Just got the Tamron Z 35-150 f2-2.8 Di III V XD for my Z9

[Nimi]

I think I am slowly getting it So what I should be looking at are S10 and M10 on both the Nikon and Tamron Charts they are of course not quite apples to apples since Nikon just says wide and tele which I guess would be 70 and 200 mm while the Tamron is 35mm, 85 and 150.

For what I used both for indoors at church they both performed very well but the need for the 35-50 mm area was what had me using the Z24-120 along with the Z70-200 so juggling two cameras and lenses on the go between the upstairs loft and the floor level. The Z70-200 images were mostly at 150 - 200 mm and are excellent and the charts show that.

But I can not tell any practical difference in the 85-120 mm area in the images I took but they were not at the same time in the same exact light etc.. And the Tamron is better than the Nikon 24-120 down in the 35 - 50 range as I would expect. So the one lens "workhorse solution" won out for my needs but would not for others.

I will post some of the bird ID images from my first birding outing with the Z600 f/6.3 on the forum in a moment.

This is when charts don't matter. Pick the lens that gives you the best results. Most modern lenses will give you outstanding images in "general" situations and other factors like weight and range and price are more important.

For architecture, you need the best MTF money buys because you need to utilize the entire frame and the corners are critical. Portraits, not that important, but other factors that aren't captured by the MTF are (oof falloff, microcontrast, 3d pop, etc.).

The MTF on the 600 suggests it's perhaps the best 600 made from sharpness perspective, and for birding, you obviously need that. The entry level Canon 600/11 will not give you that, and you can guess it from looking at the charts without taking a single shot.

Not to appear as snob, but in my experience, the best predictor of IQ is price.

 

[Ken Miracle]

This is when charts don't matter. Pick the lens that gives you the best results. Most modern lenses will give you outstanding images in "general" situations and other factors like weight and range and price are more important.

For architecture, you need the best MTF money buys because you need to utilize the entire frame and the corners are critical. Portraits, not that important, but other factors that aren't captured by the MTF are (oof falloff, microcontrast, 3d pop, etc.).

The MTF on the 600 suggests it's perhaps the best 600 made from sharpness perspective, and for birding, you obviously need that. The entry level Canon 600/11 will not give you that, and you can guess it from looking at the charts without taking a single shot.

Not to appear as snob, but in my experience, the best predictor of IQ is price.

I have had a few exceptions especially in the variable focal length world, I had Tamron 150-600 G2 and Sigma 150-600 G2 that were better than the Nikon 200-500 copy I had. The Tamron lens was calibrated for my D500 by Tamron a free service if you sent your body and lens to them.

But the best IQ in an f mount lens that I had for birding was a Nikkor 600 f/4E $$ and a logistical headache.

 

[Woodpecker]

May be good to keep in mind that AFAIK the vast majority of the published MTF charts are calculated charts from the manufacturers rather than measured data.
If looking at data, it should be

• measured data
• based on multiple copies of a lens.

IMHO a better criteria for IQ im terns of resolution are Imatest figures measured in LP/PH (Line Pairs per Picutre Heigth). Unfortunately the results are strongly depending on the lab setup, so it is best to have data to compare lenses that comes from the same source. The other advantage is that you can put these figures in context to the maximum resolution more easily.

 

[Jerry Heitschmidt]

Ken, this may or may not help with understanding the charts: https://www.nikonusa.com/learn-and-...ion/what-is-a-lens-mtf-chart-how-do-i-read-it

If it muddies the waters, just ignore it. The 35-150 is an interesting lens for indoor events, which I also shoot, so I'm glad to hear you are enjoying it. For the original poster's purposes, I agree with those who have recommended the 70-180. It is certainly worth testing against the heavier 35-150.

 

[nmerc_photos]

Having owned both the Z 70-200 and the Tamron 35-150, I kept the Tamron.

Significantly lighter (2.57lb vs 3.17lb), cheaper ($1300 vs $2000), shorter (6.22" vs 8.66") and I found the IQ similar, if not better in favor of the Tamron.

The 70-200 is a really "clinical" lens. It is stupid sharp, and in my opinion - the best Z zoom lens Nikon has. But it does lack a certain amount of subjective "character". I've found that looking at my own images, and image threads of both lenses - I like the images the Tamron produce a lot better.

I also don't have a dedicated wide angle, so the value of the 35-70 range added more to my setup than 150-200 did. and I never used my 70-200 with TC's - as cropping yielded good enough results.

YMMV. If you're not happy with the tradeoffs, your best bet is to go back to the 70-200.

 

[Ken Miracle]

Having owned both the Z 70-200 and the Tamron 35-150, I kept the Tamron.

Significantly lighter (2.57lb vs 3.17lb), cheaper ($1300 vs $2000), shorter (6.22" vs 8.66") and I found the IQ similar, if not better in favor of the Tamron.

The 70-200 is a really "clinical" lens. It is stupid sharp, and in my opinion - the best Z zoom lens Nikon has. But it does lack a certain amount of subjective "character". I've found that looking at my own images, and image threads of both lenses - I like the images the Tamron produce a lot better.

I also don't have a dedicated wide angle, so the value of the 35-70 range added more to my setup than 150-200 did. and I never used my 70-200 with TC's - as cropping yielded good enough results.

YMMV. If you're not happy with the tradeoffs, your best bet is to go back to the 70-200.

Great summary of why I sold the Z70-200 after using the Tamron z mount 35-150 on my Z9. I have now used it a couple of times indoors with the Z6III and it works even better in low light and high ISO with faster shutter speeds.

 

[Woodpecker]

Having owned both the Z 70-200 and the Tamron 35-150, I kept the Tamron.

Significantly lighter (2.57lb vs 3.17lb), cheaper ($1300 vs $2000), shorter (6.22" vs 8.66") and I found the IQ similar, if not better in favor of the Tamron.

Wow, that's an interesting statement.
After reading reviews about the Tamron I found it would be a really tempting lens.

Other than you I got the Z 14-30 as a dedicated wideangle lens and the Z 24-120 as standard lens, which is a great lens without a doubt.
But if I have to prioritize IQ I use the the 24-120 only in the range between 30 and 100mm because outside this window my other lenses are at least on par or even significantly better. This got me to the idea to swap the 24-120 against the 35-150, because missing the overlap at the short end doesn't really matter, while getting an additional 30mm at the long end is something that gives more options when going light. Only if I needed shorter focal lenghts than 35mm I would have to carry the 14-30 as second lens. which is very light and compact. And there is this additional stop of light.

You traded the 70-200 in favour of the Tamron. What do you think about my thoughts

 

[nmerc_photos]

Wow, that's an interesting statement.
After reading reviews about the Tamron I found it would be a really tempting lens.

Other than you I got the Z 14-30 as a dedicated wideangle lens and the Z 24-120 as standard lens, which is a great lens without a doubt.
But if I have to prioritize IQ I use the the 24-120 only in the range between 30 and 100mm because outside this window my other lenses are at least on par or even significantly better. This got me to the idea to swap the 24-120 against the 35-150, because missing the overlap at the short end doesn't really matter, while getting an additional 30mm at the long end is something that gives more options when going light. Only if I needed shorter focal lenghts than 35mm I would have to carry the 14-30 as second lens. which is very light and compact. And there is this additional stop of light.

You traded the 70-200 in favour of the Tamron. What do you think about my thoughts

I have not used the Nikon 24-120, but I did own the Canon RF 24-105. I find that with the majority of my zoom lenses, I use them at one extreme or the other. so in this case it would 35mm or 150mm. With the 24-120 it would be 24mm or 120mm..

I think it depends what you shoot, and what other lenses you have that are longer than 100mm.

If you truly only use your 24-120 at 30-100mm, then I think it would be a decent idea to get the Tamron. For me, even if IQ wasn't the best - I would use the 24mm of the 24-120 a lot.

Only you can really decide what's best. Rent or buy the lens and try it out and see how it compares to what you currently have.

 

[Ken Miracle]

Wow, that's an interesting statement.
After reading reviews about the Tamron I found it would be a really tempting lens.

Other than you I got the Z 14-30 as a dedicated wideangle lens and the Z 24-120 as standard lens, which is a great lens without a doubt.
But if I have to prioritize IQ I use the the 24-120 only in the range between 30 and 100mm because outside this window my other lenses are at least on par or even significantly better. This got me to the idea to swap the 24-120 against the 35-150, because missing the overlap at the short end doesn't really matter, while getting an additional 30mm at the long end is something that gives more options when going light. Only if I needed shorter focal lenghts than 35mm I would have to carry the 14-30 as second lens. which is very light and compact. And there is this additional stop of light.

You traded the 70-200 in favour of the Tamron. What do you think about my thoughts

I also sold my Z70-200 after I got the Tamron z mount 35-150 f/2-2.8. For the indoor people shots and outdoor people shots that I do the the Tamron was the winner hands down. I also own the Z24-120 and the Z15-30 f/4 , being a birder they are by far my least used lenses both a great for my occasional use. There are some rare instances indoors where I need wider than 35 and it has not happened since I got the z mount tamron 35-150 before that I used the Z24-120 when I needed less than 70mm and the 24mm was the widest I needed. Now if I wanted a shorter focal length to go with the 35-150 I would more likely take the Z15-30 f/4.