Considering Tamron 35-150 vs 35/1.8, 55/1.8, & 70-180

Autismo · Mar 8, 2023

Not an easy choice.

I already have the 35/1.8, 55/1.8, & 70-180...not getting rid of them. The 35-150 is compelling though. Weighs a bit less than the three combined. Comes very close to offering the same speed & dof isolation. Is a one lens solution, so down in one slot of bag and no lens changes.

It is so darn big though. Maybe one of the local shops rents it, so I can try it for a weekend.

I also have the GM primes from 24-100 and this would not replace those for sessions when I had time and subjects were not zipping around.

I hate to buy another expensive lens unless I'm really going to use it.

sportyaccordy · Mar 8, 2023

I love the 35-150's capabilities but I just can't stand lugging around such huge lenses.

It's not cheap either.

As crazy as it sounds, a second body for less money may help deliver a similar boost in versatility. I.e. 2 bodies with a prime on one and the 70-180 on the other could "essentially" be like the 35-150. Plus then you can mix and match different bodies for different strengths, like an A9 for the 70-180 for speed vs an A7R4 + prime for IQ and detail.

DippyTwitty · Mar 8, 2023

sportyaccordy said:
I love the 35-150's capabilities but I just can't stand lugging around such huge lenses.

It's not cheap either.

As crazy as it sounds, a second body for less money may help deliver a similar boost in versatility. I.e. 2 bodies with a prime on one and the 70-180 on the other could "essentially" be like the 35-150. Plus then you can mix and match different bodies for different strengths, like an A9 for the 70-180 for speed vs an A7R4 + prime for IQ and detail.

That's a pretty good argument - However, I've had the 35-150 now for a year-ish, and I'll never give it up. Once I got accustomed to carrying the weight around, I stopped noticing the weight, and just appreciated that carrying it around solves all my lens-switching (not to mention buying) issues.

Just my $0.02

Georgeee · Mar 8, 2023

Agreed 100%. 35-150 is the one . I was going to buy the 70-180 until the 35-150 came out. Absolutely love it

thunder storm · Mar 8, 2023

sportyaccordy said:
I love the 35-150's capabilities but I just can't stand lugging around such huge lenses.

That's the problem. The focal range is versatile enough for me for walk around purposes, but the weight is a downside.

sportyaccordy said:
It's not cheap either.

As crazy as it sounds, a second body for less money may help deliver a similar boost in versatility.

I think this is a very strong argument. I also went with a second body, however, having 35-150mm in one zoom wins for immediacy compared to changing between body-lens combo's.

sportyaccordy said:
I.e. 2 bodies with a prime on one and the 70-180 on the other could "essentially" be like the 35-150. Plus then you can mix and match different bodies for different strengths, like an A9 for the 70-180 for speed vs an A7R4 + prime for IQ and detail.

Mr_Win · Mar 8, 2023

given the choice, 35-150 all day

why fiddle with a bunch of lenses when you dont have to?

the three lens combo might win on technical aspects, but it's slower to use and probably weighs more in total, however IF you dont have the 70-180 with you often, then it's certainly better to go with a simple prime.

I'm coming from a POV, that large aperture primes are only used for high end shoots, and after owning the 35-150 since the beginning, pretty much everything in that range is being sold off. When using a fast prime, there is the intention of a lot of background blur and the 35-150 does that.... I dont really need a "low light" lens, and I think that f2.8 should be fine for anyone, we're not in 2005 anymore.

thunder storm · Mar 8, 2023

Mr_Win said:
Mr_Win wrote

Mr_Win said:
When using a fast prime, there is the intention of a lot of background blur and the 35-150 does that.... I dont really need a "low light" lens, and I think that f2.8 should be fine for anyone, we're not in 2005 anymore.

Imo larger apertures than f/2.8 will always have their place for creating subject separation at wider focal lengths (we're talking 35mm here, not just 70mm) and when having a larger distance between the camera and the subject.

Fotoloco · Mar 8, 2023

sportyaccordy said:
I love the 35-150's capabilities but I just can't stand lugging around such huge lenses.

It's not cheap either.

As crazy as it sounds, a second body for less money may help deliver a similar boost in versatility. I.e. 2 bodies with a prime on one and the 70-180 on the other could "essentially" be like the 35-150. Plus then you can mix and match different bodies for different strengths, like an A9 for the 70-180 for speed vs an A7R4 + prime for IQ and detail.

ProDude · Mar 8, 2023

Having and using the 35-150 is a bit of an addiction. It is an exception to many rules where lenses are concerned. It will win over bokeh lovers to be sure. The build is very solid and precise as is the feel. Sure it's a tad on the heavy side, but causes better balance as a result. Sharp is it's middle name. It's why in so many cases it's out of stock and I've spoke to several dealers that tell me it's their #1 seller for the past year running. I feel it's the finest lens Tamron has designed and built to date.

LStop Photo · Mar 8, 2023

I have this lens and it has been my most used lens. It is great if you shoot events or if you want to travel and have one camera / one lens.

It is a bit heavy though but it is worth it considering it’s versatility

Luc

sportyaccordy · Mar 9, 2023

thunder storm said:
thunder storm said:

Mr_Win wrote

When using a fast prime, there is the intention of a lot of background blur and the 35-150 does that.... I dont really need a "low light" lens, and I think that f2.8 should be fine for anyone, we're not in 2005 anymore.

Click to expand...

Imo larger apertures than f/2.8 will always have their place for creating subject separation at wider focal lengths (we're talking 35mm here, not just 70mm) and when having a larger distance between the camera and the subject.

Yep this is exactly why I have shied away from super fast long glass. There's no difference between 85mm at 1.4 or 1.8 to me.

However shooting events with something like the 35-150 has to be a dream; even as a non-pro I can think of several events I've shot where it would work well. For just snapshooting family though it seems like using a Howitzer to kill an ant. So it's key to determine the use case

DippyTwitty · Mar 9, 2023

sportyaccordy said:
thunder storm said:

sportyaccordy said:

Mr_Win wrote

When using a fast prime, there is the intention of a lot of background blur and the 35-150 does that.... I dont really need a "low light" lens, and I think that f2.8 should be fine for anyone, we're not in 2005 anymore.

Click to expand...

Imo larger apertures than f/2.8 will always have their place for creating subject separation at wider focal lengths (we're talking 35mm here, not just 70mm) and when having a larger distance between the camera and the subject.

Click to expand...

Yep this is exactly why I have shied away from super fast long glass. There's no difference between 85mm at 1.4 or 1.8 to me.

However shooting events with something like the 35-150 has to be a dream; even as a non-pro I can think of several events I've shot where it would work well. For just snapshooting family though it seems like using a Howitzer to kill an ant. So it's key to determine the use case

I'll respectfully disagree with that last part - the howitzer has SO many disadvantages when killing an ant (if we're allowed to consider that literally) between collateral damage, risk factors and cost.

This lens is *fantastic* for shooting your family (funny phrase given the analogy I know) and the weight is the only disadvantage. In my opinion the weight doesn't bother me one bit, but even if it does, it's minor given what you gain

Just my opinion of course, but I love it for casual / family / candid photos.

Mr_Win · Mar 9, 2023

sportyaccordy said:
thunder storm said:

sportyaccordy said:

Mr_Win wrote

When using a fast prime, there is the intention of a lot of background blur and the 35-150 does that.... I dont really need a "low light" lens, and I think that f2.8 should be fine for anyone, we're not in 2005 anymore.

Click to expand...

Imo larger apertures than f/2.8 will always have their place for creating subject separation at wider focal lengths (we're talking 35mm here, not just 70mm) and when having a larger distance between the camera and the subject.

Click to expand...

Yep this is exactly why I have shied away from super fast long glass. There's no difference between 85mm at 1.4 or 1.8 to me.

However shooting events with something like the 35-150 has to be a dream; even as a non-pro I can think of several events I've shot where it would work well. For just snapshooting family though it seems like using a Howitzer to kill an ant. So it's key to determine the use case

well, keep in mind that it is f2 @35mm, it's not exactly a small aperture.

and at the longer focal lengths, the blurring capabilities are quite good, along with the very high quality of blur, 1.4s start to lose their advantage so as long as you can deal with working distance.

when I'm feeling bold or special occasions (weddings/graduations/religious), I'll take it out for family for sure.

Jacques Cornell · Mar 9, 2023

Autismo said:
Not an easy choice.

I already have the 35/1.8, 55/1.8, & 70-180...not getting rid of them. The 35-150 is compelling though. Weighs a bit less than the three combined. Comes very close to offering the same speed & dof isolation. Is a one lens solution, so down in one slot of bag and no lens changes.

Another solution to lens swapping is multiple bodies. For the price of the 35-150, you could buy a lightly used a7RIV and put one lens on that and another on your current body. I shoot corporate events professionally with three a7RIIIs and seven Samyang primes covering 18mm-135mm. The 24mm, 35mm and 85mm do most of the work, and Crop Mode gives me 52mm and 130mm as well.

Autismo said:
It is so darn big though. Maybe one of the local shops rents it, so I can try it for a weekend.

I also have the GM primes from 24-100 and this would not replace those for sessions when I had time and subjects were not zipping around.

I hate to buy another expensive lens unless I'm really going to use it.

--
"Don't be mean. We don't have to be mean. Because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are." - Buckaroo Banzai
http://jacquescornell.photography
http://happening.photos

The Tracksuit Barber · Mar 9, 2023

I was looking to purchase this when it came out and it was immediately out of stock! I waited almost a year and finally had the opportunity to purchase 3 days before my Norway trip and it was on my camera 80% of the time! I personally am used to shooting with a heavier lens like the Zeiss 24-70 and it doesn't bother me especially for the focal length is reaches... I would much rather 1 lens than having to switch and waste time with 3 lenses...

sportyaccordy · Mar 10, 2023

Mr_Win said:
sportyaccordy said:

thunder storm said:

Mr_Win said:

Mr_Win wrote

When using a fast prime, there is the intention of a lot of background blur and the 35-150 does that.... I dont really need a "low light" lens, and I think that f2.8 should be fine for anyone, we're not in 2005 anymore.

Click to expand...

Imo larger apertures than f/2.8 will always have their place for creating subject separation at wider focal lengths (we're talking 35mm here, not just 70mm) and when having a larger distance between the camera and the subject.

Click to expand...

Yep this is exactly why I have shied away from super fast long glass. There's no difference between 85mm at 1.4 or 1.8 to me.

However shooting events with something like the 35-150 has to be a dream; even as a non-pro I can think of several events I've shot where it would work well. For just snapshooting family though it seems like using a Howitzer to kill an ant. So it's key to determine the use case

Click to expand...

well, keep in mind that it is f2 @35mm, it's not exactly a small aperture.

and at the longer focal lengths, the blurring capabilities are quite good, along with the very high quality of blur, 1.4s start to lose their advantage so as long as you can deal with working distance.

when I'm feeling bold or special occasions (weddings/graduations/religious), I'll take it out for family for sure.

Oh yea, if you own this lens honestly I see no point in owning any conventional primes in the FLs it covers. Only specialized stuff like tilt-shift or macro.

But for me a lens of this price would have to be a "daily driver" and it's just too big and heavy for that. It alone weighs more than any of my current body + lens combos so from that POV a 2nd body almost makes more sense. Again I can't knock anyone for getting this lens, it's amazing, but it does have some legit downsides.

Jacques Cornell · Mar 10, 2023

sportyaccordy said:
Mr_Win said:

sportyaccordy said:

thunder storm said:

sportyaccordy said:

Mr_Win wrote

When using a fast prime, there is the intention of a lot of background blur and the 35-150 does that.... I dont really need a "low light" lens, and I think that f2.8 should be fine for anyone, we're not in 2005 anymore.

Click to expand...

Imo larger apertures than f/2.8 will always have their place for creating subject separation at wider focal lengths (we're talking 35mm here, not just 70mm) and when having a larger distance between the camera and the subject.

Click to expand...

Yep this is exactly why I have shied away from super fast long glass. There's no difference between 85mm at 1.4 or 1.8 to me.

However shooting events with something like the 35-150 has to be a dream; even as a non-pro I can think of several events I've shot where it would work well. For just snapshooting family though it seems like using a Howitzer to kill an ant. So it's key to determine the use case

Click to expand...

well, keep in mind that it is f2 @35mm, it's not exactly a small aperture.

and at the longer focal lengths, the blurring capabilities are quite good, along with the very high quality of blur, 1.4s start to lose their advantage so as long as you can deal with working distance.

when I'm feeling bold or special occasions (weddings/graduations/religious), I'll take it out for family for sure.

Click to expand...

Oh yea, if you own this lens honestly I see no point in owning any conventional primes in the FLs it covers.

When you're shooting moving subjects in low light (e.g. events), there's a two-stop difference between an 85/1.4 and the 35-150 @ 85mm and f2.8. That's the main thing that killed my initial enthusiasm for this lens. 35/2 and 150/2.8 look great. 85/2.8 doesn't, and a lot of my event work is done around 85mm. It's the difference between shooting this image at ISO 25,600 or ISO 102,400.

Sony a7RIII, Samyang 85/1.4. 1/200s, f1.4, ISO 25,600. Processed with DxO PhotoLab 6 Elite.

sportyaccordy said:
Only specialized stuff like tilt-shift or macro.

But for me a lens of this price would have to be a "daily driver" and it's just too big and heavy for that. It alone weighs more than any of my current body + lens combos so from that POV a 2nd body almost makes more sense.

My feelings, exactly.

FWIW, I used to use two ginormous EOS 1-series cameras with big zooms and flashes on brackets. I'm pretty sure this is what wrecked my right shoulder and pinched a nerve in my neck. Now, I spread the weight, using three bodies with primes, two on a dual harness and the lightest one on a neck strap, and although the total weight is still substantial, it's much less of a burden and I'm much less fatigued at the end of several 12-hour days covering a conference. I'm pretty sure the 35-150 would go back in my bag and the end of the first day due to weight.

sportyaccordy said:
Again I can't knock anyone for getting this lens, it's amazing, but it does have some legit downsides.

Yeah. For the right situations, it seems to be an amazingly useful and unique solution. I'd rather have it than a 28-70/2.8 and 70-200/2.8. But, it's not a substitute for a bag of primes.

--
"Don't be mean. We don't have to be mean. Because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are." - Buckaroo Banzai
http://jacquescornell.photography
http://happening.photos

Tommy S · Mar 10, 2023

sportyaccordy said:
I love the 35-150's capabilities but I just can't stand lugging around such huge lenses.

It's not cheap either.

As crazy as it sounds, a second body for less money may help deliver a similar boost in versatility. I.e. 2 bodies with a prime on one and the 70-180 on the other could "essentially" be like the 35-150. Plus then you can mix and match different bodies for different strengths, like an A9 for the 70-180 for speed vs an A7R4 + prime for IQ and detail.

Carrying 2 bodies with two lens vs 1 body and 1 lens? Tamron is not so huge and its weight is 1165 gram.

Jacques Cornell · Mar 10, 2023

Tommy S said:
sportyaccordy said:

I love the 35-150's capabilities but I just can't stand lugging around such huge lenses.

It's not cheap either.

As crazy as it sounds, a second body for less money may help deliver a similar boost in versatility. I.e. 2 bodies with a prime on one and the 70-180 on the other could "essentially" be like the 35-150. Plus then you can mix and match different bodies for different strengths, like an A9 for the 70-180 for speed vs an A7R4 + prime for IQ and detail.

Click to expand...

Carrying 2 bodies with two lens vs 1 body and 1 lens? Tamron is not so huge and its weight is 1165 gram.

Yes, but all that weight is in one hand or on one shoulder all the time. I learned the hard way: spread the weight. Took 20 years of doing event work, but bursitis in my shoulder and a pinched nerve in my neck taught me that lesson.

Two bodies with 35/1.8 and 75/1.8 weigh less, combined, than one body with the 35-150. Even two bodies with 35/1.4 and 85/1.4 means 500g less weight in-hand, on my neck, or on each shoulder.

Mr_Win · Mar 10, 2023

Jacques Cornell said:
Tommy S said:

sportyaccordy said:

I love the 35-150's capabilities but I just can't stand lugging around such huge lenses.

It's not cheap either.

As crazy as it sounds, a second body for less money may help deliver a similar boost in versatility. I.e. 2 bodies with a prime on one and the 70-180 on the other could "essentially" be like the 35-150. Plus then you can mix and match different bodies for different strengths, like an A9 for the 70-180 for speed vs an A7R4 + prime for IQ and detail.

Click to expand...

Carrying 2 bodies with two lens vs 1 body and 1 lens? Tamron is not so huge and its weight is 1165 gram.

Click to expand...

Yes, but all that weight is in one hand or on one shoulder all the time. I learned the hard way: spread the weight. Took 20 years of doing event work, but bursitis in my shoulder and a pinched nerve in my neck taught me that lesson.

Two bodies with 35/1.8 and 75/1.8 weigh less, combined, than one body with the 35-150. Even two bodies with 35/1.4 and 85/1.4 means 500g less weight in-hand, on my neck, or on each shoulder.

Considering Tamron 35-150 vs 35/1.8, 55/1.8, & 70-180

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Pro

Well-known member

Leading Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Leading Member

ProDude

Guest

New member

Forum Pro

Well-known member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Leading Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Leading Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts