Tamron 35-150 vs Sony 70-200 VII

I am aware it is too early for a lot of people to have either of these two lenses but will be very curious to hear how they compare at overlapping focal lengths...

I really want to see the VII version.

Oops, I guess that 'V' really wanted in there...

There are a few video reviews that compare the sharpness of the both at test chart targets, the 70-200 MkII is a litte bit sharper but the Tamron is sharper than the mkI.

One review I found in german:

travelinbri_74 said:

I am aware it is too early for a lot of people to have either of these two lenses but will be very curious to hear how they compare at overlapping focal lengths...

Click to expand...

The Sony 70-200 f2.8 MKII seems to be a fairly big improvement over the first version. The Tamron 35-150 is getting really good reception also. I would go on Youtube and watch reviews on both. Fro Knows just did one the other day. And I think Dustin Abbott just did one.

After seeing the reviews of both lenses and seeing the $900 price difference, I cancelled my BH 70-200 preorder and ordered the Tamron.

For the way I shoot, its a better choice for me. If things work out right, I’ll be able to dump my Tamron 28-75 because I have the Tamron 17-28. I’ll have a gap between 28 and 35mm, but I think I can make do without.

My Tamron 35-150mm f2-f2.8 has literally 'knocked my socks off' on my A7RIV. It is sharper and has way more contrast and better color than the GM 70-200mm f2.8 I sold.

I cancelled my GM 70-200mm f2.8 II pre-order after shooting the Tamron. I realize that the new Sony lens will be likely represent the pinnacle for sharpness in a zoom, and with the quad focus motors, will be far superior for fast moving sports; plus, it is apparently sharp enough that it will likely tolerate a x1.4 teleconverter, which would provide a lot of flexibility

I cannot afford both lenses (according to my "Scottish" wife), right now, and just cannot give-up the highly useful 50mm f2, so I guess I will be shooting the Tamron for some time. Maybe, next year I can plead my case for also needing the Sony lens.

--
Jeff
Florida, USA
http://www.gr8photography.com

Great to know. I have been watching reviews lately. Is the Tamron actually shipping out in the US? I thought it is the next month

Georgeee said:

Great to know. I have been watching reviews lately. Is the Tamron actually shipping out in the US? I thought it is the next month

Click to expand...

I've had it for about three weeks, now. It sold-out just after I purchased mine, after a number of good reviews were published.

travelinbri_74 said:

I am aware it is too early for a lot of people to have either of these two lenses but will be very curious to hear how they compare at overlapping focal lengths...

Click to expand...

Don't own it, but as I see it, based on owning a 300mm lens (for a different system, long ago), one problem with the 35-150 is weight. I know I wouldn't want to carry such a lens around, or have such a lens in-hand, most of the time. But with a 35-150 f/2-2.8, that's what you will in effect often be doing, if you take advantage of its zoom range including shorter focal lengths. But with a 70-200, at least part of the time (when below 70mm), you'll be using a different, smaller and lighter, zoom, or primes.

The other potential problem that I see with the 35-150mm (from reviews, admitedly not personal experience) is that its optical performance isn't that good in the outer field at maximum focal length. Perhaps not a problem if your primary subject doesn't extend into the corners (so probably fine for portraits, weddings). But for my uses (landscape, cityscapes, architectural details), if I were to buy such a big lens, I'd want it to be very good all the way into the corners even at maximum focal length.

Zilver -

Maybe some working out with weights may help !

I'm almost 71 and used to a big white Canon, 35-350 "L" lens, adapted to my a7R III. When I take it out, it's mostly an all day outing (about 9am to around 5PM). Walking around the drag strip or an air show.

But yes, I am looking forward to giving the new Tamron (35-150) lens a try, and no, not bothered by the weight. IF...it pulls in as much or more detail than my Canon "L" lens, it will take over that position on my camera.

Mike

Mike VanV said:

Zilver -

Maybe some working out with weights may help !

I'm almost 71 and used to a big white Canon, 35-350 "L" lens, adapted to my a7R III. When I take it out, it's mostly an all day outing (about 9am to around 5PM). Walking around the drag strip or an air show.

But yes, I am looking forward to giving the new Tamron (35-150) lens a try, and no, not bothered by the weight. IF...it pulls in as much or more detail than my Canon "L" lens, it will take over that position on my camera.

Mike

Click to expand...

I'm your age. Not a question of getting "used" to a heavy camera and lens. The problem is my back, so working out with weights isn't the solution, that'd just further compress my already-squashed discs! For me, the only solution is to try to minimize camera and lens weight (while still keeping quality up). Thankfully, mirrorless came along at the right time, and there are enough choices available for Sony E-mount that keeping weight down is do-able. But it often means using a prime rather than a zoom, so that in-hand weight can be kept low enough. (I'd probably be a candidate for MFT, except that I can't (yet) bring myself to give up high-MP FF goodness!)

Mike VanV said:

Zilver -

Maybe some working out with weights may help !

I'm almost 71 and used to a big white Canon, 35-350 "L" lens, adapted to my a7R III. When I take it out, it's mostly an all day outing (about 9am to around 5PM). Walking around the drag strip or an air show.

But yes, I am looking forward to giving the new Tamron (35-150) lens a try, and no, not bothered by the weight. IF...it pulls in as much or more detail than my Canon "L" lens, it will take over that position on my camera.

Mike

Click to expand...

I'm 74 with a torn disc in my back, so I am really 'weight sensitive'. I cannot carry my 200-600mm for very long, but I shot last Sunday for five hours carrying the 35-150mm and didn't even notice it.

As a note, the sharpness really surprised me. For portraits, I normally shoot the Sigma 35mm f1.2, GM 35mm, GM 50mm, Sigma 105mm f1.4 or GM 135mm. The images from the Tamron (all shot wide-open) on a 27" 5K monitor at 100% were amazingly close to the IQ I get from my primes. Of course, the separation is not comparable (although not bad) to my primes and I will probably go back to my primes for dedicated portrait shooting sessions and relegate my Tamron to event, street and travel shooting. Overall, I cannot believe how good the Tamron lens is!

--
Jeff
Florida, USA
http://www.gr8photography.com

I can't wait for a compherensive comparison

I shoot motorsport and 35 - 150mm would be almost perfect. Almost.
Currenly using Sigma 24-70mm, Sony 135mm GM (my workhorse) and Sigma 100-400mm.
24-70 is used for parker cars, people, etc, sometimes for the track if the cars are too close for the 135mm.
135mm is when I shoot 90-95% of the time. That lens is super sharp and produces amazing images on my A7R IV.
I find Sigma 100-400 (f5-6.3) way too dark making me having to bump the ISO even with a normal polarizer. I hate grain. The weather in Sweden is rarely sunny.

Considering cars are moving in a predicatable pattern (most of the time, lol), I don't need a blazing fast focus. I pick a car, lock on it and fire away!
It would be nice to have a fast focus when a car is moving towards me though, as GM is great at it and Sigma 100-400 sucks bad and can often focus or god knows what.

Now, I would REALLY like that 300mm reach, or even 200mm, but I also would love being able to use "one lens for all" and one can't have everything :/

Good to hear that the IQ is comparable to primes

Nebell said:

I can't wait for a compherensive comparison

I shoot motorsport and 35 - 150mm would be almost perfect. Almost.
Currenly using Sigma 24-70mm, Sony 135mm GM (my workhorse) and Sigma 100-400mm.
24-70 is used for parker cars, people, etc, sometimes for the track if the cars are too close for the 135mm.
135mm is when I shoot 90-95% of the time. That lens is super sharp and produces amazing images on my A7R IV.
I find Sigma 100-400 (f5-6.3) way too dark making me having to bump the ISO even with a normal polarizer. I hate grain. The weather in Sweden is rarely sunny.
Considering cars are moving in a predicatable pattern (most of the time, lol), I don't need a blazing fast focus. I pick a car, lock on it and fire away!
It would be nice to have a fast focus when a car is moving towards me though, as GM is great at it and Sigma 100-400 sucks bad and can often focus or god knows what.

Now, I would REALLY like that 300mm reach, or even 200mm, but I also would love being able to use "one lens for all" and one can't have everything :/

Click to expand...

Not cars, but take a look at "turbodude"'s samples in the Fred Miranda, Sony Forum.

Jeff -

Thanks for the note on the sharpness. Very much looking forward to seeing this. I have one thing that I can take a photo of that tells me how well the lens is at capturing detail.

If you go to 100% on the shot below, look closely at the "braided" stainless steel line (hose) in the lower left/center, you'll notice that each of the main "wraps" of the braid, are actually made up of tiny pieces of wire laid side by side to make each 'wrap" or ribbon section. Most lenses see this as a single piece, more like a wide "ribbon" of material, vs., little .020" dia. (or so) pieces of separate wire that make up each ribbon.

I'd imagine that "prime" lenses would have no problem picking this up, but alas, I need to use a zoom for a coupla reasons.



On back problems. Yeah, sorry guys, I didn't think of medical problems. So many people just complain about the "weight" and not being able to hold that much weight up.

I've had, as most of us have had by this age, short time, and long time back soreness for one reason or another. For me anyway, I've found a little trick that helps a great deal. Keep the stomach muscles tight while standing and walking. Letting the gut muscles relax seems to be one of the bigger killers of...the back.

Sounds a little counter intuitive I know, but it's worked for my back problems over the years.

Mike



NOTE - In reading my final post, as posted, the "data" recorded in the picture says that the lens is a Tamron, 35-150 lens ! I do not own a lens like this.

The lens actually used was an old Canon 35-350L white lens !

Any new thoughts comparing these two? Sounds like from most reviews the two lenses are comparably sharp, perhaps the 70-200 II is better in the corners at long focal lengths and large apertures, but the Tamron equals it in the center and catches up in the corners by f4...

I have the Tamron 70-180; and was considering upgrading to the Sony 70-200 GM II specifically to allow use of a teleconverter. (Instead bought another lens Sony FE 200-600 G OSS).

So I found a number of online reviews, and comparisons with raw images, a few with use of the teleconverter.

The Tamron actually is better in the center across the whole range compared to the Sony, but only falls off in the corners in comparison approaching max zoom, and either wide open or closed.

Per online reading (so take it with a grain of salt, but does seem plausible) real reason Sony 70-200 GM II works with a teleconverter and Tamron does not, is because Sony does not license the teleconverter and blocks companies from being able to do so as part of the license to the E-Mount protocols.

Tim

travelinbri_74 said:

Any new thoughts comparing these two? Sounds like from most reviews the two lenses are comparably sharp, perhaps the 70-200 II is better in the corners at long focal lengths and large apertures, but the Tamron equals it in the center and catches up in the corners by f4...

Click to expand...

I have the GM II. It's smaller (when the Tamron is extended) and lighter. While all reviews seem favorable to the Tamron, I have not read any professional reviews conclude "equal" performance when comparing this, or any other similar FL lenses, with the GM II.

Which to me means, go with the one that best fits your needs as far as FL and rest of your "kit". Which is what I did.

Therefor the real issue, IMHO, between these 2 lenses is not which is "better" performance wise. It's what FL works best for you: 35-150, or 70-200.

I seriously considered the Tamron's 35-150, as I have the 16-35 GM, and have been using that w\out a mid-range zoom. Ultimately I decided to stay with 16-35, and go right to 70-200, with an extender.

I would likely have bought without hesitation the the Tamron, if I decided differently.

In the real world, I think either would be more than "good enough" for making as great the images the user (me) is capable of; one was just a better subjective "fit" for FL I wanted to have.