Tamron likely didn't go wider because they didn't want something appreciably bigger, heavier and spendier. My guess is that they looked at what was currently available in the market and then prioritized size and weight, so it won't be f2, won't go to 24 or 28, won't go to 135, etc.
I don't want wider--just OS. I think that could have been implemented with minimal size penalty. The extra 4mm on the other hands seems to complicate the overall optics and size. Oh well. I just want it for video where lens OS actually matters
nehemiahphoto wrote:
I don't want wider--just OS. I think that could have been implemented with minimal size penalty. The extra 4mm on the other hands seems to complicate the overall optics and size. Oh well. I just want it for video where lens OS actually matters
That's one area where I feel like lens makers are not bothering to make innovations these days and relying on IBIS to say 'oh, it doesn't need it, IBIS is good enough'. Even for stills, I have found OS makes a noticeable difference on my Sigma 70-200. The canon 24-105L seems like a fantastic lens and has OS...but talk bout spendy, ouch.
Dave Sanders wrote:
That's one area where I feel like lens makers are not bothering to make innovations these days and relying on IBIS to say 'oh, it doesn't need it, IBIS is good enough'. Even for stills, I have found OS makes a noticeable difference on my Sigma 70-200. The canon 24-105L seems like a fantastic lens and has OS...but talk bout spendy, ouch.
Tamron is especially behind here— they are really good with sharpness, size, price, ergonomics and auto focus nowadays. They were slow to implement OS on some of their best glass.
The 50-400, 70-180 g2 and 50-300 have OS that lags behind Sigma and Sony teles. It’s often dinged in reviews. I’ve been surprised on the long end that the stabilization is not that impressive on my 50-400. Otherwise a solid lens.
Seems an odd release when they already have the excellent 35-150 f2/2.8 but I suppose this is smaller and lighter Personally I really appreciate the f2 at the wide end for event work and extra reach.
Viramati wrote:
Seems an odd release when they already have the excellent 35-150 f2/2.8 but I suppose this is smaller and lighter Personally I really appreciate the f2 at the wide end for event work and extra reach.
About half the weight, half the price.
IMHO, not odd, at all.
Viramati wrote:
Seems an odd release when they already have the excellent 35-150 f2/2.8 but I suppose this is smaller and lighter Personally I really appreciate the f2 at the wide end for event work and extra reach.
But a more reasonably sized alternative (with 35m on the wide end!) to Sony's own 50-150/2, would be amazing ...
I think it would be a nice travel lens paired with a small wide angle prime. But I already own the 20-40mm and pairing that with my 85 f/1.8 probably serves the same overall purpose, just changing lenses in different situations.
35mm and 100mm are two of my favorite focal lengths though, so maybe when they start popping up on the used market I'll give one a try.
Have to say, as someone whose focal length preference is 35mm, and rarely wants anything wider, this seems really enticing. I had the 28-75, and sold it for the 24-50G to have something a bit more compact. But I feel like it barely offers enough different from my 35GM. It'd be nice to treat it like a large 35mm prime that zooms to 100 in the same way people treat the 24-50G as a 50mm prime that can zoom out.
Choderboy wrote:
About half the weight, half the price.
IMHO, not odd, at all.
I think there must be compromises made wrt the 35-150 besides just extra reach and speed at the wider end. Or maybe I'm wrong and those are the compromises...
For me this would still be to large for street work but I can see it's appeal for some. In my usage case the 35-150 is still the best event and even multi purpose portrait lens on the market
doc4x5 wrote:
A friend who is an excellent photographer switched from Sony to Nikon just for the 24-120.
I think the 24-120 is over-hyped. Its not that close in sharpness to the Nikon 24-70/2.8 according to various tests, especially outside of the center of the frame
"I didn’t expect the Nikon Z 24-120mm f/4 S to beat the best-performing midrange zoom we’ve ever tested… and it doesn’t. The biggest difference is in corner performance, where the Nikon Z 24-70mm f/2.8 S outperforms the 24-120mm f/4 S at every focal length except 70mm (and simply smokes it at 24mm and 35mm)."
What I want out of a f/4 zoom is to be as good or better than the best zooms at f/4 specifically
Viramati wrote:
For me this would still be to large for street work but I can see it's appeal for some. In my usage case the 35-150 is still the best event and even multi purpose portrait lens on the market
They are branding this as the light version of the 35-150, but at f/2.8 I think the appeal is smaller.
I understand Tamron wants options; but between a 28-75, 35-100 or 35-150 I just don't think most people would pick this 35-100.
aCuria wrote:
I think the 24-120 is over-hyped. Its not that close in sharpness to the Nikon 24-70/2.8 according to various tests, especially outside of the center of the frame
"I didn’t expect the Nikon Z 24-120mm f/4 S to beat the best-performing midrange zoom we’ve ever tested… and it doesn’t. The biggest difference is in corner performance, where the Nikon Z 24-70mm f/2.8 S outperforms the 24-120mm f/4 S at every focal length except 70mm (and simply smokes it at 24mm and 35mm)."
What I want out of a f/4 zoom is to be as good or better than the best zooms at f/4 specifically ...Show more →
Alan Parker wrote:
They are branding this as the light version of the 35-150, but at f/2.8 I think the appeal is smaller.
I understand Tamron wants options; but between a 28-75, 35-100 or 35-150 I just don't think most people would pick this 35-100.
Is it less appealing than the 35-150? Maybe yes, maybe no. Depends on your use case, what level of size/weight you are prepared to accept given that use case, and what lens you would pair it with, and what alternative lens you could choose if not this.
For me, as a photographer who hovers between family snapshots and portraits, street and travel, low light, and events, if for whatever reason I am only allowed to bring one lens... the 35-150 (in either Tamron or Samyang flavour) would be my "cold dead hands" lens, for sure. For that kind of application, the 28-75 never excited me personally, I constantly felt I wanted to go wider and have always been happier with a 24-xx or even 20-xx as a normal zoom. Don't get me wrong, I love the Sony 28-70 F/2 (my other "cold dead hands" lens) but only because it also replaces a bunch of fast primes, which a 28-75 doesn't do.
However if I am on a business trip by myself, I would be self-conscious whipping out a 35-150 in business meetings or be lugging around a camera bag with my full kit on top of my work stuff, luggage at the airport etc. Indeed I have just come back from a trip with a TTArtisan 75/2 (on L-Mount paired with a Panasonic Lumix 18-40 kit lens) as a longer walkaround/candid street lens for those couple of hours downtime to wander around in the city after a day of meetings in a conference room. The TTArtisan was excellent and just perfect in terms of usability as an additional lens I could fit easily alongside my work laptop and papers. If I had brought my Sony system, I would have been equally happy with the Tamron 35-100 paired with a wider, compact lens, perhaps my Viltrox 20/2.8.
I think the same could be said of the Tamron 35-100 as an alternative to say a single 85/1.8 prime - not much weight gain (and no weight difference once you add in a second prime like a 50 or 55 F/1.8) but much much more flexibility compared to the prime.
On L-mount, and probably on E-mount as well, the 35-100 would make a fantastic and relatively lightweight video lens that allows you pull into a tighter framing than a 28-75.
One thing the 35-100 can definitely not do is replace a dedicated telezoom lens, unlike the 35-150. Once I got the 35-150, I sold all my 70-200 and 70-180 lenses and never looked back.
ryanli wrote:
One thing the 35-100 can definitely not do is replace a dedicated telezoom lens, unlike the 35-150. Once I got the 35-150, I sold all my 70-200 and 70-180 lenses and never looked back.
35-150 is not a dedicated telecom, and neither is 35-150. Both are a new kind of convenience zooms that sacrifice some wide end for more tele reach. Sort of a new iteration of std zoom. Tamron is doing here something that other manufacturers have neglected, although I admit that 35-150mm being a much more radical concept of the two.
Regarding 35-100, it is somewhat interesting to me. I might use it for street and outdoor photography (see the Petapixel video). It is small, f/2.8 and optically good enough (probably). However given a choice of Sony making a second better and smaller version of 24-105mm... Or even the current 24-105mm... Or Tamron 28-75mm... ...I am not so sure anymore. I just wish Tamron would ad aperture ring to lenses
tuomkok wrote:
35-150 is not a dedicated telecom, and neither is 35-150. Both are a new kind of convenience zooms that sacrifice some wide end for more tele reach. Sort of a new iteration of std zoom. Tamron is doing here something that other manufacturers have neglected, although I admit that 35-150mm being a much more radical concept of the two.
No, the 35-150 is not a dedicated telezoom, but my point was that it is so usable at 70-150mm that for all intents and purposes - given my use cases - it can completely replace a dedicated telezoom. APS-C mode on Sony cameras make it easy to digitally zoom to 225mm with decent resolution at the press of a Fn button.
...