For a sports tournament, I would have trouble picking up the Tamron 35-150 over the Nikon 70-200 S lens, considering how good everyone says the Nikon is. [But I also only use primes...]
if you think that lens is heavy. i will hand hold Z9 Gen 2 FTZ and Sigma Sport 120-300mm F/2.8. it does not feel heavy in the hands and since so well balance can not use monopod to with it since makes it front heavy and and i hand hold for soccer softball and volleyball.
Shocking. I am shocked but not surprised. There are two types of UA-cam posts: The Speculative posts based on Specifications vs Actual Testing with an actual lens. It is absolutely OK to be wrong in the first type because that is the default setting for the genre. So viewers already know posts in SP category are at best only a “rough guide” The second type of post may look more scientific but that does depend on the actual testing process. The chances of being wrong are misleading seems to be directly proportional to how long after the official release the tests are conducted and the number of samples tested. Those with pre-release versions of the lens are obviously a special category. Thanks for the correction but don’t worry about it.
Good thing I'm shooting with a Sony, with G master glass being too pricey. The Tamron set is the way to go for me. I love my 35-150. Probably I'll match it with their 20-40 too in a while. 😅 Yeah, from someone who is used to primes. You're right, maybe one will tend to find a comfort zone at the polar ends. I had to learn using and appreciate having the in between focal lengths. Really convenient though once you get the hang of it. Well, just enjoying the comments here too. Funny that we can all have a lot of nitpicking in us. 😅 Great for consumerism and the economy, I guess. Just buy the next "good" but not "best" thing to come. 😅
I purchased the 35-150 but have since sold it. Stuck with the 24-70 because I really missed the 24. I also have the 70-200 gm2.8 v2 which is significantly better than the Tamron. Anyone that says otherwise about the quality is kidding themselves.. But the Sony is much more expensive.
@@pudsboi5203 that makes sense, I'd also want wider focal lengths like 24mm if I were shooting cars. Were weddings in particular making you miss 24mm? I could see a wide focal length of 35mm being frustrating in smaller venues. I purchased the 35-150mm Tamron for shooting theater performances this month from the bottom of the stage. It provides excellent focal lengths for that task. Out of the last 20k photos I shot, probably 35% were over 70mm, and there were maybe 10 instances where I wish I could go wider.
the difference between f2 and f1.8 are smaller then 1,8 to 1,4 and in reality you just zoom in a little, just some mm and the background will look so much better.
@@lozzom Sorry… now I see it. It’s a great lens. I just picked up the 180-600mm lens on the 31st of August. It’s still in the box. I can’t decide if I should return it🙄
Different beasts. The 24-120 is excellent. But doesn’t go any faster should the need arise. 35-150 is faster but isn’t as wide obviously. I suppose it’s whatever you prioritize.
Rented this tamron, Great sharpness, fast focusing, F2-2.8, what's not to love..... Well I almost put my hand in my pocket and clicked Buy, but a Massive problem is Flare, yes there's work around, but at this price why should I have to use work arounds, it was so close but this is a major flaw with this lens, is it a deal breaker? For me it is, I don't want the Sun playing a major factor if I can get the shot or not....
@@russandloz to be fair the hood helps loads, but even then if the sun does hit the glass then your still suck with the same problem, I used this lens shooting a registrar wedding in winter, so u come out of the building and know where to go because it leads strait on to the major road, so had to shoot straight into the sun, I struggled to work with the lens so switched to my 24-70 and my primes, saved my skin.... Lesson learned, learn the lens, find its good points and hunt it's negatives, I do like this lens but I've not come across a lens like this with as much flare as this for I'd say over 20years, this lens has more flare than my old 80-200Afs
@451greenwood i just ordered this and I love it . Speaking about the flare you have two options you can use the lens hood at all or get ND filter to avoid the flare . If I was you I will use the ND filter
You sure were wrong and lots of us lost great respect for you after hearing that nonsense next time try purchasing the lens and testing it before you bash it.
Title of the next video is my new Tamron is the best ever 👌
Great vid 👍
I really do love your channel!
For a sports tournament, I would have trouble picking up the Tamron 35-150 over the Nikon 70-200 S lens, considering how good everyone says the Nikon is. [But I also only use primes...]
Guess it depends if you need the 35-70 range.
@@russandloz Only if I insist on using a single lens. I have interchangeable lens cameras, and g.a.s, for a reason! 🤣
if you think that lens is heavy. i will hand hold Z9 Gen 2 FTZ and Sigma Sport 120-300mm F/2.8. it does not feel heavy in the hands and since so well balance can not use monopod to with it since makes it front heavy and and i hand hold for soccer softball and volleyball.
True, but like I said, larger bodies make heavier lenses easier to handle?
Shocking. I am shocked but not surprised. There are two types of UA-cam posts: The Speculative posts based on Specifications vs Actual Testing with an actual lens. It is absolutely OK to be wrong in the first type because that is the default setting for the genre. So viewers already know posts in SP category are at best only a “rough guide”
The second type of post may look more scientific but that does depend on the actual testing process. The chances of being wrong are misleading seems to be directly proportional to how long after the official release the tests are conducted and the number of samples tested. Those with pre-release versions of the lens are obviously a special category.
Thanks for the correction but don’t worry about it.
You’re forgiven :)
Good thing I'm shooting with a Sony, with G master glass being too pricey. The Tamron set is the way to go for me. I love my 35-150. Probably I'll match it with their 20-40 too in a while. 😅
Yeah, from someone who is used to primes. You're right, maybe one will tend to find a comfort zone at the polar ends. I had to learn using and appreciate having the in between focal lengths. Really convenient though once you get the hang of it.
Well, just enjoying the comments here too. Funny that we can all have a lot of nitpicking in us. 😅 Great for consumerism and the economy, I guess. Just buy the next "good" but not "best" thing to come. 😅
Question:
Those of you who migrated to this lens from a 24-70, do you miss 24mm while shooting events?
I have the 28 1.4 and sometimes that is too long for events. But most the time it’s about right. Really I find 35 too long
I purchased the 35-150 but have since sold it. Stuck with the 24-70 because I really missed the 24. I also have the 70-200 gm2.8 v2 which is significantly better than the Tamron. Anyone that says otherwise about the quality is kidding themselves.. But the Sony is much more expensive.
@@pudsboi5203 what sort of events do you shoot?
@@SimplestUsernamemainly weddings and car events.
@@pudsboi5203 that makes sense, I'd also want wider focal lengths like 24mm if I were shooting cars. Were weddings in particular making you miss 24mm? I could see a wide focal length of 35mm being frustrating in smaller venues.
I purchased the 35-150mm Tamron for shooting theater performances this month from the bottom of the stage. It provides excellent focal lengths for that task. Out of the last 20k photos I shot, probably 35% were over 70mm, and there were maybe 10 instances where I wish I could go wider.
the difference between f2 and f1.8 are smaller then 1,8 to 1,4 and in reality you just zoom in a little, just some mm and the background will look so much better.
Doesn’t the 100-400mm S-lens have VR?
Yes - I’ve got it in the S / VR box on the chart
@@lozzom It wasn’t on the list in the video.
@@guyyowell8547it is , I was just lazy and described it just as 100-400 ; check 1 min 53 secs
@@lozzom Sorry… now I see it. It’s a great lens. I just picked up the 180-600mm lens on the 31st of August. It’s still in the box. I can’t decide if I should return it🙄
@@lozzom I already have too many Z lenses.
The 24-120 S ist a stellar lens, I stayed in the Z System because of it. The IQ must surely be better than the Tamron?
Wish we had one to try against it
Different beasts. The 24-120 is excellent. But doesn’t go any faster should the need arise. 35-150 is faster but isn’t as wide obviously. I suppose it’s whatever you prioritize.
Yeah this video was made before the Tarmon came out@@mikeblack_pw
They said,it is made for portrait.
Yeah it is, but for my preference it could never compete with the look of a prime 1.4 or 1.2
@russandloz Yes,zoom is zoom,prime is prime.
Rented this tamron, Great sharpness, fast focusing, F2-2.8, what's not to love..... Well I almost put my hand in my pocket and clicked Buy, but a Massive problem is Flare, yes there's work around, but at this price why should I have to use work arounds, it was so close but this is a major flaw with this lens, is it a deal breaker? For me it is, I don't want the Sun playing a major factor if I can get the shot or not....
Interesting. Was that with a lens hood?
@@russandloz to be fair the hood helps loads, but even then if the sun does hit the glass then your still suck with the same problem, I used this lens shooting a registrar wedding in winter, so u come out of the building and know where to go because it leads strait on to the major road, so had to shoot straight into the sun, I struggled to work with the lens so switched to my 24-70 and my primes, saved my skin.... Lesson learned, learn the lens, find its good points and hunt it's negatives, I do like this lens but I've not come across a lens like this with as much flare as this for I'd say over 20years, this lens has more flare than my old 80-200Afs
@451greenwood i just ordered this and I love it . Speaking about the flare you have two options you can use the lens hood at all or get ND filter to avoid the flare . If I was you I will use the ND filter
10 percent heavier is veeeery far off.
I think it’s more than that actually lol. We still get it wrong
You’re right it is - I looked it up and believed the first link that came up - which was of course wrong !! It’s about 60% heavier 😢
A bit less than the 70-200
You need to sort yourself out Loz! ;-)@@lozzom
@@russandloz😞😞
Lost me at 2 minutes in
In what way Joe? There is a previous video too which may help
You sure were wrong and lots of us lost great respect for you after hearing that nonsense next time try purchasing the lens and testing it before you bash it.
I don’t think people taken it too seriously as you seemed. Take it easy