Thoughts on the Tamron 35-150mm f2/2.8?

[snegron]

I've read several online reviews of the Tamron 35-150mm f2/2.8, and most of them are positive. The focal length, wide aperture and weather resistance of this lens seem to be exactly what I need. However, I'd like to hear from real people who have actually used this lens (as opposed to online bloggers who most likely get paid to say wonderful things about photography equipment).

I currently own a few Tamron lenses (17-28mm f2.8, 20-40mm f2.8, 28-200mm f2.8/5.6), and I absolutely love them! However, I have also owned (but subsequently sold) Tamron lenses that weren't as great as online reviewers painted them to be (28-75mm f2.8 G2, 24mm f2.8 prime). Also, my current 20-40mm f2.8 doesn't render colors as great as my first 20-40mm f2.8 that I regret having sold some time ago.

Before I "take the plunge" and buy the 35-150mm f2/2.8, I'd like to hear from those of you who actually used this lens.

 

[AlphaWorld]

I have not used the Tamron lens. I own and delight in using the Sony lens that people put up against the Tamron: the Sony 50-150mm f/2. It's an amazing lens, but a tad larger and heavier - but it's f/2 all the way to 150mm. Oh, it is also just a teeny bit more expensive

 

[iamdlewis]

I don't know what you photograph so I have a question for you, what will the 35-150 get you that the 28-200 doesn't?

 

[snegron]

I don't know what you photograph so I have a question for you, what will the 35-150 get you that the 28-200 doesn't?

Larger aperture for low light captures and shallower depth of field for subject isolation/blurred backgrounds. The 35-150mm f2/2.8 would pair well with my 17-28mm f2.8 for use in evening street shot captures where low light prevails. My 28-200 works very well in daylight, but f5.6 at the long end is not ideal for low light capture.

 

[lerwa]

I've read several online reviews of the Tamron 35-150mm f2/2.8, and most of them are positive. The focal length, wide aperture and weather resistance of this lens seem to be exactly what I need. However, I'd like to hear from real people who have actually used this lens (as opposed to online bloggers who most likely get paid to say wonderful things about photography equipment).

I currently own a few Tamron lenses (17-28mm f2.8, 20-40mm f2.8, 28-200mm f2.8/5.6), and I absolutely love them! However, I have also owned (but subsequently sold) Tamron lenses that weren't as great as online reviewers painted them to be (28-75mm f2.8 G2, 24mm f2.8 prime). Also, my current 20-40mm f2.8 doesn't render colors as great as my first 20-40mm f2.8 that I regret having sold some time ago.

Before I "take the plunge" and buy the 35-150mm f2/2.8, I'd like to hear from those of you who actually used this lens.

Hi Bro. I do photography as a hobby . 4 years ago I bought the A7iv with the 35-150mm thru online research. To date, I have no regret; except for the weight as my spondylosis is becoming acute.

 

[GvilleRick]

I looked at the Tamron 35-150 f/2-2.8 and the Samyang. I decided to save a little money and get the Samyang since I was not sure how I would like it compared to a 70-200 f/2.8 which has always been my workhorse. I have not been disappointed and use it for so many things. It works great for indoor sports such as basketball/wrestling/volleyball since I can get the wider shots as well as zooming in to get faces. I also used it on vacation a lot. While heavy it did work well to have only one lens for touring cities and getting low light shots in churches or museums.

 

[snegron]

Hi Bro. I do photography as a hobby . 4 years ago I bought the A7iv with the 35-150mm thru online research. To date, I have no regret; except for the weight as my spondylosis is becoming acute.

That's exactly the combo I'd be using if I get the 35-150mm for my A7iv! I have heard that it is heavy, and that's something I definitely have to consider. How well does it perform with AF tracking on your A7iv? Is it sharp (contrasty) wide open? Any signs of vignetting at wider apertures? Thanks!

 

[Sean2260]

I did get the Tamron 35-150 just to cover the range from 35-100mm. I had previously purchased the 28-200mm, but I had serious 'concerns' about the auto-focus and the speed to focus. Worst was after a trip and thoroughly comparing images I found the 28-200 were often in the "wish I could do over" pile. With that in mind I watched & read reviews, read the comments, then picked it up at Best Buy with the intention of trying it first and returning after.

Soon after I did take one trip where this lens did get used a lot, and overall I was happy with it. Second trip, I came back glad that I had this in my bag. That trip this was the most used lens. Actual image quality between the 35-150 vs 28-200 is not really there, more the 35-150 focuses better and faster. In focus images with the 28-200 are good though.

The only downside or con to this lens, it is heavy. In most use cases this was not a problem, either the camera sat on seat next to me or it was on a tripod. But the times I needed to hand hold for periods of time did start to bother me. If years and years down the road there is an equivalent 35-150 by either Tamron or Sony that is significantly lighter, this may be the only lens I would think to replace.

 

[snegron]

I did get the Tamron 35-150 just to cover the range from 35-100mm. I had previously purchased the 28-200mm, but I had serious 'concerns' about the auto-focus and the speed to focus. Worst was after a trip and thoroughly comparing images I found the 28-200 were often in the "wish I could do over" pile. With that in mind I watched & read reviews, read the comments, then picked it up at Best Buy with the intention of trying it first and returning after.

Soon after I did take one trip where this lens did get used a lot, and overall I was happy with it. Second trip, I came back glad that I had this in my bag. That trip this was the most used lens. Actual image quality between the 35-150 vs 28-200 is not really there, more the 35-150 focuses better and faster. In focus images with the 28-200 are good though.

The only downside or con to this lens, it is heavy. In most use cases this was not a problem, either the camera sat on seat next to me or it was on a tripod. But the times I needed to hand hold for periods of time did start to bother me. If years and years down the road there is an equivalent 35-150 by either Tamron or Sony that is significantly lighter, this may be the only lens I would think to replace.

Thank you!! According to the specs, it looks like this lens weighs almost twice as much as my A7iv!