An oil thread / the best travel lens?

Cranky or what? Definitely clueless, though. Have seldom seen anyone quite so prone to cook exceptions into rules here. Sad.

I have never used a Fuji camera except those tiny disposables on the guest tables at some wedding receptions. Hwvr, I loved Fuji Velvia and Provia film in the ancient days. Anyhow, though one may have had a negative experience with one particular camera, it defies common sense to declare that every one of their cameras is bad. In fact, I heard some pretty good things. Here is a random YouTube review.

Loved the early Fuji Pros.

Oh, wait they were Nikon bodies with Fuji 'bits' inside.

Moved on now..

..it defies common sense to declare that every one of their cameras is bad.

Where did I say that?

I just prefer not to support a company that once blatantly lied about the specification of a product with further custom.

Cranky or what? Definitely clueless, though. Have seldom seen anyone quite so prone to cook exceptions into rules here. Sad.

And how do your cranky personal insults add anything useful to this thread or help the OP?

Where did I say that?

I just prefer not to support a company that once blatantly lied about the specification of a product with further custom.

 

And how do your cranky personal insults add anything useful to this thread or help the OP?

Talking to yourself again, Joe?

The one lens I keep forgetting even exists is the Tamron 35-150/2.8-4.

Dieter, thank you for bringing up this lens. I was reading the thread for when I hope to resume travel after staying put for too long, and that focal length range has always intrigued me.

I am currently resisting the urge to add that lens to me arsenal

Well, I stopped resisting the urge when I realized that my F-mount Sigma 24-105/4 hasn't been used in some time - in addition to its heft and 82mm-filter size, I had soured on the lens a bit because of its tendency to eat camera batteries (the IS system needs power to hold the IS lens system in place - and it doesn't turn off when the camera goes in stand-by mode but takes an additional 1 minute (see thread here: An FYI about OS in some current Sigma lenses).

So I decided to part with the Sigma 24-105 and get the Tamron 35-150/2.8-4 VC instead - a EX copy arrived from keh yesterday. First impressions: physically longer than the Sigma 24-105, but about 100g lighter, 77mm filter. AF isn't fast but appears adequate; not entirely silent either. The OSD AF drive comes with one drawback - the focus ring turns during focus operation - which certainly caught me by surprise. Together with that comes the inability to directly override the AF to manually focus - you need to turn AF off on the lens before doing that. Quite outdated behavior for a lens released in 2019. Luckily, I hardly ever feel the need to manually focus this kind of lens anyway - but the turning focus ring will take some getting used to. Couldn't detect any back- or front-focusing issues (some tendency was reported on the interwebs). Like the Sigma 24-105 (or the Nikon 24-120), the lens extends quite a bit when zooming out from 35mm (where it's shortest).

35mm is not very wide at the short end - so I most likely will carry either the Tamron 15-30/2.8 VC, the Nikon 16-35/4 VR or the Nikon 20/1.8 alongside the 35-150. 35mm to 150mm is quite an unusual focal length range for a "midrange" zoom - it will remain to be seen if it's a good choice for a walk-around lens. When walking with only one lens, the Sigma 24-105 might have been the more versatile choice - but that no longer applied when used in combination with the first and second lens mentioned above (in particular the 2nd, which I considered to be useful only in the 16-28mm range). I never felt I had a good longer-focal length lens to accompany the Sigma 24-105. A 70-200 (either f/2.8 or f/4) has quite a substantial overlap - and with the 35-150, I expect to leave the 70-200 home most of the time.

What intrigued me was the quite even performance over the entire focal length range (see for example the lenstip.com review on the lens). A 4.3x zoom certainly will entail some optical compromises - there's some vignetting and some sharpness fall-off in the corners at wide apertures, but generally the lens seems to perform at a fairly high level.

The one lens I keep forgetting even exists is the Tamron 35-150/2.8-4.

 

 

Well, I stopped resisting the urge when I realized that my F-mount Sigma 24-105/4 hasn't been used in some time - in addition to its heft and 82mm-filter size, I had soured on the lens a bit because of its tendency to eat camera batteries (the IS system needs power to hold the IS lens system in place - and it doesn't turn off when the camera goes in stand-by mode but takes an additional 1 minute (see thread here: An FYI about OS in some current Sigma lenses).

 

So I decided to part with the Sigma 24-105 and get the Tamron 35-150/2.8-4 VC instead - a EX copy arrived from keh yesterday. First impressions: physically longer than the Sigma 24-105, but about 100g lighter, 77mm filter. AF isn't fast but appears adequate; not entirely silent either. The OSD AF drive comes with one drawback - the focus ring turns during focus operation - which certainly caught me by surprise. Together with that comes the inability to directly override the AF to manually focus - you need to turn AF off on the lens before doing that. Quite outdated behavior for a lens released in 2019. Luckily, I hardly ever feel the need to manually focus this kind of lens anyway - but the turning focus ring will take some getting used to. Couldn't detect any back- or front-focusing issues (some tendency was reported on the interwebs). Like the Sigma 24-105 (or the Nikon 24-120), the lens extends quite a bit when zooming out from 35mm (where it's shortest).

 

35mm is not very wide at the short end - so I most likely will carry either the Tamron 15-30/2.8 VC, the Nikon 16-35/4 VR or the Nikon 20/1.8 alongside the 35-150. 35mm to 150mm is quite an unusual focal length range for a "midrange" zoom - it will remain to be seen if it's a good choice for a walk-around lens. When walking with only one lens, the Sigma 24-105 might have been the more versatile choice - but that no longer applied when used in combination with the first and second lens mentioned above (in particular the 2nd, which I considered to be useful only in the 16-28mm range). I never felt I had a good longer-focal length lens to accompany the Sigma 24-105. A 70-200 (either f/2.8 or f/4) has quite a substantial overlap - and with the 35-150, I expect to leave the 70-200 home most of the time.

 

What intrigued me was the quite even performance over the entire focal length range (see for example the lenstip.com review on the lens). A 4.3x zoom certainly will entail some optical compromises - there's some vignetting and some sharpness fall-off in the corners at wide apertures, but generally the lens seems to perform at a fairly high level.

Yes, the lack of instant AF override, and the related fact that the focus ring is coupled to the gear train in AF mode, seem to be cost-cutting measures taken to meet the economical $799 price point.

I know to keep my fingers away from the focus ring when not focusing manually, which is something I never feel the need to do with this accurate-focusing lens. I love the wide-open sharpness at all focal lengths, which is something I can't say about the Nikkor 24-120mm f/4.