New Tamron 35-150mm

Joined
Feb 2, 2005
Messages
8,210
Location
Maple Bay, Duncan, BC, Canada
Real Name
Andreas Berglund
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #24
I understand the argument about 24 and under stand this and agree but I dont see this as much as a 24-120mm competitor but I see it much more as a Competitor for a 70-200, much lighter, quite a bit wider and yes not 200 but not that far off.
 
Joined
Apr 30, 2005
Messages
3,737
Location
Massachusetts
Real Name
David
35-150 on a DX camera is similar to a 50-225 on a FX camera.
So it is the DX equivalent of the FX 70-200 :)
And in something faster than the variable aperture f/5.6 zooms.
in testing way to look at it. Then you could pair the 35-150 with any number of 16/17 - 50/55/# to cover the range on DX. OR.... Get a wide FX like Tamron's 17-35 f/2.8-4.0 and have kit that works well for both.
 
Joined
Jul 8, 2019
Messages
555
Location
SF Bay Area, California, USA
in testing way to look at it. Then you could pair the 35-150 with any number of 16/17 - 50/55/# to cover the range on DX. OR.... Get a wide FX like Tamron's 17-35 f/2.8-4.0 and have kit that works well for both.
That is the plan, DX camera with:
17-50/2.8 for the gym (basketball and volleyball)
35-150/2.8-4 for the field (football, soccer, lacrosse) and gym shots to the far court.​
Lighting for both gym and field (night games) stink, so having the faster aperture will get us below ISO 12800-25600, which is where the f/5.6 kit lens would be.

The yearbook students (teenagers) don't like carrying the HEAVY 70-200/2.8, so the lighter 35-150 should get more use.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jul 8, 2019
Messages
555
Location
SF Bay Area, California, USA
The school yearbook ordered the 35-150, and I gave it a test run on the soccer field and in the gym, on an APS-C/DX camera.
The 35-150 on a DX camera is like using a 55-240 lens on a FX camera. So we DX folks FINALLY get the magnification/FoV equivalent of the FX 70-200. Finally. 👍
One of the students shoots a FF camera, and seems to have gone "ga ga" over the lens. So it seems to have pushed his button.​
The zoom ring turns in the SAME direction as the Nikon zooms :)
The Sigma zoom ring turns in the OPPOSITE/Wrong direction. That is VERY confusing if you zoom with muscle memory, like me. I kept turning the Sigma zoom ring in the wrong direction, and losing shots. :mad:
The zoom is an extending zoom.
So the diameter of the lens is kinda FAT, to accommodate the extending zoom optics and mechanism.​
This was really obvious when I had the internal zoom 70-210/4 next to the extending zoom 35-150/2.8-4. Both are f/4 on the long end. The 35-150 was much FATTER, in both look and feel. It uses a 77mm filter.​
To me, the FAT diameter lens and resulting FAT/large diameter zoom ring took a bit of getting used to, but I quickly forgot about it when shooting.​
Zoom throw is about 90 degrees, and while a little stiff (for me), seems fine.
The large diameter zoom ring adds leverage, to make the zoom ring relatively easy to turn. But I still had to grab the zoom ring with my hand.​
The internal zoom 70-210/4 is much lighter/easier to turn. Finger easy.​
 
Last edited:
Joined
Apr 30, 2005
Messages
3,737
Location
Massachusetts
Real Name
David
.....So we DX folks FINALLY get the magnification/FoV equivalent of the FX 70-200. Finally. 👍.....
Actually it's not the first time. Tokina had a 50-135 f/2.8 until they discontinued it. And Sigma had a nice 50-150 f/2.8 until they screwed it up with the version III and then discontinued it.
 
Joined
Jul 8, 2019
Messages
555
Location
SF Bay Area, California, USA
Actually it's not the first time. Tokina had a 50-135 f/2.8 until they discontinued it. And Sigma had a nice 50-150 f/2.8 until they screwed it up with the version III and then discontinued it.
I did not know about the Tokina.

I looked at the Sigma 50-150/2.8.
The non IS was OK (size and weight), but the IS model (ver 2) was HUGE and HEAVY. I think they used the case of the 80-200/2.8 for that lens (to reduce cost and not have to make a new case).
Then they discontinued the lens in favor of the 50-100/1.8.
I was hoping that a ver 3 would get the size and weight down.
 
Joined
Apr 30, 2005
Messages
3,737
Location
Massachusetts
Real Name
David
I did not know about the Tokina.

I looked at the Sigma 50-150/2.8.
The non IS was OK (size and weight), but the IS model (ver 2) was HUGE and HEAVY. I think they used the case of the 80-200/2.8 for that lens (to reduce cost and not have to make a new case).
Then they discontinued the lens in favor of the 50-100/1.8.
I was hoping that a ver 3 would get the size and weight down.
Technically the one with the 70-200 case and OS was version III. It's REALLY hard to tell what the differences are between vI & vII other than vI is 8mm longer than vII.

I know I had a vI, but I sold it when I was thinking of going FF. I delayed and bought another, but I'm not sure if that was a vI or vII.

https://www.blueberryphoto.com/Other/50-150/n-nmFwq/
 
Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Nikon Cafe is a fan site and not associated with Nikon Corporation.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Copyright © 2005-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom