Tamron 35-150 2.8-4 (is this the alternative to the 24-104 f4?)

http://www.tamron-usa.com/product/lenses​/a043.html

The reviews have been nothing short of outstanding. I mean you have a longer range and the extra stop on the wide end. Is this the Ultimate walk around portrait lens??I may buy this for my SL1 I use as a walk around and sell all my Primes and medium Zoom for this.
I almost want to sell my Sigma 50-150 OS for this...(Almost)

This lens does sound interesting. I use a Canon 18-135 as my "general purpose" lens now and this would be faster but I don't know if the AF is as good as the Nano version of the 18-135 as I do use mine for sports at times.

ian_socool wrote in post #18988068
http://www.tamron-usa.com/product/lenses​/a043.html

The reviews have been nothing short of outstanding. I mean you have a longer range and the extra stop on the wide end. Is this the Ultimate walk around portrait lens??I may buy this for my SL1 I use as a walk around and sell all my Primes and medium Zoom for this.
I almost want to sell my Sigma 50-150 OS for this...(Almost)

35mm isn't very wide for a walk around -- especially for a crop sensor body. Personally, the 24-105L works perfectly for me as a walk around on a full frame body. The EF 24-105L has been my most used lens on my 5D3 for almost 8 years, so I bought the RF 24-105L with my recent EOS R purchase. Being able to go from wide angle to short telephoto is ideal for my walk around.

what a bizarre focal range

35->24 is about 3 footsteps backwards. Kinda sorta

ian_socool wrote in post #19008085
35->24 is about 3 footsteps backwards. Kinda sorta

Not if you are shooting landscapes.

I picked this lens up when I did a "G2" upgrade of my f/2.8 zooms.
The idea that this is a "bizarre" focal range I guess is true, in that it is currently unique, but on the other hand, it is EVERY common portrait/people FL in one lens.
ie:

YES!

I have not had opportunity to really use any of my new Tamrons yet,. but as soon as I read about this lens I was curious and excited. When i am shooting performances, I can't seem to do it with one lens. The 24-70mm is simply not long enough for the gripping close ups,. and the 70-200mm is longer than I need at the long end. Most often I just use a 135mm prime instead since the 70mm end is never wide enough and 200mm is longer than needed. I save a lot of weight just using the prime instead. But either way, I am required to use two bodies in this case, or swap lenses like crazy.

I'm pretty convinced I now have the one lens to do it all in that regard, IF the lighting is enough for f/4 at the long end. (on the one hand I wish it were constant f/2.8, on the other, it would be a lot bigger!)

There is a downside to this lens as I've tested it so far,.
I was not really clear on Tamrons alphabet soup, and was therefore taken off guard by the fact that this
lens does not include the very amazing fast AF of the f/2.8 zooms. You see , it is missing the "USD" letters, so it is not approved by the US Dept of Agriculture for fast auto focus...

It's pretty poky in fact.

I'll hopefully be using it at dress rehearsals next week for "Richard III" and I'll have better idea of it's a keeper/problem solver or not.

Scott M wrote in post #19008186
Not if you are shooting landscapes.

I would not consider buying this lens with landscapes in mind either. I am content with 24mm at the wide end, (or 18mm on APS-C),. but not 35mm.

So,...

My very first real world shooting on the new 1DX MarkIII was almost exclusively with this "oddball" lens.

I hope to have images up to start a thread in the archive this weekend,. but for now, I was correct in assuming this focal range is the ONE lens for use for theatre work, and I suspect much performing arts.

I was shooting a dress rehearsal of Shakespeare's RICHARD III with it,
In case this was a flop, I had standing by the 24-70mm on the 5D3 and the 70-200mm (both f/2.8) in the bag ready to go.

I picked up the 24-70/5D3 for some wider scenic shots once.


I never switched to the 70-200mm and in the end shot about 865 of the 880 images with the 1DX and the 35-150mm.

It's "poky" af was a little bit of a bummer, but it did not stop me from enjoying the lens at all. If the distance it need to rack were short, I barely noticed,. it was only when a significant range change occurred that the slowest was noticeable.
Also, although it was slow,. and thus confidence was in question during the hoot, on the 1DX3 it turns out I essentially got 100% sharp in focus images! So paired with the right camera, this lens is just fantastic!

The focal range was spot on. I did not miss the 151-200mm end of the range much at all for this particular play, though I am sure I would have been at 200mm some of the time If I had it for head and shoulder shots.
As mentioned I had 24mm available by my side, and essentially did not use it.
BUT, if I had been shooting the "normal" pair, 24-70mm and 70-200m,, I would have been swapping back and forth like a mad man, and I would have , as I have SOOOO may times in the past, missed the best framing due to having the wrong body/lens combo in hand at the wrong time.
The 35-150mm absolutely eliminated that problem. At no point was I ever holding the wrong camera, I did it all with one.

Did I wish it was f/2.8 at the long end? Oh yes,. but modern sensor and Auto ISO left me pretty happy.
Did I miss the SP's super fast AF? Yes indeed,.

..but I will be keeping this lens!

ed rader wrote in post #19002163
.
What a bizarre focal range.
.

.
Actually, this would be quite a useful range for me.

The "traditional" zooms have never fit my shooting style. . I mean, 24-70, 24-105, 70-200, 70-300, and 100-400 have always seemed awkward and seldom cover the range I need at any given time. . None of these "standard" ranges work well for me, and always leave me wanting more, or less, range. . They probably became popular because they work well for photographing people, but I sure as heck don't ever want to take pictures of people, so they don't do much for me.

When I use my 24-105, I almost never use it wider than 35mm. . I've often wished it didn't even have the 24-34mm part, in hopes that without it, it may have better image quality.

But there are many times when I use my 24-105 when I wish that it went somewhat longer. . I have often thought that 150mm would be a perfect long end for this lens.

I had great interest in the Sigma 50-150mm, and even went to buy one a few years ago, but finally realized it was only for crop sensor bodies, and was able to cancel the transaction and get my money back. . That was a real bummer because 50-150mm on a full frame would be pretty close to ideal for my uses. . But this 35-150mm is even better than 50-150 would be, because it has that extra 15mm at the wide end that I actually use for wildlife on a frequent-enough basis.

For years I have been waiting for lens manufacturers to make zoom lenses in completely different focal length ranges than they have always made them ...... perhaps this is the start of a very needed revolution!


.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #19014307
.
Actually, this would be quite a useful range for me.

The "traditional" zooms have never fit my shooting style. . I mean, 24-70, 24-105, 70-200, 70-300, and 100-400 have always seemed awkward and seldom cover the range I need at any given time. . None of these "standard" ranges work well for me, and always leave me wanting more, or less, range. . They probably became popular because they work well for photographing people, but I sure as heck don't ever want to take pictures of people, so they don't do much for me.

When I use my 24-105, I almost never use it wider than 35mm. . I've often wished it didn't even have the 24-34mm part, in hopes that without it, it may have better image quality.

But there are many times when I use my 24-105 when I wish that it went somewhat longer. . I have often thought that 150mm would be a perfect long end for this lens.

I had great interest in the Sigma 50-150mm, and even went to buy one a few years ago, but finally realized it was only for crop sensor bodies, and was able to cancel the transaction and get my money back. . That was a real bummer because 50-150mm on a full frame would be pretty close to ideal for my uses. . But this 35-150mm is even better than 50-150 would be, because it has that extra 15mm at the wide end that I actually use for wildlife on a frequent-enough basis.

For years I have been waiting for lens manufacturers to make zoom lenses in completely different focal length ranges than they have always made them ...... perhaps this is the start of a very needed revolution!

.

the 70-400L has my attention and it will be the size and weight of the 70-200L RF. this will take the place of two lenses for me.

ed rader wrote in post #19014314
.
the 70-400L has my attention and it will be the size and weight of the 70-200L RF. this will take the place of two lenses for me.
.

.
Yeah, 70-400mm would be very useful. . Having a zoom range of 5.7x would be wonderful!

Years ago, Sony made an 80-400mm that was reviewed very highly. . I felt so limited with my 100-400mm that I seriously considered adding a Sony DSLR and that 80-400mm to my gear, just to have that 5x lens instead of my 4x lens. . I kept waiting for used prices to come way down, but they never dropped low enough, and then Sony abandoned that mount and that entire line of DSLRS.

So I ended up "stuck" with the 4x Canon lens instead. . It's a great lens in many respects, but the 4x range is rather limiting. . I hate having to carry an extra lens around just for the few times when I want to shoot at 80 or 90mm. . But I also hate shooting scenes at 100mm when they would be better composed at 80mm or 90mm. . Tradeoffs suck ..... I see no reason why we shouldn't be able to have it all.


.

Is there no dedicated thread for this lens? I am looking for one, but can't find it. Seems very attractive to me. My shop has one for about $500, and would like to pounce, but would like to see a POTN response first...