Find the sigma lock great, no creep while walking (locked) and no need to find the switch before zooming when you need to react quickly. It's faster, less chance to miss a shot that requires quick reaction.
I really loved the reach of the Tamron 35-150. If the 35mm focal length isn't for you, it's definitely 'just' wide enough on full frame sensor cameras. Personally, I would still choose the 35-150 F/2-2.8 over the Sigma 28-105 2.8. :) Great video Fro!
The biggest advantage of the Tamron isn't the longer range. That is a big advantage, but the biggest is the f/2.0 up to 39mm, and the f/2.2 up to 59mm. I like that a lot over just f/2.8. It's close 50mm&65mm f/2.0, so it saves you lens changes to primes around that all important 50mm. At 79mm it's still f/2.5. I got me a dirt cheap small and light weight Viltrox 20mm f/2.8 for when I need wide. Performs decent stopped down, and it's still wider than 24mm.
Honestly, the lock disengaging upon turn is a great idea. Most of the times you'd want a lense locked is because of the creep and nothing else. Happened many times the lens gets locked on accident only for me to miss a shot or two because later on when I figure out it is locked. This is a great fix for those situations.
I'll keep my 35-150 Tamron. Don't use it for my sports work though - the not focusing while zooming is a problem for the endurance sports that are my main work, so I use my Sony glass instead for that.
Why do you say it's not focusing while zooming? It does. It may have occasionally lose focus, and maybe does it more often than Sony lenses, but focusing and tracking do not get disabled when the zoom ring is in function. If it really gets disabled with Sigma, here is an additional reason to chose Tamron.
The whole schpeel about the locking switch: that's literally every sigma 24-70 zoom. They make it that way intentionally so that it won't ever creep, but if you just twist the ring it unlocks.
For me, I had a 28-75 F2.8 G2 Tamron for a while, and I found 28 wasn't wide enough for me anyways, so I went for the 35-150 and got a 20mm 1.8 for the times I need to be wider. Very happy with my decision, though I may invest in a 16-35 later down the line to better cover the wide.
I thought he was joking by renting a first, I didn't know he was serious when he said that you get to jail just for going to the park to take photos, USA is crazy.
Love the video I really don’t think the lock thing is an issue. It just makes it a convenience for people that forget that they locked it and it needs to hurry up and shoot something fast and it unlocked by just twisting. I think the point of lock is to make sure that it doesn’t get loosen up in the bag.
As I have a 14-35 f4, the 35-150 would be its perfect complement. Depending on the occasion or event, I like to use 2 lenses to cover a larger range learning on the wider side. Sometimes each lens is on its own body. There’s also the longer range like in wildlife photography, that starts as a medium telephoto between 100 and 200mn (100-400, 150-600, 200-500,…). I often use the 100-400 with a 1.4x extender, so the 35-150 covers the wider view, and the occasional subject that is too close for the long lenses. That’s assuming one doesn’t mind carrying 2 lenses, even better each already mounted on its own body. So the 35-150 can sit in a nice and heavy bundle of well matched gear. The 28-105 f2.8 could be a better choice if you’re to go about with just one lens. The 1-stop gain in aperture can balance well with the 4mm loss at the wider end, to include taking pictures inside larger spaces during one’s travels and exploration. One can only wish these difficult decisions will actually become an actual case of worrying ;-) for Canon users… Eh…
Meh. As a wedding photographer who shoots primes… 24, 35, 50, and 85 are my bread and butter. 70-200 packed up for scenarios where I am restricted during the ceremony. If I wanted to switch to one body and a zoom, 35 is just way too tight for way too many scenarios. 28 on the other hand is doable.
@@yes_senpai8880 so you are saying you wouldnt have the 28-105 because you'd need the 70-200 anyway. sounds like you just wanted to make a comment lol.
@@salatI got rid of my Tamron 35-150 for that reason because it is not as sharp as my Sony or sigmas and it was not good for sports/racing on hit rate. Sold it picked up the new sigma 70-200 f2.8 dg dn sport. Now that is a sharp fast lens
I still cant pick this over the tamron 35-150 . You just get much more. As a pro photographer and someone who shoots in studio and mainly on location, the Tamron is still the best bet. After having that 35mm on the low end and constant aperture all the way to 150mm, Tamron invented the best zoom lens on the market right now.
I would not sell my 35-150 for this. I ve baught the 24-70 sigma mark ii. I shoot video pro. But when sony will make a 24-105 f2.8 internally zoop with motor , it will kill everything in video (as the canon one) Thanx for the comparaison of the two lenses. See ya
you have the 35-150 and the 24-70? damn bro, nice. i was looking the 35-150 and thinking about sell my 24-70 and replace her for the tamrom. i also have the 16mm 1.8 viltrox FF and it's pretty great for me. but, your comment give to me some thoughts.
I ve got the 35-150+24-70 dgdn2+28-75 g2 tamron+sony 20-70 It could be weird but every lens has a utility regards to the weight of the lense (on a gimbal for exemple) and the large focal or not...20, 24,28 is not the same... If i would take 2 lenses, i would take the sony 20-70f4 and the tamron 35-150. The best of trans standard is the sigma for me
The unlocking of the lock switch is probably for the bang-bang shots when you just picked it up from your bag and forgot to check if it's unlocked. Pretty clever I'd say.
Thank you for the emphasis on the AF tracking while zoom racking. That is an issue with the Tamron 35-105 too and I did not when I purchased it as not a single reviewer mentioned it at the time.
What do you mean? My Tamron 35-150 tracks while zooming in and out both in photo and video. It may occasionally lose focus or tracking box, but there is nothing like disabling tracking by turn of the zoom ring. I just checked it now again to make sure, and it works mostly fine.
If you are zooming relatively quickly while tracking the lens loses focus as strongly not parafocal and aggravated by the large aperture and zooming range, then the AF struggles with keeping up.
@@armandot9137 Agree, it may struggle, but it does not lose the continuous focus or tracking mode automatically as soon as zoom is in action. Any lens may occasionally lose focus even without zooming. It is not the case, like is suggested by some here, that zooming is completely incompatible with continuous AF with this lens.
@@armandot9137 not an extensive statistical testing, but to get an idea: I just made a series of 27 shots at 10 frames/s with Tamron 35-150 wide open and a1 while zooming from 36 to 119 mm with tracking AF. Tracking box was always on the subject, however out of 27 frames 6 were out of focus, but the other 21, including the first and the last frame, - perfectly in focus. Not a perfect performance, but I suppose with this lens it's not very different from what would be achieved with the subject approaching and not zooming. This may be good enough for some and not good for others. My take is that there is nothing particularly bad about focusing while zooming with Tamron 35-150.
⚠Important Warning at 4:40 & 13:04: Jared, a big thank you for mentioning this 👌 Everyone doing action photography (sports, wildlife, events, etc.) needs to know about this limitation. As a (Nikon) sports photographer, I rented the Tamron 35-150mm f/2-2.8 to see if it could replace my 70-200mm f/2.8 Z on a 2nd body as I've been liking the creativity of doing some wider shots. However, I found that the 35-150mm also briefly looses focus while zooming in or out and tracking a subject in AF-C mode at the same time (usually occurs once or twice, for a fraction of a second, when zooming throughout the entire range. It's more apparent when zooming quickly; not much of an issue when zooming slowly). I knew right then I couldn't buy the lens for the work I do, at least not without fully changing my approach. The potential of missing key shots in sports like football, soccer, and others where a fast pass of the ball results in the player getting too close & me needing to rapidly zoom out would mean I would need to: (a) stop focusing / tracking (b) zoom out and (c) reacquire focus at a different distance ... increasing the potential of missing the shot I wanted (e.g. the anticipated action shot of the ball about to be caught / received). Compared to my 70-200mm f/2.8 Z, well, there was no comparison...the 70-200 held focus while zooming in AF-C mode with a 100% success rate, even while rapidly zooming in & out. Focus acquisition was also noticeably faster. That said, for anyone doing work with stationary subjects (portraits, travel, landscapes, etc.) or even moving subjects that aren't erratic or that change distance super quickly, the 35-150mm is incredibly sharp, well balanced in the hand, really well constructed, and with more than adequate focus speed.
in reality much better ifu choose 35-150 rather than 28-105. 28mm wide is not totally ok if u are event photographer you still need a wide lens 20mm below, 35-150 is money saver, u dont need 70-200 anymore.
Actually this is perfect for sports. But let me say certain sports. I use the Tamron 17-70mm F/2.8 and 17-70mm (25-105 ff equivalent) is the perfect range for a boxing or mma or mauy thai. You have a wide enough focal length if they get close to the ropes where you're at and then far out 105 focal lengths which is perfect when they're on the other side! It works really beautiful
I have it my way and combine the 35-150 Tamron on my A1 and my 16-35 2.8GM on my A7CII. I wear a photo vest and use Peak Design clamps on both camera’s. I switch between both solutions in a matter of seconds as needed. BTW: I love it that on the wide side, the Tamron does 2.0 aperture for the bokeh background.
The zoom lock is what I like about this. There are countless times while using the Samyang 35-150 where I went to take a shot and forgot it was locked. It was a real annoyance. This is a great option.
I would go with 35-150. Pair it with a 16-35 and you are golden for 95% any event. If you get the 28-105, you will need 3 lenses. A wide lens AND also a longer telefoto lens like 70-200.
I really want a 24-100 if it’s possible. I widely prefer 24 to 28. As someone who had a tamron 28-75 and then broke it and upgraded to a sigma 24-70 those extra 4mm on the wide end make a much bigger difference than a 100 vs 105mm. 70 is not enough imo but 100 would be a really nice point for me, especially having an A1 and being to shoot video in 4K at a 1.6x crop in addition to full frame
After doing a bit of research and some self-speculation (as a hobbyist amateur), I think that the 28-105 and the 35-150 shouldn't be compared against each other all to heavily. These two are taking the same concept except with different zooms going the other direction. Think of it being the 28-105 as an longer 24-70, while the 35-150 as a wider 70-200, and both of them are missing key focal lengths from the zoom lenses that they are inspired from (24 and 200 respectively from each end for both tamron/sigma lenses). Of course there is a big overlap, but if you're choosing between the two; that's just something to take account of to put in a different perspective. The reason why I will ultimately go with the 28-105 is for the wider end and it fits my bag perfectly for travel: I have a 20mm and a 100-400. I could go for the Sony 24-105 f/4, but the 2.8 is too good to pass up imo
For showing how wide and grand a display is its actually better to use the tele end and back up to take in the entire scene. Wide angles like 24mm distorts making the center larger than the sides giving the same composition.
I don't think its that tough of a choice, think about use case: do you shoot more close to wide range or telephoto? Do you need the stabilized lens? When this comes to RF I'd get the Tamron because it's my best use case.
Out of the lenses here, I’d go with the 24-70mm Sigma & 35-150mm Tamron, for just a few hundred more than the Canon 28-105mm by itself. But with a 24-150mm range at the same fast aperture 🤷♂️
I have the 28-70 and it is great, compact and enough for me. More than that, I'd like to get the 70-200 later. I already have the 16-28 and 100-400 which have very good pin sharp IQ
I don't shoot event photography above 10fps, even with the a1 or a9iii. It's simply impractical. The Tamron 35-150's autofocus is accurate, but it's not even fast enough to track basketball or volleyball players at 15fps. Furthermore, there are way too many restrictions with the a1 at 30fps. You need to set the release priority to shutter, which is unacceptable. The a9iii doesn't have this problem though many Sony lenses can't handle 120fps either.
I would rather pick the 24-70 f2.8 over 28-105 f2.8. With the big size camera, you can crop the 70 end to get the similar 105. But for the Tamron's 150 end, you can't do that.
I LOVE the eternal hope of Canon users to open the mount and Sony users to provide firmware - it’s what makes us human!! If only Nikon fixed the autofocus to be as consistent as the other two and Fuji made a full frame 😂😂😂
It's really a fantastic lensas you recommended. My question is which lens maker can make a 24-135 mm f2.8 lens? And when? We don't have it till now , why? Size and weight? I think too many people have carried on more bigger and havier ones. Price? Too many lenses more than 10000 USD are sold day by day. So. What's the real reason not making it till now? I will really appreciate it if you may answer as my admirable photographer.
I think 28mm to 35mm is a much smaller difference than 105mm to 150mm. If you shoot events and portraiture, 35-150mm is a better range. If it was 24-105mm, then it would replace all the 24-70/2.8 lenses! But I'd still think a 16-35/2.8 coupled with a 35-150/2-2.8 is the best event photography combo in the universe! You could arguable use a 35-150mm as replacement for 24-70/2.8 and 70-200/2.8! Those two lenses are pretty awkward as 70mm is a bit short for portraits and too narrow for most other situations!
When it comes to zooms, Tamron is usually the innovative leader and Sigma is the conservative follower. In this comparison, the 3-year-old Tamron 35-150 still takes the overall win with the 35-70 f/2-2.5, longer zoom ratio, similar size, and a cheaper used/sale price.
Not really, Sigma has the 60-600mm, the 28-105mm f2.8-4 (Released back in 2005) the 120-300mm f2.8 release back in 2010, 300-800mm aka the Sigmonster, and the 200-500mm f2.8 aka the BIGMa. Sigma has consistently made better and more innovative than Tamron but has recently slowed down and fell off for some reason
@@CallMeRabbitzUSVI That was in the DSLS age. Even then, Tamron made zoom for the larger audience. For the last 5 years, Tamron has been ahead of the zoom game.
The funny thing is that Tamron also can make excellent primes. The 35 1.4 they launched in 2019 is one of the best prime lenses ever made, even beating Sigma ART. It's a mystery why they haven't launched it for mirrorless.
Indoor basketball (or outdoor lol as the courts are the same size)....tough choice. It comes down to what kind of shots do you like I guess. I prefer close up rather than wide. This week anyway.
I'm not sure if you have talked about this, but (at least on my model) the 150-600 contemporary lens does the same soft locking thing when locked at focal lengths besides 150mm.
It seems like a great lens. Sigma is doing a great job with their newer lenses. This one is a pass for me due to the lenses I already own. I won’t part with my new sigma 70-200 f2.8 dg dn sport and my sigma 24-70 f2.8 dg dn
NEVER EVER EVER EVER. Converts wont help you, they will hurt you here. 28 x 1.5 = 42mm. That's already a range you have, so instead of 2.8 it's now F4 and you wasted the lens.
None of other videos talked about lock and release. If it unlock by purpose i see it as a feature because ı allways forget to open this liock before the shoot on my sigma 100-400 and 150-600.
Can you please explain the issue (beyond the obvious economic one) why no third party glass is available for the RF platform when most Sigma & Tamron lenses were available for Canon DSLR’s?
At least the Z glass is somewhat affordable, especially used compared to Canon, I was looking to make a possible Switch from Sony as I am still using an a7ii I got mixed feelings about Nikon I decide to check Canon, and holy fuck the lense prices of Canon are absolutely crazy. So it is either an a7IV if I stick with Sony or a Nikon Z6iii.
Canon and Nikon are going to regret not giving their Z mount to Sigma and Tamron because of the announcement that DJI Company is coming with its new mirrorless cameras very soon in 2024-2025 and its range of lenses at a better price.
Anyone have anytips? So im a starting photographer that's starting to do shoots for people, currently I have a sony a7r5 and a sony 50mm f1.8, I was looking for another lens, mostly for portraits and close automotive photography. The lenses I was looking at where the Sony 70-200 F4 mk2 or this new sigma lens 28-105 F2.8, I do understand for closer car photos it be a no brainer for the sigma lens, but I feel like I might do more portraits than car photos, anytips help, thank you!
![ละลาย (LALALYE) - DAOU PITTAYA ต้าห์อู๋ พิทยา [OFFICIAL MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/wo6r9TgausI/mqdefault.jpg)
![[LIVE] : ONE ลุมพินี 88 | คู่เอก "ป้อมเพชร vs อัสลามจอน"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/1ZqTVVbMgbo/mqdefault.jpg)
Find the sigma lock great, no creep while walking (locked) and no need to find the switch before zooming when you need to react quickly. It's faster, less chance to miss a shot that requires quick reaction.
i always forget the lock on my 150-600 and miss shots daily cause of it
I agree, this type of lock gives you a lock when you need it, but also unlocks when you need it.
Absolutely agreed
SIgma got that lock right...😂
That is a great locking feature. I forget about the lock often and miss some shots.
I really loved the reach of the Tamron 35-150. If the 35mm focal length isn't for you, it's definitely 'just' wide enough on full frame sensor cameras. Personally, I would still choose the 35-150 F/2-2.8 over the Sigma 28-105 2.8. :) Great video Fro!
The biggest advantage of the Tamron isn't the longer range. That is a big advantage, but the biggest is the f/2.0 up to 39mm, and the f/2.2 up to 59mm. I like that a lot over just f/2.8. It's close 50mm&65mm f/2.0, so it saves you lens changes to primes around that all important 50mm. At 79mm it's still f/2.5. I got me a dirt cheap small and light weight Viltrox 20mm f/2.8 for when I need wide. Performs decent stopped down, and it's still wider than 24mm.
Honestly, the lock disengaging upon turn is a great idea. Most of the times you'd want a lense locked is because of the creep and nothing else. Happened many times the lens gets locked on accident only for me to miss a shot or two because later on when I figure out it is locked. This is a great fix for those situations.
Legend has it that if you're early enough, Jared will respond.....
wrong
Oh Billy boy
@@froknowsphotohaha.... you are a legend!
I have 35-150 and 16-35 for my Sony A9. For hobbyist like me that’s everything and more than I need and want.
I'll keep my 35-150 Tamron. Don't use it for my sports work though - the not focusing while zooming is a problem for the endurance sports that are my main work, so I use my Sony glass instead for that.
Why do you say it's not focusing while zooming? It does. It may have occasionally lose focus, and maybe does it more often than Sony lenses, but focusing and tracking do not get disabled when the zoom ring is in function. If it really gets disabled with Sigma, here is an additional reason to chose Tamron.
The whole schpeel about the locking switch: that's literally every sigma 24-70 zoom. They make it that way intentionally so that it won't ever creep, but if you just twist the ring it unlocks.
For me, I had a 28-75 F2.8 G2 Tamron for a while, and I found 28 wasn't wide enough for me anyways, so I went for the 35-150 and got a 20mm 1.8 for the times I need to be wider. Very happy with my decision, though I may invest in a 16-35 later down the line to better cover the wide.
That's exactly what I did.
I've got the Tamron 35-150mm and the Viltrox 16mm f/1.8 for wider shots and I'm happy with that.
"Renting a 2 year old" and then "taking them into the shadows" are phrases that could put you on a watch list!
I thought he was joking by renting a first, I didn't know he was serious when he said that you get to jail just for going to the park to take photos, USA is crazy.
Love the video I really don’t think the lock thing is an issue. It just makes it a convenience for people that forget that they locked it and it needs to hurry up and shoot something fast and it unlocked by just twisting. I think the point of lock is to make sure that it doesn’t get loosen up in the bag.
Great review as always and the only one even considering comparing to the Tamron 35-150. Well done Jared
You read my mind I wanted to see these compared!
I will ALWAYS happily OVERPAY for INTERNAL zooming lens...Good video Jared!
As I have a 14-35 f4, the 35-150 would be its perfect complement. Depending on the occasion or event, I like to use 2 lenses to cover a larger range learning on the wider side. Sometimes each lens is on its own body.
There’s also the longer range like in wildlife photography, that starts as a medium telephoto between 100 and 200mn (100-400, 150-600, 200-500,…). I often use the 100-400 with a 1.4x extender, so the 35-150 covers the wider view, and the occasional subject that is too close for the long lenses. That’s assuming one doesn’t mind carrying 2 lenses, even better each already mounted on its own body.
So the 35-150 can sit in a nice and heavy bundle of well matched gear.
The 28-105 f2.8 could be a better choice if you’re to go about with just one lens. The 1-stop gain in aperture can balance well with the 4mm loss at the wider end, to include taking pictures inside larger spaces during one’s travels and exploration.
One can only wish these difficult decisions will actually become an actual case of worrying ;-) for Canon users… Eh…
35-150 is muuuch better choice IMO. It’s like having the best of both 24-70 and a 70-200.
Meh. As a wedding photographer who shoots primes… 24, 35, 50, and 85 are my bread and butter. 70-200 packed up for scenarios where I am restricted during the ceremony. If I wanted to switch to one body and a zoom, 35 is just way too tight for way too many scenarios. 28 on the other hand is doable.
If the Tamron would be sharp.. maybe..
@yes_senpai8880 do you use two bodies for each prime?
@@yes_senpai8880 so you are saying you wouldnt have the 28-105 because you'd need the 70-200 anyway. sounds like you just wanted to make a comment lol.
@@salatI got rid of my Tamron 35-150 for that reason because it is not as sharp as my Sony or sigmas and it was not good for sports/racing on hit rate. Sold it picked up the new sigma 70-200 f2.8 dg dn sport. Now that is a sharp fast lens
I still cant pick this over the tamron 35-150 . You just get much more. As a pro photographer and someone who shoots in studio and mainly on location, the Tamron is still the best bet. After having that 35mm on the low end and constant aperture all the way to 150mm, Tamron invented the best zoom lens on the market right now.
Tamron 35 -150 for me , if I want a wider shot I take a pano :)
Plus I already own one and love it 😊
I would not sell my 35-150 for this.
I ve baught the 24-70 sigma mark ii.
I shoot video pro.
But when sony will make a 24-105 f2.8 internally zoop with motor , it will kill everything in video (as the canon one)
Thanx for the comparaison of the two lenses.
See ya
what's about the dust? there are so many complains that Tamron 35-150 collects the dust under the first lens, did yours?
you have the 35-150 and the 24-70? damn bro, nice. i was looking the 35-150 and thinking about sell my 24-70 and replace her for the tamrom.
i also have the 16mm 1.8 viltrox FF and it's pretty great for me. but, your comment give to me some thoughts.
I ve got the 35-150+24-70 dgdn2+28-75 g2 tamron+sony 20-70
It could be weird but every lens has a utility regards to the weight of the lense (on a gimbal for exemple) and the large focal or not...20, 24,28 is not the same...
If i would take 2 lenses, i would take the sony 20-70f4 and the tamron 35-150.
The best of trans standard is the sigma for me
The Sony 24-105 f2.8 will also cost above $3k, so it's not useful for many people.
The unlocking of the lock switch is probably for the bang-bang shots when you just picked it up from your bag and forgot to check if it's unlocked. Pretty clever I'd say.
As a Canon Mirrorless shooter, I’d LOVE the 35-150, the 28-105…not a draw… Come On Canon, give Tamron the 👍
Canon sells camera bodies cheap, so they can screw you on the lenses. I'm surprised they opened R-Mount to third-party APS-C lenses.
L MOUNT ALLIANCE (alliance, alliance, alliance) 0:32
This was the exact comparison I was looking for. Found a 35-150 at $1200 and was torn between these two
Thank you so much for the amazing review!!
Thank you for the emphasis on the AF tracking while zoom racking. That is an issue with the Tamron 35-105 too and I did not when I purchased it as not a single reviewer mentioned it at the time.
What do you mean? My Tamron 35-150 tracks while zooming in and out both in photo and video. It may occasionally lose focus or tracking box, but there is nothing like disabling tracking by turn of the zoom ring. I just checked it now again to make sure, and it works mostly fine.
If you are zooming relatively quickly while tracking the lens loses focus as strongly not parafocal and aggravated by the large aperture and zooming range, then the AF struggles with keeping up.
@@armandot9137 Agree, it may struggle, but it does not lose the continuous focus or tracking mode automatically as soon as zoom is in action. Any lens may occasionally lose focus even without zooming. It is not the case, like is suggested by some here, that zooming is completely incompatible with continuous AF with this lens.
@@AVerkhovskywhile possible it is not advisable, almost certainly the image will be out of focus, and this is did not see in any review of the camera
@@armandot9137 not an extensive statistical testing, but to get an idea: I just made a series of 27 shots at 10 frames/s with Tamron 35-150 wide open and a1 while zooming from 36 to 119 mm with tracking AF. Tracking box was always on the subject, however out of 27 frames 6 were out of focus, but the other 21, including the first and the last frame, - perfectly in focus. Not a perfect performance, but I suppose with this lens it's not very different from what would be achieved with the subject approaching and not zooming. This may be good enough for some and not good for others. My take is that there is nothing particularly bad about focusing while zooming with Tamron 35-150.
3:51 You can see how the Tamron lens contracts after it has been expanded, which is why it is less bulky than the Sigma
⚠Important Warning at 4:40 & 13:04: Jared, a big thank you for mentioning this 👌 Everyone doing action photography (sports, wildlife, events, etc.) needs to know about this limitation. As a (Nikon) sports photographer, I rented the Tamron 35-150mm f/2-2.8 to see if it could replace my 70-200mm f/2.8 Z on a 2nd body as I've been liking the creativity of doing some wider shots. However, I found that the 35-150mm also briefly looses focus while zooming in or out and tracking a subject in AF-C mode at the same time (usually occurs once or twice, for a fraction of a second, when zooming throughout the entire range. It's more apparent when zooming quickly; not much of an issue when zooming slowly).
I knew right then I couldn't buy the lens for the work I do, at least not without fully changing my approach. The potential of missing key shots in sports like football, soccer, and others where a fast pass of the ball results in the player getting too close & me needing to rapidly zoom out would mean I would need to: (a) stop focusing / tracking (b) zoom out and (c) reacquire focus at a different distance ... increasing the potential of missing the shot I wanted (e.g. the anticipated action shot of the ball about to be caught / received). Compared to my 70-200mm f/2.8 Z, well, there was no comparison...the 70-200 held focus while zooming in AF-C mode with a 100% success rate, even while rapidly zooming in & out. Focus acquisition was also noticeably faster.
That said, for anyone doing work with stationary subjects (portraits, travel, landscapes, etc.) or even moving subjects that aren't erratic or that change distance super quickly, the 35-150mm is incredibly sharp, well balanced in the hand, really well constructed, and with more than adequate focus speed.
The Rokinon/Samyang version of the 35-150 f2-2.8 has parafocal, so It can focus while zooming.
@@mateolanusph - Awesome. Have you tried them? If so, how's the image quality?
in reality much better ifu choose 35-150 rather than 28-105. 28mm wide is not totally ok if u are event photographer you still need a wide lens 20mm below, 35-150 is money saver, u dont need 70-200 anymore.
Actually this is perfect for sports. But let me say certain sports.
I use the Tamron 17-70mm F/2.8 and 17-70mm (25-105 ff equivalent) is the perfect range for a boxing or mma or mauy thai.
You have a wide enough focal length if they get close to the ropes where you're at and then far out 105 focal lengths which is perfect when they're on the other side!
It works really beautiful
I have it my way and combine the 35-150 Tamron on my A1 and my 16-35 2.8GM on my A7CII.
I wear a photo vest and use Peak Design clamps on both camera’s. I switch between both solutions in a matter of seconds as needed. BTW: I love it that on the wide side, the Tamron does 2.0 aperture for the bokeh background.
Legend has it you would pick the 28-105 over a 24-70?
The zoom lock is what I like about this. There are countless times while using the Samyang 35-150 where I went to take a shot and forgot it was locked. It was a real annoyance. This is a great option.
Which would you go with and why?
I would go with the tamron, more zoom, also nikon z mount
The Sigma when it comes to the RF mount because I (sorry Jared) am happy to crop with my R7. Not a professional
I would go with 35-150. Pair it with a 16-35 and you are golden for 95% any event. If you get the 28-105, you will need 3 lenses. A wide lens AND also a longer telefoto lens like 70-200.
Personally I'd go with my brother Bill over my brother Andy but that's just me I still love the guy though!
Tamron
Finally the comparison I was waiting for. Thanks 👍
Thank you for comparing the sigma with the obvious choice. Instead of the Northrop’s seemingly just ignoring the Tamron 35-150s existence.
I can't believe it failed the wind tunnel test. And to think I was going to preorder this
I really want a 24-100 if it’s possible. I widely prefer 24 to 28. As someone who had a tamron 28-75 and then broke it and upgraded to a sigma 24-70 those extra 4mm on the wide end make a much bigger difference than a 100 vs 105mm.
70 is not enough imo but 100 would be a really nice point for me, especially having an A1 and being to shoot video in 4K at a 1.6x crop in addition to full frame
It already is. Google Canon 24-105 f/2.8. Lens is 3 pounds tho
…but it’s for Canon tho. 😅
After doing a bit of research and some self-speculation (as a hobbyist amateur), I think that the 28-105 and the 35-150 shouldn't be compared against each other all to heavily. These two are taking the same concept except with different zooms going the other direction. Think of it being the 28-105 as an longer 24-70, while the 35-150 as a wider 70-200, and both of them are missing key focal lengths from the zoom lenses that they are inspired from (24 and 200 respectively from each end for both tamron/sigma lenses). Of course there is a big overlap, but if you're choosing between the two; that's just something to take account of to put in a different perspective.
The reason why I will ultimately go with the 28-105 is for the wider end and it fits my bag perfectly for travel: I have a 20mm and a 100-400. I could go for the Sony 24-105 f/4, but the 2.8 is too good to pass up imo
When will the "Fro Peddles Anything" t-shirts start shipping out?
As soon as your “I make dumb comments” shirts start shipping.
@@froknowsphoto I missed this Fro! Can't wait for those as well!!
The day whoever develops a 24-200mm F/2.8, two pounds, six incher long lens is gonna be so very ultra rich and stuff! 🤩🥰😃🫡
And they'll have reinvented physics!
If you do portrait work, the 35-150 is a no brainer. Having a 35 f/2, 50, 85, 105 and a 135 all at f/2.8 is a real space saver
Is the canon 24 - 105 good for taking wide pictures during Christmas displays?
For showing how wide and grand a display is its actually better to use the tele end and back up to take in the entire scene. Wide angles like 24mm distorts making the center larger than the sides giving the same composition.
Really love your way to explain things ✌️ place !
for sigma 28-105 2.8 , i would prefer using lower weight 24-70 2.8 , i can still crop the picture to 105 , but using 28 can't get a pic of 24 angle
I don't think its that tough of a choice, think about use case: do you shoot more close to wide range or telephoto? Do you need the stabilized lens? When this comes to RF I'd get the Tamron because it's my best use case.
Out of the lenses here, I’d go with the 24-70mm Sigma & 35-150mm Tamron, for just a few hundred more than the Canon 28-105mm by itself. But with a 24-150mm range at the same fast aperture 🤷♂️
hoping to see the 10-18 sigma RF glass video
I almost exclusively use my 35-150 for my events and portraits. Occasionally have thrown on the 17-28 for some video and gimbal stuff.
Zoom creep only appears after some time. Will not be an issue mostly when it is new.
I have the 28-70 and it is great, compact and enough for me. More than that, I'd like to get the 70-200 later. I already have the 16-28 and 100-400 which have very good pin sharp IQ
Bluey rocks. You should watch it sometime.
I don't shoot event photography above 10fps, even with the a1 or a9iii. It's simply impractical. The Tamron 35-150's autofocus is accurate, but it's not even fast enough to track basketball or volleyball players at 15fps. Furthermore, there are way too many restrictions with the a1 at 30fps. You need to set the release priority to shutter, which is unacceptable. The a9iii doesn't have this problem though many Sony lenses can't handle 120fps either.
Tamron 35 -150 for me.
I would rather pick the 24-70 f2.8 over 28-105 f2.8. With the big size camera, you can crop the 70 end to get the similar 105. But for the Tamron's 150 end, you can't do that.
I love my Sony G 24-105, and the sigma is tempting. However the extra wide reach is so helpful to me at times.
I LOVE the eternal hope of Canon users to open the mount and Sony users to provide firmware - it’s what makes us human!!
If only Nikon fixed the autofocus to be as consistent as the other two and Fuji made a full frame 😂😂😂
How is the sharpness between them.
I'm sure its been answered 100 times but how do you screen capture your camera like that? Thanks to whoever answers!
I use an atomos ninja v
Thanks for the reply @@froknowsphoto
It's really a fantastic lensas you recommended. My question is which lens maker can make a 24-135 mm f2.8 lens? And when? We don't have it till now , why? Size and weight? I think too many people have carried on more bigger and havier ones. Price? Too many lenses more than 10000 USD are sold day by day. So. What's the real reason not making it till now? I will really appreciate it if you may answer as my admirable photographer.
I'm aiming towards the Tamron, but that's because I shoot on Nikon and I don't think Sigma will make this lens for Z. Soooooo, Tamron for the win. 🥇
I think 28mm to 35mm is a much smaller difference than 105mm to 150mm.
If you shoot events and portraiture, 35-150mm is a better range.
If it was 24-105mm, then it would replace all the 24-70/2.8 lenses!
But I'd still think a 16-35/2.8 coupled with a 35-150/2-2.8 is the best event photography combo in the universe! You could arguable use a 35-150mm as replacement for 24-70/2.8 and 70-200/2.8! Those two lenses are pretty awkward as 70mm is a bit short for portraits and too narrow for most other situations!
When it comes to zooms, Tamron is usually the innovative leader and Sigma is the conservative follower.
In this comparison, the 3-year-old Tamron 35-150 still takes the overall win with the 35-70 f/2-2.5, longer zoom ratio, similar size, and a cheaper used/sale price.
Not really, Sigma has the 60-600mm, the 28-105mm f2.8-4 (Released back in 2005) the 120-300mm f2.8 release back in 2010, 300-800mm aka the Sigmonster, and the 200-500mm f2.8 aka the BIGMa. Sigma has consistently made better and more innovative than Tamron but has recently slowed down and fell off for some reason
@@CallMeRabbitzUSVI That was in the DSLS age. Even then, Tamron made zoom for the larger audience. For the last 5 years, Tamron has been ahead of the zoom game.
The funny thing is that Tamron also can make excellent primes. The 35 1.4 they launched in 2019 is one of the best prime lenses ever made, even beating Sigma ART. It's a mystery why they haven't launched it for mirrorless.
@@fotografalexandernikolis That 35 1.4 SP is a great yet atypical Tamron prime that would not reflect their marketing strategies.
It's not a tough choice if your on Z mount 😊 the 35-150 is the only lens in the video available for Z mount. But at $2,000 USD (adorama) I'll pass.
Indoor basketball (or outdoor lol as the courts are the same size)....tough choice. It comes down to what kind of shots do you like I guess. I prefer close up rather than wide. This week anyway.
At 12 minutes and 19 seconds I could no longer watch the video from being both mortified and having tears in my eyes from laughing😮😂
I'm not sure if you have talked about this, but (at least on my model) the 150-600 contemporary lens does the same soft locking thing when locked at focal lengths besides 150mm.
Would this lens be good for high speed sport photography? For example, a dog running towards the camera. Would it track focus well? On an a7iii.
I mean the sigma.
God i was waiting for this vid
35 150 absolutely a legendary range
Way better than 28 105
Why not have both?
Why not have more money 😂
Think this would work great on my R7 for indoor volleyball
Nobody really noticed Tamron 35-150mm sinked after zoomed in?
love your necklace bro
It seems like a great lens. Sigma is doing a great job with their newer lenses. This one is a pass for me due to the lenses I already own. I won’t part with my new sigma 70-200 f2.8 dg dn sport and my sigma 24-70 f2.8 dg dn
The Sigma would make a great lens for indoor sports such as basketball and volleyball … but so would the Tamron …
The Lock on the sigma is huge. As they age they seem to creep quite a bit
I wish both lenses were available for the Canon RF mount, even if it were available for the EF mount that would be great. Come on Canon!!!!
I shoot race cars IDK which to choose. I would be needing both ends missing of magnification at some point during a race.
Sigma 60-600mm
Would you consider the 28-105 2.8 with a canon lens converter?
NEVER EVER EVER EVER. Converts wont help you, they will hurt you here. 28 x 1.5 = 42mm. That's already a range you have, so instead of 2.8 it's now F4 and you wasted the lens.
I will stick with the Nikon NIKKOR Z 24-120mm f/4 S. By far the better optics, low chromatic aberration, edge distortion in this class of zoom lens.
rather pair the Tamron with a UWZ. You get a 2 lens combo + f2/35mm. Unless you primarily shoot indoors.
"Four millimeters DOES make a big difference." That's what she said.
How do these lenses hold up to the weird lens distortion trickery that Canon is trying to pull on their model?
Glizzy doesn’t mean hotdog anymore buddy. It’s unfortunate but urban dictionary has you on hold
I would have bought this lens if it would 24- 100, those 4 mm matter to a lot of people.
None of other videos talked about lock and release. If it unlock by purpose i see it as a feature because ı allways forget to open this liock before the shoot on my sigma 100-400 and 150-600.
Come on Canon. Love you but let’s see some third party releases.
Can you please explain the issue (beyond the obvious economic one) why no third party glass is available for the RF platform when most Sigma & Tamron lenses were available for Canon DSLR’s?
I don't have an answer. They will get there, I just don't know when.
At least the Z glass is somewhat affordable, especially used compared to Canon, I was looking to make a possible Switch from Sony as I am still using an a7ii I got mixed feelings about Nikon I decide to check Canon, and holy fuck the lense prices of Canon are absolutely crazy. So it is either an a7IV if I stick with Sony or a Nikon Z6iii.
Easy win for the Tamron.
Why manufactures make internal zoom? It will be easy to collapse for transportation?
I would love to get a lens with range from 20-100mm at f2
7:30 AYE😂😂😂
2:18 - Please, put in Nirvana's "Negative creep" ("I'm a negative creep" line is perfect) next time 😁 Guys, thumb up my comment for Jared to notice!
I will go for the 24-105mm F2.8!!! I'm on RF....
Will it come to Fuji X mount …?
pairing it with my a6700
Canon and Nikon are going to regret not giving their Z mount to Sigma and Tamron because of the announcement that DJI Company is coming with its new mirrorless cameras very soon in 2024-2025 and its range of lenses at a better price.
The 35-150mm is on the Z mount. It's $2,000 USD
Anyone have anytips? So im a starting photographer that's starting to do shoots for people, currently I have a sony a7r5 and a sony 50mm f1.8, I was looking for another lens, mostly for portraits and close automotive photography. The lenses I was looking at where the Sony 70-200 F4 mk2 or this new sigma lens 28-105 F2.8, I do understand for closer car photos it be a no brainer for the sigma lens, but I feel like I might do more portraits than car photos, anytips help, thank you!
3:51 *LOL* the Tamron manages to collapse to about half the zoom (put in "I'm a negative creep" by Nirvana) before being compared 😀