hear your thoughts as it compares to the typical 24-70 & 70-200 combo. I like my primes and 70-200 equiv, but this would be a serious contender if I were in the system and looking for zooms. Keeping the lens kit spontaneous and fresh with new lenses like these is a joy unto itself.
Good summation.
I found this lens to have a major focussing flaw.. back focus when shooting moving objects in low light situations. I shoot dance competitions and when the dancers are near the audience the focus finds the audience faces and goes from the dancers. Using lock on tracking wide with sticky 0 and it still jumps on my A9 with v6 update. A firmware update needed for sure!
That's interesting. I haven't had any issue like that, though I haven't used it on an a9
Your reviews abt. the 35-150mm makes me wondering whether I should replace my Sony 24-105 which is a great lens. But the reach of the Tamron in combination with 2.0/2.8 seems a great advantage. And in fact I don't mind the weight and the Tamron would fit my A7IV perfectly as an allround lens.
I would make that trade any day of the week. I reach for the 35-150mm more than any other lens, and it never fails to impress.
You have convinced me :-)! Thanks @@DustinAbbottTWI
I don't think you'll regret it.
What lavalier system are you using?
The Hollyland Lark 150 for this video. bhpho.to/3gqlUeb
Great comparison! Also curious how much of a difference there is for an amateur photographer between this 35-180 and Tamron's 28-200. Do you have any quick thoughts on when the 35-180 would be a better recommendation?
It seems that the main trade-offs would be a shorter focal range and higher price, in exchange for the sharper image, faster aperture, better build quality, and extra inputs on the 35-180?
@@Admajors Image quality, weight, or price alone is enough to be the deciding factor.
The 28-200 is more a traditional travel lens, while this is a more premium event/wedding/portrait lens. I would consider your purchase accordingly.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Perfect, thank you!
Dustin quick question plz
Im not a pro photographer I just shoot for kids and family. I do have the a7c body, will this lens be a good combo with Sony a7c since it isn't IBIS lens ? ..
The a7C has pretty decent IBIS, so any of these lenses will work reasonably well. In terms of stabilization, their order is 1) 28-75 2) 35-150 and 3) 70-180mm. That's just because IBIS (in camera) works better with shorter focal lengths.
@@DustinAbbottTWI very informative Dustin. I can't thank you enough.
I had considered the 35-150mm range always as the ideal range for shooting kids indoors and the next moment outdoors. Unfortunately this zoom range hasn't been available for quite a long time until Tamron launched the 35-150 f/2.8-4 for Canon and Nikon mount about 2 years ago. And now this faster lens for E mount. Now I just hope that Tamron will be able to offer the same lens for Z mount as well soon.
I too hope these Tamrons come to Nikon Z and Canon RF.
@@DustinAbbottTWI I want a L-mount on my SL body lol~
Megadap adapter
11:45
Wow...that's a 50 NT$ paper bill at the bottom, haven't seen it for decades already, cool!
I’ve found some vintage bills over the years in my traveling and collecting, and they make for interesting additions to my test chart.
Great video! Helped me make my decision and I am going for the 35-150mm to replace my 28-75mm and 70-180mm Tamron lenses.
Glad I could help!
Love this sort of comparison, where you go into more detail on its rendering and bokeh of the lens, since MTF charts are really just one side of the story.
I've got to say I'm truly impressed with the lens since the first day of owning it, which has given me numerous epic photos already in 3 weeks' time. The range, large aperture, excellent IQ and quick AF make it an extremely versatile lens that could basically cover most situations outside of super-telephoto, ultrawide or macro. The additional 35-70mm or 75-150mm (depending on how you see it) is just invaluable. I could take group shots of the sideline audience at 35mm then instantly cover for the sports action at 150mm in just a twist of zoom (although 150mm falls a bit short for courts larger than basketball or volleyball), or go from taking photos of dogs sprinting at 150mm then quickly go back to 35mm for the friendly puppy appearing right in front me. Under the same situation, I might have to give up certain moments or take the risk of switching lenses and get nothing if I was using primes or a two f2.8 zooms.
IMO the weight is fine for what it is and what it's capable of, I just wish it could be built like a GM (the plastic casing doesn't seem as sturdy or robust) with a round hood and rubber feet, and a locking switch that could be disengaged upon zooming (like Sigma).
That's a pretty solid assessment.
Excellent comparison as always!
I own the 28-75 1st gen and I was considering selling it to get the 35-150 and have all my bases covered, short/med/tele. I shoot photos for myself and select events and I mostly do wedding video work professionaly on a RSC2.
So that's my only trouble. Will the Ronin + 35-150 hold up for gimbal work? Will my right bicep? :) How would you like it on a gimbal?
I think that since the video work is ultimately paying for all of this, I should stick with the tested, lighter setup, and since I just upgraded to an a7m4, go through an event season to get some money an re-evaluate things next year about my telephoto plans. But damn, that's a good lens!
As always a pleasure going through another one of your videos! Have a great year, and I wish you all the best!
Heavier lenses are never as good on gimbals because your range of motion is more limited, though at the same time this lens is well within the weight limitations of your gimbal. You may need to do a little tuning to get best performance out of it.
I have the Tamron 17-28 f2.8 already. This 35-150 will completes the traditional trinity combo.
That's pretty much the way I'm handling it.
Great review Dustin. Can you do a comparison with the Sony 2470 and 70200 lineup please? Thanks 😀
Not in the immediate future. I don't have either of those lenses on hand.
I'm curious about comparing the TAMROM 35-150mm f/2.0-2.8 with the Sony 28-70 f/2.8 GM2 and 70-200 f/2.8 GM2, because there is a big difference in $$$$ :) Thanks for these great videos..
I haven't done that comparison, obviously, but since I own the Tamron I may look at the focal lengths and where they overlap when I finally get review copies of the Sony lenses.
Great review Dustin! I didn’t see you testing the 180 vs 150mm at 2.8 just to see the difference in bokeh and how much you lose by going with a shorter focal length. Can you share your thoughts about it as I’m interested in going with a 70-180 or 35-150, thanks!
The 70-180 frames a little tighter at 150mm vs the 35-150, so it still has slightly softer bokeh.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Probably I didn't ask the corect question. Having the 70-180 at 180 and 35-150 at 150mm then comparing the bokeh, curious if for a 30mm focal length there's a noticeable difference in bokeh or not.
Can the 35-150 replace 35mm 1.4?
That depends on if F2 at 35mm is sufficient for your needs.
The decision is hard. Do I choose a filet mignon or a ribeye with bone? Or do I just settle for a Fatburger and be done with it. The question is what do I do with my 24-105 Sony? All these lens are so good I almost see a lack of desire for a prime lens save for a 20mm wide and possibly 85mm portrait tele. That 35-150 fits the bill so wel that I would choose it as the ultimate travel lens, covering so much. I can deal with the 35mm minimum most of the time. For the ultra wide, I will grab my 14-24 Sigma. I can see a person with very few lenses, this is the "perfect" solution. Just looking at the combined costs of prime lens to cover this range, this lens is a steal. I would not be surprised that pros gravitate to this lens once they see just how nice it is to not to keep switching lens. The 2 to 2.8 aperture is unbelievable. Tamron has really given the competition a real fight. I can't see any lens that can compete with. If I had this back in the 70s on, I would have been in heaven.
It really is a stunningly good lens. I’m traveling with it right now and really enjoying it
@@DustinAbbottTWI By looking at your video again, it's a toss up between as each has its weakness and strengths in detail and contrast. So, I still think the 35-150 is the best overall. It's the lens that rule them all. One thing that is nice is that Tameron has introduced a 20-40mm lens you have reviewed, I believe. That should satisfy the need for those who need an ultrawide to near normal lens. Tamron is on a roll.
Great review! I will get my 35-150 tamron... to replace the sigma 35mm and 135mm
Thanks again!
I think you'll enjoy the versatility of this lens.
This is exactly what i neede to know!!!! Thank you Dustin!!!
Happy to help!
If someone already has the 70-180mm is it worth the switch?
I decided for myself it was, as it allowed me to use one lens in a situation where I'd often use two.
@@DustinAbbottTWI thank you! You have changed my mind and I sold my 70-180.
It’s sold out everywhere. If someone knows where I can find 1 please please please let me know. The 35-150.
You basically need to set up a preorder; demand is far outstripping supply in the early going.
I currently use a Sonys 24-105 for landscape, paired with a 100-400 GM and a 16-35 GM. I’m not fully satisfied with the sharpness of the 24-105, especially with narrower apertures (narrower than f/8). At or below f/8, I find the 24-105: excellentIn. Ones I’m considering are Tamron 28-200, Tamron 35-150, Tamron 50-100, and Sony 24-105 G. I’m concerned the 35mm crossover would require me to change lenses too often, but that’s a trade-off I might be willing to make for a significant sharpness boost.
What camera body are you using, David. Smaller apertures (typically after F11) will show more softness due to diffraction, and that shows up faster on high resolution bodies. I would consider the Tamron 35-150mm to be the greatest compliment to your GM lenses in terms of performance.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Thanks, very much, for your suggestion. Your reviews are excellent - light on the fluff, heavy on the roe ant information. I use the A7RIV for landscape, and love it! I’m aware narrower apertures cause diffraction, but I was thinking some lenses might be tuned better for narrower apertures than others. Typically, reviews test wider apertures, and ignore the narrower ones, making that information hard to come by. Focus stacking is not particularly useful with plants in a breeze, making sharpness at narrower apertures valuable information for landscape photographers. I thought it might be a novel approach for a review.
28-75mm and 70-180nm for me.
I hope Tamron will release the G2 version for 70-180mm soon and that will be perfect for me.
What do you hope a G2 version of the 70-180 would have? The IQ and AF is already amazing. OSS would be nice to have but I doubt they'll add that.
A G2 would have the newer build and features, I'm sure, but I would think that including OS/VC would be the way to guarantee success.
Its very impressive what tamron is doing with their zoom lenses & the ranges/aperture/weight-size spectrum. And now they are also integrating software controls. Its an optimal lens for many kinds of event work (particularly interior) but for travel - it depends on the kind of travel. I find I need longer focal lengths for architectural motifs as in some ancient temple cities which have extensive detailed sculpture at higher echelons - same with more modern cities if one is looking at design detail in cityscapes. The tamron 70-300 works in these cases better & in combination with a lightweight fast prime - making it lighter & more ergonomic to carry (one 200-500gm lens on the camera & the other in a waist pouch/pocket). However the above lens just adds another dimension to their excellent zoom range. They have it all covered from ultrawide to tele - from faster to slower apertures with excellent AF
It is an impressive lens, but yes, I view it more as an event/wedding lens than a traditional travel lens.
Hey Dustin, thank you for your reviews, really. In your opinion is the Sony 24-105mm F4 even a competitor at this point. I know the price, image stabilization and size differences. I am only asking from IQ, autofocus, build quality and overall performance. Let me know what you think. Cheers!!!
The Sony does have a few strengths. It goes wider (24mm), is smaller and lighter, and is cheaper. The Tamron is the superior lens in other ways.
I was wondering why Tamron did not include the SP branding for the 35-150mm.
So far they haven't used SP on any of their mirrorless stuff
Not a lot of telephoto options on e mount that I like.... However this one I love!
Yep!
Hi Dustin, very meningful comparison. I already have the 28-75+70-180mm and I am happy with them. I also saw the 35-150mm and it delivers very good quality.
But there is one no go with this lens. It is too heavy. For me the weight of the 70-180mm is max what I like to use longer time on my heavy R5. Since I start my foto trips often with 2 bodies, there is no need to change lenses. For UWW I use the 14-24mm from Sigma. Than I have to decide before a foto shot which lenses I will need this day. 14-24+35-150 would reduce this dilemma. But the weight of the 35-150 is an exclusion criteria....
That's fair. As I've said in my reviews, the size and weight of the lens does ensure it isn't for everyone.
Hey Dustin I have suggestion for your AF testing. How about build a simple, small swing with a weight and some kind of "Dustin AF target (c)" stick on it. Then you swing it, everytime from the same point, with same weight which give same speed everytime. Then put a camera on tripod and test focused shots on target (maybe even with different f stops?). Should give comparable results at least for similar focal lenghts. Just a thought :) If you like it I hope for a premiere in Samyang 50mm 1.4 FE II review :P
edit: forgot to thank you for another fantastic review!
LOL - I'm having a hard time getting ahold of Samyang right now.
Just the video I was looking for!
Glad to hear it.
It's crazy how similar the two last pictures are, I mean the bokeh shapes on the right are almost identical.
For sure.
Thanks a lot for your work amazing review helped a lot
My pleasure
Great comparison Dustin. Thank you. I can't help thinking Tamron better off having one stop less light, circa 650g, a little bit bigger than 28-75, $1000ish the 35-150/2.8-4 maybe in Tamron's mind there is a different definition of travel lens than most of us. Currently as good as 35-150 is, I consider it to be an event, wedding, environmental portrait lens. No travel, no streets, no high school sports. Not as versatile as focal range suggested because of weight size and close focus capability. Again for a lot of wedding shooters, 24mm wide end is more comfortable and they need something 0.5x for the ring shot. So really how useful this one lens solution is, IMO not enough to sell two zooms.
Hi Frank, for me this lens hits the spot. I think it will be perfect for event and wedding work. Less of a travel or street lens, yes. I wouldn't want it any different, myself.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Thanks Dustin. Shooting mostly local, fast pace, certain location restrain requires fast aperture and long reach at the same time without changing lenses. It fits that ideally. Outside of that, it doesn't really shine for many other applications. It is kind of more specialty than general purpose as the focal range might imply. If you go out shooting with no specific subjects in mind, you usually grab a lens like 24-105 or 24-200, those are more of all-in-one.
This is probably the best review of this lens. Thank you! I am with you, and I think that if you haven't got the Tamron trio already, consider this lens as a replacement of 28-75 and 70-180, leaving some space in your bag for a wide angle and may be adding 150-500 for the extra reach and wild life, or a dedicated prime of your favourite focal length, like a portrait fast lens, for example. 👍🤔👍
The only thing that stops me for the moment and still makes me toss and turn in choosing between these Tamron lenses is the minimal focal distance that is far more superior in the later two of the trio lenses, that reduces the need for a macro lens. That and a tiny extra reach on both ends with a better flare control still let's the two lenses combo hold their ground.
The choice much depends on your shooting needs, preferences and styles. Once you carefully consider them, you can chose what better suits you and be happy about your choice, as either way you go, the image quality will not let you down. 😉
Fair enough. I ended up adding the 35-150 to my bag, and I certainly don't regret it.
@@DustinAbbottTWI particularly with two camera bodies it should be a blust saving a lot of time. Thank you for a review! 👍
Great comparison as always ! Thanks a lot !
My pleasure!
This is a fantastic comparison, thank you
Thank you very much!
Not sure how the physics works but if the wide end is 24 and tele at 135, that will be a much useful focal length, as least for my use case.
My experience is that 24mm adds a lot of engineering complications to a lens.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Before I got A043, I use 24-105L w/ 1.6Xmode on 5Ds for events shooting. Benefit for a "RF style" VF experience and more space for post rotating/ cropping.
Why is RUclips just showing me this?? This is awesome!
I don't know...but I'm glad you found it.
This is, as always, some truly high-quality work. No surprise Gerald Undone recently recommended your channel, even though I didn't need it to subscribe months ago. Thank you for this level of investment, so appreciated !
This release is a much needed one, and sheds a crucial light on what may well be a tiny revolution in the world of photo optics. Very few were expecting such a "surprise" from Tamron, even though the older ones remember their 1980/90s off-stream offerings (catadioptric tele-lenses, macro 1:1 zooms, and else). But this offering is well refined, not just an in-the-trend gadget. And that makes it a considerable option for professionals.
I agree that this is definitely a pro-grade option, and I've been very impressed thus far.
35-150 + 17-28 +200-600 here, awesome combo
Sounds like a winner to me!
Hey @gordonyz4, I am also thinking about the same combo. However, what do you think about the missing Image stabilisation on 35-150? Especially for travel, if I shoot videos handheld while I am walking, will it cope up?
@@annapurnamondal1357 ibis alone can't handle walking scenario. Stabilization in post (crop) or a74's active stabilization should help
This one plus 14-24 sigma and Sony 200-600 will be a gold set
Great video, as always!
Thank you!
This is the huge comparison right now and I want to dive in to create a two-lens combination. Honestly can’t justify it at the moment just yet.. but who knows
Of course you can! You only need one kidney right?
Always good to have options.
Love it, thanks Dustin!
Glad you enjoyed it!
The size and weight does put me off. if i was stuck with only one lens to use it would be 28-75mm G2. Keeps my mirrorless camera compact, light enough that i actually want to bring it with me.
It's a killer lens, so not a bad choice at all.
I'm quite interested in the 35-150 as a replacement for my sigma dn dg 24-70 and tamron 70-180. I also have the 17-28. That's my Trinity zoom for FE mount. What're are your thoughts on the IQ of the sigma 24-70 vs tamron 35-150? Also on 150 vs 180?
Great vid as always. Thanks in advance.
The 35-150 is optically superior to the Sigma. The pairing of the 17-28 with the 35-150 should be nice.
Thanks for the informative video. I've been taking pictures for over 40 years. Started with Canon AE1P and then Nikon D100, D200 and D800. I have a lot of the Nikon F2.8 lenses. Currently I thinking to get a mirrorless camera body. I'm looking at the Nikon vs Sony. With Nikon I may be able to use an adapter to keep current F2.8 lenses.....with Sony body I would need get the new lenses (Tamron or Sony). I was taking a lot of concert/special event photos but now I do mostly photos of homeless dogs and cats for various animal rescue organizations.
It's always a difficult decision when making that transition. Best of luck to you.
I am definitely saving up for this lens.
Probably worth doing.