Spread the love
I’ve been a long time owner of the Tamron 35-150mm f2-2.8 lens. And before I even dive into this comparison I’ll be flat our honest with you. The Sony 50-150mm f2 is a very good lens — but it is absolutely nowhere as useful. I, like so many other working photographers, would prefer to have the zoom range instead of the constant aperture. In situations where the aperture changes, you can use a higher ISO setting or TTL flash. So during my review period with the Sony 50-150mm f2, I compared it to the Tamron. Time and time again, I found myself wanting my Tamron lens instead of the Sony.
Gear Used:
Summary:
- Get the Sony if you absolutely must have an f2 aperture and shoot mostly with natural and available light.
- Get the Tamron if you know how to use off-camera strobe, want the wider focal length, and want a lens that can do pretty much everything that the Sony does.
Hardware
The Sony is noticeably larger and heavier than the Tamron lens when you hold them side by side. But when you’re actually using them connected to Sony’s cameras, there isn’t much of a major difference. Both are built with super tough durability in mind and Tamron’s exterior has noticeably more metal. Sony’s has an aperture ring because it isn’t a variable aperture lens. To be honest here, using both of these lenses in manual mode for a shoot didn’t really phase me all that much.
Ease of Use
Neither Sony nor Tamron let you lock the focal lengths except at the widest in the case of Tamron.
Tamron has the much more useful range though with An aperture change. And that’s fine if I’m allowed to use flash in low light. If I’m not, then the Sony becomes more attractive. But either way, I’d most likely end up still bringing a faster prime lens with me as an option.
During one shoot, I was using both lenses with a Profoto B10 flash set to TTL mode. When the Tamron zoomed in and out, the Profoto light compensated automatically just the way that it’s supposed to. And for that reason, it made the aperture change kind of negligible at this point.
However, having the extra wide-angle range on the Tamron lens gave me what I felt are much nicer photos. Unless you looked at the Tamron and the Sony side by side, you couldn’t really tell much of a difference between the two. On top of that, if you’re buying either of these lenses, you’re bound to be editing in Lightroom or Capture One anyway. And that’s just what I did. They both do the job to the point where it can be pretty brainless for the photographer to make things happen.
Focusing
Both lenses performed very well. And neither of them gave me any issues. The only thing worth noting is that on older camera bodies like the Sony a7r III, you might not get tracking autofocus abilities. But you can work around that with the AF-C mode and subject detection when photographing people.
With newer cameras like the Sony a7r V, you also might have issues where you’re doing something like focusing and recomposing. I didn’t test this with other cameras like the Sony a1 II – but I’m willing to blame this problem on the a7r V as I’ve had issues with it for years now.
This could ultimately have something to do with Sony’s algorithms, which I’d be pretty shocked at considering that Sony owns part of Tamron.
But the lenses can both get jobs done. I’ve shot actual paid gigs with the Tamron 35-150mm for years and I haven’t run into major problems with it. That’s to say that none of my clients have complained. In fact, they were all nothing but smiles.
I’ve shot with Sony cameras for over decade and own a few. And so I can say this with certainty: Sony is still behind Nikon in autofocus even when using Nikon’s cheaper lenses.
Image Quality
If you’re pixel peeping, then the Sony is the sharper lens. But if you’re looking at the image as a whole, then trust me when I say that no one will be able to tell the difference. Sony’s system, as it is, is designed for you to need to bring the images into post-production anyway. And if you’re editing the images, then you can edit them however you want.
The Differences
Sony says that the Tamron lens is both:
- Not as sharp in the corners
- And can’t keep up with fast moving motion as well
These are great for Sony, but in reality, I don’t think that it matters all that much. While I really do like the idea of molding my creative vision fully in-camera, Sony’s system sets photographers up to do lots of post-production by making their images they dream of a lab cleaning tech. In reality, I’ve got lots of paid gigs with the Tamron 35-150mm f2-2.8. No one has sat there and complained about the image quality in the corners. Instead, they’re all enthralled with the photos that I make.
Sony’s claim of autofocus probably is true, though both lenses performed pretty admirably when attached to the latest cameras. But these lenses are shooting events and in the press preview of the lens, Sony tested it with a basketball player. I wouldn’t shoot sports with these lenses – though 85mm lenses are incredible for basketball. Instead, I’d use these lenses to shoot paid events and portraits. And during those events, you often ask people for permission to shoot photos of them or you capture candids.
Here’s the truth, there’s a big trend dominating creativity and leaning towards lo-fi and retro aesthetics. Presets and a bit of missed focus do surely work.
The bigger truth is that all of these tools are highly capable of making great images. One has a variable aperture – which will be negligible when used with flash as most professional photographers are using flash of some sort at events.
And now here’s the big challenge, can you tell what lens shot what image just by looking at them and without pixel-peeping?
Here’s a hint, they’re not all actually shot with the Sony lens!
