Joe Lynch wrote:I was pretty sure you would like the results from the 35-150, just not the weight or size.Good to read how much you liked the 28-200! But I'm done with buying lenses for the one and only Sony FF body I have. I'll live with the 20-40, 35-150, and (sometimes) 150-500 Tamrons and just use primes or my m43 gear for long and/or light. They are all good.I am rolling with 20-40 & 50-400. Two lenses to cover most, either one if I only want to take one. 28-60 to go ultra compact. Occasional prime 75mm 1.8 use as needed.

SafariBob wrote:WhistlerNorth wrote:SafariBob wrote:WhistlerNorth wrote:SafariBob wrote:WhistlerNorth wrote:SafariBob wrote:I agree the 28-200 doesn’t have stellar character, but it’s pretty fast and sharp for the price and size.The 50-400 is not as impressive as initial reviews suggested, not a great choice for people looking to use it at the long end imo.I am watching the 50-400 Tamron and where is it you are reading not as good as original reviews— I would be wanting to use through its whole range including 400 on the A7IV.Recommend doing the lens comparison tool at the digital picture. It’s my go to for all lens inquiriesI had read reviews from this site before and my interpretation is that the Tamron 50-400 is rated well and certainly no one expects it to out perform the Sony 100-400 GM at 400 mm. Advantage is size, weight, cost and 67mm lens. So for the price it does shine. I have the Sigma 100-400DN and what I am trying to decide is, whether the Tamron is worth upgrading to as have ruled out the Sony due to its size and weight more than the Sony’s cost. Though one does appreciate getting quality at a good price. I am still looking for feedback from the people that are buyers of the new Tamron lenses as it definitely is selling well as noted in article.https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1632&Camera=1538&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=1&LensComp=1536&CameraComp=1175&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0the sigma is much better at 400mm imo. I got the impression from initial reviews and samples that the tamron was comparable or better.Well Safari Bob, with that comparison I should stay with my Sigma or buck up and buy the Sony. My luck I would get the current Sony 100-400GM and Sony will bring out a newer compact version. Had that when I bought the Sony a6500, waited and waited but needed for a Galapagos trip and 4 months later the a6600 arrives. I now have the Sony A7IV and pretty happy with 33MP as the larger files of the A7RV are really too large for me. I do shoot in raw and like the results. First world problem.Saw this review on SonyAlpha blog and still not sure about sticking with the Sigma over the Tamron—- Any Tamron 50-400 out there who have used the Sigma then switched to Tamron and what do you think?4.2 Sharpness / PiquéThe sharpest stays the Sony which is a tiny bit better wide open at 400mm but otherwise results are almost identical to the Tamron. The Sigma however is one grade lower almost

The sharpest stays the Sony which is a tiny bit better wide open at 400mm but otherwise results are almost identical to the Tamron. The Sigma however is one grade lower almostTo me, the Sigma stays sharper at all apertures @400. I also consider it better @100mm to be honest. I do think the tamron is better if you intend to use the full range of the zoom, and the difference isn't huge.I really loved my 70-400 sony, and I would certainly consider the tamron when/if I need a secondary super tele, but I also like having just one go to lens, and that for me, is the 200-600.Did you consider the 200-600?

SafariBob wrote:The sharpest stays the Sony which is a tiny bit better wide open at 400mm but otherwise results are almost identical to the Tamron. The Sigma however is one grade lower almostTo me, the Sigma stays sharper at all apertures @400. I also consider it better @100mm to be honest. I do think the tamron is better if you intend to use the full range of the zoom, and the difference isn't huge.I really loved my 70-400 sony, and I would certainly consider the tamron when/if I need a secondary super tele, but I also like having just one go to lens, and that for me, is the 200-600.Did you consider the 200-600?Safari Bob, You are fortunate with the older Sony 70-400 version. The 200-600 is really too large and heavy for me as will be handholding in Zodiacs and traveling in smaller airplanes with weight and storage issues— have to put most carryon in cargo hold and space limited on actual planes. I am a 5’3 “ smaller woman so the big lenses just that, too big for me. I am seriously looking at maybe the Sony 100-400 but not convinced that on my Sony A7IV it is worth going to either or the weight.

WhistlerNorth wrote:SafariBob wrote:The sharpest stays the Sony which is a tiny bit better wide open at 400mm but otherwise results are almost identical to the Tamron. The Sigma however is one grade lower almostTo me, the Sigma stays sharper at all apertures @400. I also consider it better @100mm to be honest. I do think the tamron is better if you intend to use the full range of the zoom, and the difference isn't huge.I really loved my 70-400 sony, and I would certainly consider the tamron when/if I need a secondary super tele, but I also like having just one go to lens, and that for me, is the 200-600.Did you consider the 200-600?Safar Bob, You are fortunate with the older Sony 70-400 version. The 200-600 is really too large and heavy for me as will be handholding in Zodiacs and traveling in smaller airplanes with weight and storage issues— have to put most carryon in cargo hold and space limited on actual planes. I am a 5’3 “ smaller woman so the big lenses just that, too big for me. I am seriously looking at maybe the Sony 100-400 but not convinced that on my Sony A7IV it is worth going to either or the weight.Maybe you are one of the few users for which the Sony 100-400 is the best choice. I never thought it gave much beyond what the 70-400 offered though, and the improvements over the sigma 100-400 are marginal. I always thought it was intended for use with TCs though, which all of the 70/80/100-400 lenses were in the DSLR era IMO (or for use with crop bodies).With a tc I really don't think it can be justified vs a 200-600 though, 1K extra for 300g weight loss, a stop slower and significant sharpness loss.There is a chance it will be replaced fairly soon, so would definitely by used.

Desh Wasi wrote:Joe Lynch wrote:I was pretty sure you would like the results from the 35-150, just not the weight or size.Good to read how much you liked the 28-200! But I'm done with buying lenses for the one and only Sony FF body I have. I'll live with the 20-40, 35-150, and (sometimes) 150-500 Tamrons and just use primes or my m43 gear for long and/or light. They are all good.I am rolling with 20-40 & 50-400. Two lenses to cover most, either one if I only want to take one. 28-60 to go ultra compact. Occasional prime 75mm 1.8 use as needed.17-28 & 50-400 here, I didn't buy either for the rendering or more subjective qualities but for the versatility (in the former's speed and the latter's range, and the combination between 'em). I'm still tempted by the 28-60 but most of the time if I wanna go lighter than those two zooms I just grab a couple small primes, the SY 75/1.8 was one of the primes that actually made me take a serious look at E mount.I'm still using my M4/3 75/1.8 or 35-100/2.8 for some occasions (along with the 42.5/1.7), but outside of those teles I've actually found FF primes at most FLs that are very comparable in size/weight while often being faster by equivalence. I've got some redundancy amongst my wider primes but it's usually a case of having an excellent/larger one and a more compromised tiny alternative.One thing is for sure, E mount would be significantly less compelling without Tamron's zooms... Sigma has some solid ones and Sony's are excellent of course but several of the Tamrons broke the mold and are excellent values IMO, just can't expect them to be as good as a prime or a GM zoom in every way.

Very interesting and thank you for posting this comparison! No doubt, the Tamron 35-150 is the best of the bunch. The problem is weight, but it is encouraging to see that you still choose it, despite this. I am very much tempted by this lens!The problem I see: with 35-150 you still would need to carry too additional lenses in your bag, a wide angle, or wide angle zoom, plus something tele (which I assume, since you rented 500mm lenses) is important to you. So as a 3-lens travel set, it would be way too much for my taste.On the other hand for an event photographer, unlike for travel, this Tamron is darn perfect!

Interesting to read your experiences. All valid points for each users priorities.I moved into Sony with the announcement of the 35-150mm. At the same time the A74 was launched leaving me with the option of a newer R older A73 or a A7RIIIa.The 35-150mm was not available right away so I bought a Tamron 24mm 2.8, a 50mm 2.5 G, a used but almost new 28-75 G.The weight is a big distraction, I doubt I will ever take it outside for street shooting. I shoot models in my studio, or on location.Image quality is really great if there is a big negative point it is the AF and Eye Focus has a lot of misses that my old Canon DSLR would not have had with a spot AF.I could be wrong but for me it must be the combination of the old A7RIIIa and the lens. It usually is fine but it just gets lost as in framing the eyes are in or past the top 1/3 of frame, where the focus points are at their edge.The 28-75 is the right weight, and image quality very good. I have video on a gimbal with this lens, that the 35-150 could not do.The gem* is the 50mm G lens.Sony sensors are quite bad for dust collecting, so leaving the 35-150mm minimises that.I wonder if accepting f4 if the 24-105 would have been a better choice?

neilsnape wrote:I wonder if accepting f4 if the 24-105 would have been a better choice?It's an older design. Not bad, but also not as good as the GM lenses or the latest Tamron zooms. Looks like you already got the best in your bag!

4Photos wrote:Very interesting and thank you for posting this comparison! No doubt, the Tamron 35-150 is the best of the bunch. The problem is weight, but it is encouraging to see that you still choose it, despite this. I am very much tempted by this lens!The problem I see: with 35-150 you still would need to carry too additional lenses in your bag, a wide angle, or wide angle zoom, plus something tele (which I assume, since you rented 500mm lenses) is important to you. So as a 3-lens travel set, it would be way too much for my taste.On the other hand for an event photographer, unlike for travel, this Tamron is darn perfect!If I could put a 2x Teleconverter on the 35-150, I would buy it in an instant.  Being able to get to at least 300mm is important to me.  From there I can use apsc and CIZ to make up the difference.Then the compliment would be the 2040/2.8 which I can't stop thinking about and I am bound to get it, depending on what Sony 2070/4 looks like.But there is that 150-300 range I really need...    I haven't played with the 150-500 but that range doesn't work for me, as I would rarely use it unless birding, and it is too big to sneak into a lot of the venues I go into...Really at $3k, the Sony 70-200GM.2 with teleconverter is the lens I need.  But it is white, and the means the missus will notice that lens...  And the missus can not notice the most expensive lens...   because there will be questions...

Joe Lynch wrote:jhunna wrote:35-150 I just don't want to carry it...I feel your pain. That was exactly my response after getting the A1 and 35-150. So I bought 24/45/85 primes, and a 28-75 G2 zoom. But, after a year of almost daily shooting, I couldn't ever leave the 35-150 home. So, for me, "I just don't want to carry it" morphed in to "I just can't leave it at home".=This is where I am. Just got my copy of the 35-150 a couple of weeks ago and I have to say, it is as wonderful as I have imagined. One of my pals, who shoots weddings on Nikon, is now looking to sell off his kit after trying mine out a few days ago; he called it the perfect lens for what he does.As it turns out, it is pretty good for sports as well as for portraits. I'll be trying it out as a travel lens next month when my wife and I finally head to Jamaica for our non-child-involved vacation.The 70-180 and the 28-75 are also great. But honestly, the 35-150 is worth all the weight it brings to the table.

I'm still having a fantastic time with my 35-150 and other Tamron lenses.  Yesterday, I went to the grand kids little league games, not knowing which lens I was going to need.  I packed the 35-150, a monopod, and the 150-500.  150 was a little short so I used the 150-500 and monopod with the A1.  500 photos later, I was very happy.  I had to slow the burst rate down to medium on the A1 for these 5 and 8 year olds.  I would normally have used an OM-1 and 40-150 Pro for this, but I left it at home just to get some intensive experience with the full frame gear for a sport I haven't shot in decades.  That is going to change this spring.