Great review on this lens as it is one of the main reason why I switched to the Sony FF body over all the other FF camera manufactures. When paired with the new Sony A7RV with 8-stop IBIS, the 60MP FF with the sharp Over Sampling 26MP APS-C images that is sharper than the 33MP image from the A7IV while still providing incredible flexibilities that covers most of my needs. Tamron 35-150mm f/2.0-f/2.8 focal range including in APS-C mode: @ f/2.0: 35mm-39mm (APS-C range: 52.5mm - 58.5mm / Total available range: 35mm - 58.5mm) @ f/2.2: 40mm-59mm (APS-C range: 60.0mm - 88.5mm / Total available range: 40mm - 88.5mm) @ f/2.5: 60mm-79mm (APS-C range: 90.0mm - 118.0mm / Total available range: 60mm - 118.0mm) @ f/2.8: 80mm-150mm (APS-C range: 120.0mm- 225.0mm / Total available range: 80mm - 225.0mm) I rather carry this one lens than have to miss precious moments during lens swapping, not to mention dealing with increasing frequency of sensor cleaning and dust entering into different lenses and while have to carry the weight of all the extra lenses on a much larger and heavier camera bag.
@@lewcehjitl3282 If you are correct and truthful about your statement because you personally actually owned both units and have truthfully done the comparison then perhaps you could make a video to proof your result and explain why others who also actually owned them have the same conclusion. I will be reserving the final thought about who is the real lier here: ua-cam.com/video/3JczXDA4CsM/v-deo.htmlfeature=shared
Those of us who regularly carry around a 600mm f/4 lens have to chuckle at all of the reviewers of this lens when they complain about the size & weight.
I think if you have just a little strength in your arms then this is the perfect lens for almost any situation. I've used them all day at weddings with no problems. I think the quality is clearly in the foreground with this lens. I would recommend this lense to everyone!
Well, I think it is clearly a matter of preference. Some people want the best quality and willing to carry a 1kg 1.4 sigma prime lens. Others prefer to lose a little quality and carry a 0.4 kg 1.4 samyang. There is no right or wrong. I apreciate this video and its conclusions a lot, since I am not able to get this lens rented or borrow.
I am looking into this lens for wedding photography and videography, could I check out your work for weddings? I would truly appreciate it! Thank you in advance.
I have this lens; It makes your life easier. Yes it's heavier than a lot of lenses out there (about a kilo (2.2 lbs)), but you're most likely keeping it on your body the entire time with maybe a 28 or lower prime close by. A major thing that wasn't mentioned is that you can program the lens to rack focus with just a push of a button and if you're a film maker that's going to give you lots to play with.
can you explain what you mean by "you can program the lens to rack focus with just a push of a button and if you're a film maker that's going to give you lots to play with"? i don't understand how it would be different than the buttons on the g-master lenses (and maybe it isn't).
@ListenHereOldMan it has 3 custom buttons and m 3-mode switch, meaning you get 9 different custom button commands. An example is that you can rack focus with a button press. It's free software you can download via a usb-c port on the lens itself
Without a doubt, this lens became the most controversial zoom lens ever. It has a unique zoom range and doesn't have anything like it from other manufacturers.
Every lens fits some shooting scenario. I have lenses covering 14-400mm range that fit well different situations, but I don't need 14-400mm lens because there are no situations that would require that range at the same time. This lens fits only one scenario, that is portraits, for which there are also many other options available. It's not a good travel lens, it's not a good street lens, it's not a good event lens, it's not a good nature lens, etc. It doesn't fit well other shooting scenarios. Those who spent a lot of money buying this lens are trying to justify their expenses, claiming you can fit a square rod into a round hole. That's where the controversies are coming from.
I have it and I love it. Incredible versatility, and I'm generally fine with the weight and size. It's become my go to lens for general event photography/ If I have one complaint, it's that the lowlight focusing on my A7III is not the best. At that point, I switch to my Sony primes, usually either the 85mm 1.8 or the 135mm 1.8, depending on the situation.
I’m in the market. I’ve settled on an A7iii and I’ve been wondering about Tamron, this lens or others like sigma, does it affect the auto focus a lot? I hear and read that Sony lenses just work better.
Bought this lens. It is a natural brick! I’ve shot football cup and my arms felt tired after 1st hour… other hours I thought “you are tired but you do not need to switch lenses…” anyway this lens is outstanding! The worst thing is about Sony active stabilisation for non native lenses. It is a lot not as much smooth as for native ones and it is disappointing
So I bought this lens and I know I’m probably gonna get bashed for this. But people are acting like they’re carrying a 10 pound dumbbell lmao. I’ve shot all day with it, and guess what? Nothing hurt. Stretch your wrists and massage them after the shoot lol
ok review but the comments about size/weight are pretty subjective and more indicative of personal style. obviously, there are some tradeoffs for the fast aperture and zoom range. and obviously this lens fills a niche. maybe not perfect for street shooters, but for photojournalists, and event and portrait photographers, it's a different story altogether. anyone who has ever carried a 24-70/2.8 AND a 70-200/2.8 will recognize what this lens means for event documentation: you get 85% of a two-lens kit with no need for switching lenses. That means fewer missed shots and also the ability to frame shots either at wide or telephoto, or anywhere in-between. also, weight savings from carrying two 2.8 zooms. Basically, if you want light and compact with a wide zoom range, you re looking at the Tamron 28-200 which won't be as great in low light due to its variable aperture. Speaking as a photojournalist and event shooter who has owned Sigma 50--150/2.8 (APS-C), Nikon 70-200/2.8, and Tamron 70-180/2.8, the Tamron's zoom range makes it preferable and more applicable to real-life scenarios than any of those lenses. I love sticking a big telezoom on the camera for singling out people in a crowd and blurring/compressing backgrounds. But in practical terms this also means carrying a standard 2.8 zoom, sometimes with a second body. To be able to reduce the kit by several pounds and also go with a lighter bag -- maybe a messenger-style instead of a backpack-- is a huge plus. Plus, you can pair this with a smallish wide prime or something like the Tamron 17-28 or new 20-40 -- both 2.8 -- to get more reach. So, there are considerable weight savings compare to a two-zoom kit covering the same range; plus you avoid the hassle of switching lenses. I'd say that's booth unique and useful. To complain about the 35-150 not being somehow made of magical pixie dust instead of plastic and metal, is kind of puzzling. The laws of physics dictate that to have a constant 2.8 AND an almost 5x zoom, the lens can only be so compact. I wouldn't necessarily call this a major flaw, but more of a trade-off. Another thing you could have specifically pointed out is that your AF testing was done with a Sony A7III which is an older camera at this point, meaning AF systems on newer cameras might produce better results as far as subject tracking. Tamron licenses AF algorithms from Sony, so VXD is comparable to Sony's OEM system, but a lens can't overcome an AF issue that originates with the camera body. An A7 IV, A7R IV or V, A1 or A7s III should all have improved aF over the A7III. Also reviewers should think of who the lens is for, even if it's not exactly their cup of tea. Given that this one lens effectively covers the 35/50/85/100/135/150 focal ranges at constant 2.8, it's entirely acceptable for it to be heavier than a small prime or lesser zoom. For street shooting, you'd ideally want less-obtrusive lenses, which generally means focal lengths > 100mm or more compact variable-aperture superzooms. That being said, I think the versatility of this lens will lend itself to some street situations, although it's probably stronger as a choice for documentary and portraiture.
Honestly, I understand the want to hold the camera in your hands constantly, but I found the best middle ground to be using a sling backpack and have the pack in the front where you can easy drop the camera into the bag and pull out whenever needed. I also find myself using the sling as a way to steady my arms by resting my elbow on the pack while taking shots.
not sure why everyone is saying that this lens is so "heavy". I am older than most of these photographers and i shoot a full session with a sigma 105mm prime and have no problem. hmmm....
I remember, long time ago, I had Sigma 24-135/2.8-4.5 lens. That was a very versatile "take me anywhere" lens. I wish Tamron or Sigma would make 24-135/2.8 lens, it would have been smaller, lighter than 35-150 and a lot more useful.
that f2 up to 85 is the fastest zoom for Sony by a stop, which makes it particularly enticing for me... i mean, that's just amazing in and of itself... i do agree that 24-135 would be a far, far, far preferable length... but yeh it'd prob be too big keeping the f2... this has been out for so long, i would've thought they'd have released a constant f2 midrange zoom - imo they'd absolutely dominate the mkt.. i'd kill for a 24-70 f2, given the price of this might be able to come in ~$12-1300
Funny thing is I agree but I have a different conclusion. I do agree you will need to train your arms haha. But I do recommend this lens for run and gun. I already need a backpack to carry my camera, or else my smartphone would be the camera I use. There is usually no in between for me. I might get a sling bag but at this moment I always carry a back pack. And I don't need to bother with changing lenses so I won't miss a shot. I do think it is heavy to have it all day, (but still worth it in my opinion). The real difference is that this is a two handed setup. I really thought about getting the 70-180 but it is slightly too limiting not have a semi-wide 35mm range. Btw love the breakdown! Good job!
Lighter than all but maybe two 70-200 f/2.8 lenses. Same weight as many ultrawide zooms. If someone is willing to carry a 70-200 f/2.8 or a 100-400... This lens is of no consequence.
This is an excellent review of the lens, no doubt it is a very versatile lens, but it has its uses very defined despite the tremendous focal range, I was about to buy it, but the weight and size do not go with the type of photography I do especially in travel and street and frankly I don't have the power in my arm to carry it for hours. This review helped me a lot, I appreciate your honesty. Your content is very good, greetings from Mexico.
After a year of using this lens I can say: zoom lock is needed, because it became loose, it sucks dust, it loses contrast a lot when shooting events with bright light sources, it looses focus while zooming, it is unusable with flashes handheld (too heavy), it is not the first lens to walk or travel with children… but it makes the job done
That was a great review! | would like to ask you which should i buy? Tamron 36-150 f/2 - 2,8 or should i pick sigma 24-70 f/2,8? Both are great lenses i know that but it's also both too expensive. With tamron i take advantage the low range of 35 and also the beast range of 150 but with sigma i have something more standard with 24 to 70 where i cover the low range of 24. I want it for travelling.I have the Sony A7 II. Thank you
The weight is definitely noticeable and my one wish it could be lighter. But for me, it replaces a 35mm, 50mm, 85mm, and 135mm and I personally prefer it to my 24-70. Wish there was a 24-85 f2.8. That would be perfect for me. But until then, this is a great zoom lens.
Hey Kensei! Thank you for delivering beautiful Sony lens reviews everytime, i am enjoying this a lot :) just from my view: I have kids and i can not use both hands all the time for shooting. this is why i bought the Peak Design camera clip! and this thing changes everything! you have always the camera on you only a grip away, it does not swing around when it hangs on your neck and you have both hands free immediatly if you need. sometimes i wear a empty backpack only because i need the belt for the camera clip. awesome thing! honestly my 100-400mm is not even that comfortable to wear on that because of the weight but i is way better than in the hands. a small lens like the batis 40mm is perfect on that. keep on the good work and greetings from germany :)
I was really interested in this lens, and the idea was to combine it with a Sony 20mm f1.8 to really have a two-lens-setup that could do it all. It's only a little bigger and heavier than the 24-70 right? But then Sony showed off their new 24-70 f2.8 II, and it was so small and lightweight (for an f2.8 zoom...). And that got me thinking that maybe this 35-150 is simply too big and heavy to be an always-on-camera-lens (just like you said). Maybe I'd rather have the smaller and lighter 24-70mm.
I was feeling the same way as you, and considering the new Sony 24-70 because of the size and weight. But decided to stay with the Tamron 35-150 because there were many times I only went out with one lens, and came across situations where 70mm was not enough. But I get the concern, this lens is heavy and big. I just know that if I have 24-70, I'll want to carry something like a 70-200 or short tele as well, and in that case the Tamron wins again for me.
@@SilatShooter Fair point. But if 70mm is not enough, you can always use crop mode & clear image zoom. You obviously lose some light and quality doing that, but it is a decent solution if you're not above 70 most of the time.
The 20mm and 35-150mm are exactly what I use for weddings. Full days and it does not bother me. Although, I am selling my 20mm and bought the 24 1.4 GM to replace it. For the style of shooting I do, the Tamron 35-150 is more of a day run/gun that I'll use for 6 hours and then switch to my 50 1.2 and the 24 1.4 for reception/dance/exit
I’m in the same boat. I already have the 20mm f1.8 and it’s my favorite, but I don’t use it as much as my Tamron 28-70. The 35-150mm would simply be more versatile. What did you end up doing?
Tamron 17-28 & this lens is my full setup ! Been thinking a lot if I should change it due to the weight even thought its not crazy because I feel like its balanced towards the back of the lens and you don't feel it as much so I decided to keep it due to the iq and color which is unbeatable !! (I owned the sigma 24-70 and I felt it to be more uncomfortable on my a7c due to most of the lenses weight bring up in the front of it) Just my opinion but all in all best lens I've owned w. the little weight flaw
Too heavy for gimbal work besides the barrer extend a lot make balance hard. I think it is a better tool for photography. Like wedding, they normally have 2 bodis. So one body mount this 35-150. The other body can pair with a 16-35 or 24mm f1.4. That is more versatile than usual combo 24-70 and 70-200.
For wedding pro, weight like this not an issue. This lens really good fot those business. Youll save on renting second and third camera. For travel purpose yes. Z 24-120/4 beat this lens by close focus macro like capability of the latter.
Great video! Did you use it on a tripod? Did you use anything to offset the weight of the lens? I need to be able to film myself and they don't make a lens mount collar for this. Thank you!
There is no ‘big flaw’ to this lens, i use a Black Rapid shoulder strap for my larger lenses which enables me to carry the heavier lenses that this Tamron lens all day without major discomfort.
Just imagining doing a wedding with one body and maybe the lenses, this, a fast lens and a wide. And the fast and the wide sit in the bag most of the time. I didn't like however, the autofocus speed. That was way too slow.
Man that opening got me hooked. Not sure how your channel hasn’t blown up yet man, this was all so good! Side note, I love a good chonky piece of gear, I shoot with the Lumix S1 for now and it just feels so good. I like some heft to my gear for sure, so I rarely consider weight an issue.
Kensei, can you make a video to explain about aps-c mode in full frame cameras. I bought first mark Sony A7S and some my aps-c lenses are not usable without crop mode, because video is kind a round instead of normal, but some lenses are work normal and I noticed that without crop mode video looks better.
A 35-150 f2-2.8 with "insane IQ" (your words in a comment down here) and you complain about size and weight? How could you expect, on paper, even before having in your hands, that the thing could be compact?! Of course the size and weight would be closer to a 70-200 then a 24-70. I never had in my hands (waiting for a Canon version, if would ever happen), but seeing pictures and reviews, i actually feel it's much smaller then i could expected. And seeing in your video close to the 70-200 and 24-70, i confirm it's MUCH smaller then i thought. If they'll release it in Canon mount, i can ditch both 24-70 and 70-200 and having a single lens to shoot an entire wedding without changing lens, and that's really gold.
There is an EF version out there! It was less than half the price, but 2.8-4 instead of 2-2.8. They discontinued this lens however, I suspect because it was too good value lol
@@Chris-ey7zy as I said, the aperture is different. I highly doubt much else is different, beyond a few elements to enable the aperture to stay at 2.8 at 150mm
Great Video man, thanks for your effort to show us this lens! How oftes does the bokeh movement happen when you use AF while filming? Is the AF reliable enought to shoot moving people, objekts or animals with it?
Does the AF get better at f/4? This would be perfect for a repeatable camera setup for video if AF is snappier at f/4. This lens + ND filter + Alpha 1 + gimbal is essentially a pick up and go type of setup for a mobile three-person crew - one to frame, one to zoom, and one to control the gimbal - or even just a single-person camera op if you've got a stationary setup.
@@KenseiAkatsu oh, definitely lol. That's why I love the briefcase handle attachment. Great place to mount the monitor too, closer to your chest. Add in a ready rig and a tilta ring and this might solve all of those problems for a bigger shoot too.
Omg, i got sony 70 to 200 mk ii. Did you prefer it over tamron. Debating if i should replace 24 to 70 with tamron 35 to 150.. even though i ha e 70 to 200
I just switched from GH5 to A7m4 this Tamron is the 2nd lens I intend to trade my GH5 kit for. It’s little brother is the new Sony 16-35mm F4 it’s slow but it’s very light and has a motor driven zoom. Not sure why you said if you have a 16-35 then you don’t need the 35-150mm lens? I think it’s the perfect follow on from my 16-35? I can’t gimbal it but that’s why I have 16-35mm , that lens not great for low light but that’s why the 35-150?
the way you pronounce the word "quality" is really strange.. would like to see if you can improve it? sometimes its hard to understand its that word you're saying
Great review on this lens as it is one of the main reason why I switched to the Sony FF body over all the other FF camera manufactures. When paired with the new Sony A7RV with 8-stop IBIS, the 60MP FF with the sharp Over Sampling 26MP APS-C images that is sharper than the 33MP image from the A7IV while still providing incredible flexibilities that covers most of my needs.
Tamron 35-150mm f/2.0-f/2.8 focal range including in APS-C mode:
@ f/2.0: 35mm-39mm (APS-C range: 52.5mm - 58.5mm / Total available range: 35mm - 58.5mm)
@ f/2.2: 40mm-59mm (APS-C range: 60.0mm - 88.5mm / Total available range: 40mm - 88.5mm)
@ f/2.5: 60mm-79mm (APS-C range: 90.0mm - 118.0mm / Total available range: 60mm - 118.0mm)
@ f/2.8: 80mm-150mm (APS-C range: 120.0mm- 225.0mm / Total available range: 80mm - 225.0mm)
I rather carry this one lens than have to miss precious moments during lens swapping, not to mention dealing with increasing frequency of sensor cleaning and dust entering into different lenses and while have to carry the weight of all the extra lenses on a much larger and heavier camera bag.
Lies. You’re just trying to justify the cost you paid for the 7RV. 33mp in RAW is sharper.
@@lewcehjitl3282 If you are correct and truthful about your statement because you personally actually owned both units and have truthfully done the comparison then perhaps you could make a video to proof your result and explain why others who also actually owned them have the same conclusion. I will be reserving the final thought about who is the real lier here:
ua-cam.com/video/3JczXDA4CsM/v-deo.htmlfeature=shared
Those of us who regularly carry around a 600mm f/4 lens have to chuckle at all of the reviewers of this lens when they complain about the size & weight.
I think if you have just a little strength in your arms then this is the perfect lens for almost any situation. I've used them all day at weddings with no problems. I think the quality is clearly in the foreground with this lens. I would recommend this lense to everyone!
Well, I think it is clearly a matter of preference. Some people want the best quality and willing to carry a 1kg 1.4 sigma prime lens. Others prefer to lose a little quality and carry a 0.4 kg 1.4 samyang. There is no right or wrong. I apreciate this video and its conclusions a lot, since I am not able to get this lens rented or borrow.
I am looking into this lens for wedding photography and videography, could I check out your work for weddings? I would truly appreciate it! Thank you in advance.
I have this lens; It makes your life easier. Yes it's heavier than a lot of lenses out there (about a kilo (2.2 lbs)), but you're most likely keeping it on your body the entire time with maybe a 28 or lower prime close by. A major thing that wasn't mentioned is that you can program the lens to rack focus with just a push of a button and if you're a film maker that's going to give you lots to play with.
Thanks for covering what I didn't!!
can you explain what you mean by "you can program the lens to rack focus with just a push of a button and if you're a film maker that's going to give you lots to play with"? i don't understand how it would be different than the buttons on the g-master lenses (and maybe it isn't).
@ListenHereOldMan it has 3 custom buttons and m 3-mode switch, meaning you get 9 different custom button commands. An example is that you can rack focus with a button press. It's free software you can download via a usb-c port on the lens itself
Without a doubt, this lens became the most controversial zoom lens ever. It has a unique zoom range and doesn't have anything like it from other manufacturers.
Nothing conversational. It’s a great versatile lens. That’s how it’s designed.
Every lens fits some shooting scenario. I have lenses covering 14-400mm range that fit well different situations, but I don't need 14-400mm lens because there are no situations that would require that range at the same time.
This lens fits only one scenario, that is portraits, for which there are also many other options available. It's not a good travel lens, it's not a good street lens, it's not a good event lens, it's not a good nature lens, etc. It doesn't fit well other shooting scenarios. Those who spent a lot of money buying this lens are trying to justify their expenses, claiming you can fit a square rod into a round hole. That's where the controversies are coming from.
really liked the footage and pictures you took with the lens, shows a lot of real life character to it
Glad you liked it!!
I have it and I love it. Incredible versatility, and I'm generally fine with the weight and size. It's become my go to lens for general event photography/ If I have one complaint, it's that the lowlight focusing on my A7III is not the best. At that point, I switch to my Sony primes, usually either the 85mm 1.8 or the 135mm 1.8, depending on the situation.
Sounds like a good solution!!
Have you tried all the different focus modes? Cheers
I’m in the market. I’ve settled on an A7iii and I’ve been wondering about Tamron, this lens or others like sigma, does it affect the auto focus a lot? I hear and read that Sony lenses just work better.
Bought this lens. It is a natural brick! I’ve shot football cup and my arms felt tired after 1st hour… other hours I thought “you are tired but you do not need to switch lenses…” anyway this lens is outstanding! The worst thing is about Sony active stabilisation for non native lenses. It is a lot not as much smooth as for native ones and it is disappointing
Does the lack of oss matter when shooting football ? The shutter speed would not compensate ? Or AF system can not keep up ? Thanks a lot !
Monopod and offbrand collar
The size and weight are not a flaw. They are what they need to be for a lens with these specs.
Still doesn't fit me
“Sony, hold my beer.”
@@KenseiAkatsu let’s hit the gym bro. I ordered one of these lens as well.
Impressive, even.
So I bought this lens and I know I’m probably gonna get bashed for this. But people are acting like they’re carrying a 10 pound dumbbell lmao. I’ve shot all day with it, and guess what? Nothing hurt. Stretch your wrists and massage them after the shoot lol
ok review but the comments about size/weight are pretty subjective and more indicative of personal style. obviously, there are some tradeoffs for the fast aperture and zoom range. and obviously this lens fills a niche. maybe not perfect for street shooters, but for photojournalists, and event and portrait photographers, it's a different story altogether. anyone who has ever carried a 24-70/2.8 AND a 70-200/2.8 will recognize what this lens means for event documentation: you get 85% of a two-lens kit with no need for switching lenses. That means fewer missed shots and also the ability to frame shots either at wide or telephoto, or anywhere in-between. also, weight savings from carrying two 2.8 zooms. Basically, if you want light and compact with a wide zoom range, you re looking at the Tamron 28-200 which won't be as great in low light due to its variable aperture.
Speaking as a photojournalist and event shooter who has owned Sigma 50--150/2.8 (APS-C), Nikon 70-200/2.8, and Tamron 70-180/2.8, the Tamron's zoom range makes it preferable and more applicable to real-life scenarios than any of those lenses. I love sticking a big telezoom on the camera for singling out people in a crowd and blurring/compressing backgrounds. But in practical terms this also means carrying a standard 2.8 zoom, sometimes with a second body. To be able to reduce the kit by several pounds and also go with a lighter bag -- maybe a messenger-style instead of a backpack-- is a huge plus. Plus, you can pair this with a smallish wide prime or something like the Tamron 17-28 or new 20-40 -- both 2.8 -- to get more reach. So, there are considerable weight savings compare to a two-zoom kit covering the same range; plus you avoid the hassle of switching lenses. I'd say that's booth unique and useful.
To complain about the 35-150 not being somehow made of magical pixie dust instead of plastic and metal, is kind of puzzling. The laws of physics dictate that to have a constant 2.8 AND an almost 5x zoom, the lens can only be so compact. I wouldn't necessarily call this a major flaw, but more of a trade-off.
Another thing you could have specifically pointed out is that your AF testing was done with a Sony A7III which is an older camera at this point, meaning AF systems on newer cameras might produce better results as far as subject tracking. Tamron licenses AF algorithms from Sony, so VXD is comparable to Sony's OEM system, but a lens can't overcome an AF issue that originates with the camera body. An A7 IV, A7R IV or V, A1 or A7s III should all have improved aF over the A7III.
Also reviewers should think of who the lens is for, even if it's not exactly their cup of tea. Given that this one lens effectively covers the 35/50/85/100/135/150 focal ranges at constant 2.8, it's entirely acceptable for it to be heavier than a small prime or lesser zoom. For street shooting, you'd ideally want less-obtrusive lenses, which generally means focal lengths > 100mm or more compact variable-aperture superzooms. That being said, I think the versatility of this lens will lend itself to some street situations, although it's probably stronger as a choice for documentary and portraiture.
Thank you for the great opinion!
It'll help the production quality!!
Honestly, I understand the want to hold the camera in your hands constantly, but I found the best middle ground to be using a sling backpack and have the pack in the front where you can easy drop the camera into the bag and pull out whenever needed. I also find myself using the sling as a way to steady my arms by resting my elbow on the pack while taking shots.
What sling do you use?
not sure why everyone is saying that this lens is so "heavy". I am older than most of these photographers and i shoot a full session with a sigma 105mm prime and have no problem. hmmm....
I remember, long time ago, I had Sigma 24-135/2.8-4.5 lens. That was a very versatile "take me anywhere" lens. I wish Tamron or Sigma would make 24-135/2.8 lens, it would have been smaller, lighter than 35-150 and a lot more useful.
that f2 up to 85 is the fastest zoom for Sony by a stop, which makes it particularly enticing for me... i mean, that's just amazing in and of itself... i do agree that 24-135 would be a far, far, far preferable length... but yeh it'd prob be too big keeping the f2... this has been out for so long, i would've thought they'd have released a constant f2 midrange zoom - imo they'd absolutely dominate the mkt.. i'd kill for a 24-70 f2, given the price of this might be able to come in ~$12-1300
can you compare this with sony 24-105 F4?
I use sigma art 24-35 f2. It is heavy, 950 grams. But I overcame the weight via peakdesign slide 😁. Very easy to carry around with that strap.
Nice
I gotta check that out!
Need this lens for wedding photography !
Sigma 16-28 and tamron 35-150 should be a great combo i think
That'll work!!
Funny thing is I agree but I have a different conclusion. I do agree you will need to train your arms haha. But I do recommend this lens for run and gun. I already need a backpack to carry my camera, or else my smartphone would be the camera I use. There is usually no in between for me. I might get a sling bag but at this moment I always carry a back pack. And I don't need to bother with changing lenses so I won't miss a shot. I do think it is heavy to have it all day, (but still worth it in my opinion). The real difference is that this is a two handed setup. I really thought about getting the 70-180 but it is slightly too limiting not have a semi-wide 35mm range. Btw love the breakdown! Good job!
Good point!
That you don't have to change lenses is huge! I agree!!
Lighter than all but maybe two 70-200 f/2.8 lenses. Same weight as many ultrawide zooms. If someone is willing to carry a 70-200 f/2.8 or a 100-400... This lens is of no consequence.
This is an excellent review of the lens, no doubt it is a very versatile lens, but it has its uses very defined despite the tremendous focal range, I was about to buy it, but the weight and size do not go with the type of photography I do especially in travel and street and frankly I don't have the power in my arm to carry it for hours.
This review helped me a lot, I appreciate your honesty. Your content is very good, greetings from Mexico.
14:26 "if you have huge confidence in your strong forearm" As a rock climber then for me there is no flaw. I get a workout while shooting? Great!
After a year of using this lens I can say: zoom lock is needed, because it became loose, it sucks dust, it loses contrast a lot when shooting events with bright light sources, it looses focus while zooming, it is unusable with flashes handheld (too heavy), it is not the first lens to walk or travel with children… but it makes the job done
I had a rant about "compression" not actually being a real thing, but I got bored mid-typing! 😁 Great review of what seems to be a very handy lens.
That was a great review! | would like to ask you which should i buy? Tamron 36-150 f/2 - 2,8 or should i pick sigma 24-70 f/2,8? Both are great lenses i know that but it's also both too expensive. With tamron i take advantage the low range of 35 and also the beast range of 150 but with sigma i have something more standard with 24 to 70 where i cover the low range of 24. I want it for travelling.I have the Sony A7 II. Thank you
Please suggest which one will be the best buy.
Sigma 24-70 f2.8 or Tamron 35-150 f2-2.8?
I would love to see that comparison between the tamrom and the g master!
The weight is definitely noticeable and my one wish it could be lighter. But for me, it replaces a 35mm, 50mm, 85mm, and 135mm and I personally prefer it to my 24-70. Wish there was a 24-85 f2.8. That would be perfect for me. But until then, this is a great zoom lens.
When you think about how much this lens can cary, yeah that size and weight may be not that bad.
They could have made it lighter/smaller/cheaper by just creating it with a constant f2.8. Sadly they didn’t. 🤷🏻♂️
Hey Kensei! Thank you for delivering beautiful Sony lens reviews everytime, i am enjoying this a lot :) just from my view: I have kids and i can not use both hands all the time for shooting. this is why i bought the Peak Design camera clip! and this thing changes everything! you have always the camera on you only a grip away, it does not swing around when it hangs on your neck and you have both hands free immediatly if you need. sometimes i wear a empty backpack only because i need the belt for the camera clip. awesome thing! honestly my 100-400mm is not even that comfortable to wear on that because of the weight but i is way better than in the hands. a small lens like the batis 40mm is perfect on that. keep on the good work and greetings from germany :)
Thank you for watching!
I will check it out!!
I was really interested in this lens, and the idea was to combine it with a Sony 20mm f1.8 to really have a two-lens-setup that could do it all. It's only a little bigger and heavier than the 24-70 right?
But then Sony showed off their new 24-70 f2.8 II, and it was so small and lightweight (for an f2.8 zoom...).
And that got me thinking that maybe this 35-150 is simply too big and heavy to be an always-on-camera-lens (just like you said).
Maybe I'd rather have the smaller and lighter 24-70mm.
I was feeling the same way as you, and considering the new Sony 24-70 because of the size and weight. But decided to stay with the Tamron 35-150 because there were many times I only went out with one lens, and came across situations where 70mm was not enough. But I get the concern, this lens is heavy and big. I just know that if I have 24-70, I'll want to carry something like a 70-200 or short tele as well, and in that case the Tamron wins again for me.
@@SilatShooter Fair point. But if 70mm is not enough, you can always use crop mode & clear image zoom. You obviously lose some light and quality doing that, but it is a decent solution if you're not above 70 most of the time.
If I were you I'll put the light 2470 lens on the camera always.
The 20mm and 35-150mm are exactly what I use for weddings. Full days and it does not bother me. Although, I am selling my 20mm and bought the 24 1.4 GM to replace it. For the style of shooting I do, the Tamron 35-150 is more of a day run/gun that I'll use for 6 hours and then switch to my 50 1.2 and the 24 1.4 for reception/dance/exit
I’m in the same boat. I already have the 20mm f1.8 and it’s my favorite, but I don’t use it as much as my Tamron 28-70. The 35-150mm would simply be more versatile.
What did you end up doing?
Tamron 17-28 & this lens is my full setup ! Been thinking a lot if I should change it due to the weight even thought its not crazy because I feel like its balanced towards the back of the lens and you don't feel it as much so I decided to keep it due to the iq and color which is unbeatable !! (I owned the sigma 24-70 and I felt it to be more uncomfortable on my a7c due to most of the lenses weight bring up in the front of it) Just my opinion but all in all best lens I've owned w. the little weight flaw
You use this on an A7C?
Bro so glad I found your channel, breathe of fresh air. Keep going🤙
Too heavy for gimbal work besides the barrer extend a lot make balance hard. I think it is a better tool for photography. Like wedding, they normally have 2 bodis. So one body mount this 35-150. The other body can pair with a 16-35 or 24mm f1.4. That is more versatile than usual combo 24-70 and 70-200.
That's interesting.
I didn't try this on a gimbal but it's easy to imagine that.
And that combination sounds strong!!
Ah so tempted between this one or the Tamron 28-200mm f/2.8-5.6 Di III RXD. Has anybody tried both?
Got the lens and fits beautifully balanced in my hands
That intro earned you a sub! Great video man
Appreciate it!
For wedding pro, weight like this not an issue. This lens really good fot those business. Youll save on renting second and third camera. For travel purpose yes. Z 24-120/4 beat this lens by close focus macro like capability of the latter.
If tamron design this lens with 24/28-150/ 2.8 witch close focus 1:2.5. They will destroy the market. Thats the focal range for everything
What a snow ❄️ flake....geez
I wish that you can review Tamron 70-180mm F2.8 DI III VXD
Crazy intro, bro!!!
Appreciate it!
Broooo, i got hideo kojima vibes from that intro movie. Great work
I would like to see you compare the sharpness of this len with GM lens pls
What is it with Sony users that always seems to complain about a couple of extra pounds in weight?
Great video! Did you use it on a tripod? Did you use anything to offset the weight of the lens? I need to be able to film myself and they don't make a lens mount collar for this. Thank you!
There is no ‘big flaw’ to this lens, i use a Black Rapid shoulder strap for my larger lenses which enables me to carry the heavier lenses that this Tamron lens all day without major discomfort.
Just imagining doing a wedding with one body and maybe the lenses, this, a fast lens and a wide. And the fast and the wide sit in the bag most of the time. I didn't like however, the autofocus speed. That was way too slow.
I love the intro!
Thanks!!
This lens will balance nicely on a Nikon body.
Man that opening got me hooked. Not sure how your channel hasn’t blown up yet man, this was all so good!
Side note, I love a good chonky piece of gear, I shoot with the Lumix S1 for now and it just feels so good. I like some heft to my gear for sure, so I rarely consider weight an issue.
Thank you so much!
Glad you liked that intro!!
Hey bro I believe you are few person who can push a73 to its limit
Incredibly nice take😮
Thank you for this great review - if anyone carries this lens with a sling, what kind of mount ring do you use or recommend?
Kensei, can you make a video to explain about aps-c mode in full frame cameras. I bought first mark Sony A7S and some my aps-c lenses are not usable without crop mode, because video is kind a round instead of normal, but some lenses are work normal and I noticed that without crop mode video looks better.
A 35-150 f2-2.8 with "insane IQ" (your words in a comment down here) and you complain about size and weight? How could you expect, on paper, even before having in your hands, that the thing could be compact?! Of course the size and weight would be closer to a 70-200 then a 24-70. I never had in my hands (waiting for a Canon version, if would ever happen), but seeing pictures and reviews, i actually feel it's much smaller then i could expected. And seeing in your video close to the 70-200 and 24-70, i confirm it's MUCH smaller then i thought. If they'll release it in Canon mount, i can ditch both 24-70 and 70-200 and having a single lens to shoot an entire wedding without changing lens, and that's really gold.
Good insight!
But yeah I'm complaining about it.
It's just it doesn't fit my style. 😅
In a few lines may I ask you what do you think of this lens VS the Tamron 28-200mm? I saw both your videos and I’m eye-ing both at the moment
That's tough, but probably I would go for this.
I really wish they made this lens for other camera systems as well.
That would be great!
There is an EF version out there! It was less than half the price, but 2.8-4 instead of 2-2.8. They discontinued this lens however, I suspect because it was too good value lol
@@jackd4575 not same
@@Chris-ey7zy as I said, the aperture is different. I highly doubt much else is different, beyond a few elements to enable the aperture to stay at 2.8 at 150mm
What a fantastic video. Instant sub.
Thanks!!
Great Video man, thanks for your effort to show us this lens! How oftes does the bokeh movement happen when you use AF while filming? Is the AF reliable enought to shoot moving people, objekts or animals with it?
Not that a lot!
It may depend on the aperture!
Did you update your lense? i think it's got some new updates.
This lens has not been off my camera since I bought it, I have a 14 to 24mm 2.8 & this lens & im good
Sounds like you got all!!
Does this lens have rattling issues? I just got it and before I put it in the camera unit feels like something is loose inside
Is this lens fast enough for action photography?
Might be the perfect focal range for me!
That's good!
And the image quality is insane!!
Does the AF get better at f/4? This would be perfect for a repeatable camera setup for video if AF is snappier at f/4. This lens + ND filter + Alpha 1 + gimbal is essentially a pick up and go type of setup for a mobile three-person crew - one to frame, one to zoom, and one to control the gimbal - or even just a single-person camera op if you've got a stationary setup.
I think so, at least faster than F2.
This lens on a gimbal? Sounds like it's killing your arm, but good luck with that lol
@@KenseiAkatsu oh, definitely lol. That's why I love the briefcase handle attachment. Great place to mount the monitor too, closer to your chest. Add in a ready rig and a tilta ring and this might solve all of those problems for a bigger shoot too.
@@spdcrzy Oh yeah that sounds solid!!
Man, I think I will try the full rig setup someday!
Excellent reasoning, great video.
Glad you liked it!
If you film a whole day wedding with this, should you use the lens support or just mount it on the camera itself 😗
I don't think you need that!
When is this lens ever going to be in stock?! I'd love to buy it, but it hasn't been in stock for months
Have you tried eBay?
I wonder if they fixed the auto focus issue. Completely unusable for solo youtuber.
Did you encounter any lens suction when zooming in / out? Mine sound alot if zoomed fast… 😱
I didn't.
Maybe each copy is slightly different?
Tamron 35-150: The Movie
🔥
the tamron constantly fixes the sony sterile color science
Was the auto-focus test done on an a7iii?
Hey what is the thing at the bottom of the camera at 13:00?
What was your AF speed settings for the tests at the end?
Middle
Tamron, bring us L mount please.
Agree
Can you suggest me which one is better 24-105 f4 or 35-150 f2-2.8?
24-105 F4
Did you have any issues with excessive flare when shooting into the sun?
Not that much
Totally agree - it is too heavy. I had one liked the IQ but found it a brick. I've since got the 70-200 GM II and it is amazing.
Omg, i got sony 70 to 200 mk ii. Did you prefer it over tamron. Debating if i should replace 24 to 70 with tamron 35 to 150.. even though i ha e 70 to 200
Does iq mean lens quickness
I'm interested in that 70-200GMII
I'll make a review if I have a chance!
@@KenseiAkatsu I hope you can, it is excellent. Also try the TCs with it. I've now sold off my 100-400mm GM.
@@SneakyCaleb Image Quality
35-135mm constant f2.8 looks more interesting for me :)
That sounds good!!
Sony fan
Im so confused whether to go this or the Sony 24-105 F4!!! Help!!!
I have the 24-105 and I love it. But I’m looking to replace it with this 35-150 for the low light capability.
2.8 2.8 2.8
Like always great video . Thank you for great reviews. If you visit northern Sweden and want to some nice nature drop a line.
Thank you always!!
I just switched from GH5 to A7m4 this Tamron is the 2nd lens I intend to trade my GH5 kit for. It’s little brother is the new Sony 16-35mm F4 it’s slow but it’s very light and has a motor driven zoom. Not sure why you said if you have a 16-35 then you don’t need the 35-150mm lens? I think it’s the perfect follow on from my 16-35? I can’t gimbal it but that’s why I have 16-35mm , that lens not great for low light but that’s why the 35-150?
"if you have a 16-35 then you don’t need the 35-150mm lens?"
Which part in this video?
@@KenseiAkatsu - ua-cam.com/video/PDUuLBQGmXs/v-deo.html
Humans are never happy anyway
TRUEEEEEEEE!!!!!
@Kensei Akatsu but still beside the weight... it's a monster of a lens if we talking performance 🙏
fait un peu de sport et ça ira mieux ;)
the way you pronounce the word "quality" is really strange.. would like to see if you can improve it? sometimes its hard to understand its that word you're saying
...go in the gym :-)
I'm the 10000th view!
Congrats to you and to me!!
@@KenseiAkatsu Yes sir!
Laughs in 200-600
Oh come on! Sigma 35 1.2 is almost the same in size. Go to gym