Tamron 35-150/2.8-4 VC opinions? / Alternative lazy lenses?

Dpreview just published a sample galery My socks didn't get knocked off.

Would the 24-105/4 IS II give better results on a 5D IV? Any alternatives to consider? (What about the 24-70/4 IS?) Or should I simply forget the dream of a still portable walk around zoom?

In that case: Which pair of stabilized primes would you recommend?

Are there reasons to pick the Tamron 35mm instead of the EF35/2 IS?

What long counterpart? 100/2.8 macro? / Tamron 85/1.8 VC Or does it have to be Canon's f1.4?

Thanks in advance for your input.

To clarify: I can't get motivated to buy & lug the 35/1.4+85/1.2 combo.

For me, 35mm is not wide enough to use as a standard zoom, so I would not consider the Tamron for that purpose notwithstanding any potential optical advantage over the Canon. I have read that the Canon 24-70 F4L may be sharper than the 24-105LII, but then again, the choice is really based on longer focal length vs a lighter / more compact option. I have no opinion on the quality of prime alternatives except that (a) in low light, a f2.8 macro is not a substitute for fast primes of similar focal lengths, (b) 35mm and 85mm fast primes are not a substitute for a 24-105mm zoom at the wide end, and © I don't consider having to constantly swap lenses a "lazy" lens alternative.

I’d recommend the Canon 35mm IS. Great image quality, stabilization and AF. I can’t think of a particular advantage of getting the Tamron myself. No real thoughts about the 85mm. I suspect the Tamron VC will be good, but the Canon f1.4 is surely the most practical, but $$$. I found the 100 macro IS a little too slow focusing for street pics, but otherwise a very nice lens. You could try the 100mm f2 although no IS. The 85mm f1.8 Canon is also Ok, but not stellar wide open: good for portraits, but perhaps a little weak wide open otherwise. Secondhand both the 100 and 85 Canons should be affordable and worth try, older optical formula, but have a good reputation. The Sigma Art is very good, but heavy and no IS, still, I would check it out. If all I was carrying was a 35 and an 85 I would look at the Sigma for certain.

I don't consider having to constantly swap lenses a "lazy" lens alternative.

Agreed, thats probably the point where 2nd cameras come into play. Lazy is realtive. - I'm at least not keen to carry two or more f2.8 zooms all day long. But I can see me mixing 85mm on the EOS with 35mm on Leica, switching to the ZM21/2.8 once in a while and maybe breaking out a EF 35mm, to roam the streets at night (when maxed out ISO 10K won't cut the cake) or taking a demanded color shot of a group with it. If its not wide enough I could save up for the 24/2.8 IS.

Staying really lazy and outing smaller sensored cameras (with all their limitations) is an alternative option at hand.

You could try the 100mm f2 although no IS. The 85mm f1.8 Canon is also Ok, but not stellar wide open

Sorry they are out of consideration for me, right now. I assume they are decent for studio work with flash, but I want handholdable field lenses. I jumped on FF, fast(ish) conventional glass and comparably insane ISO once before and fear the capable AF, ISO range and color option aren't enough to convince me to change systems or gather the confidence to leave my zoom at home.

I found the 100 macro IS a little too slow focusing for street pics

Thanks for that input! - Sounds quite neck breaking for that lens and me. I watched Dustin Abbot's review, where he mentions the 85/1.4 would focus faster than the Tamron and am chewing on the decision, if I want that extra AF speed at it's weight.

If all I was carrying was a 35 and an 85 I would look at the Sigma for certain.

Why? "Bokeh bang for the buck"? I'm not overly optimistic about getting shots at f2 and wider into DSLR focus.

Open question: What are your personal choices, when you are taking "not much" out? Something else? The 40mm pancake? Which zoom?

24-70mm f2.8 ver 2 and 50 STM is what I have reduced my kit to currently for FF “small kit”. I find the zoom so good the primes don’t offer much for me any more. I miss a longer lens, so that is a current dilemma, but the Canon 85mm f1.4 is not much different to the 70mm field of view wise, so it’s up in the air for me. I now seem to be changing over to MFT, so it’s not pressing for me at present.

I looked at reviews of that lens and was also disappointed.

 

Re the zoom: I think the tradeoff is flexibility vs. image quality. If you want maximum image quality in a walk-around zoom for a FF, go with a 24-70 like the Canon f/2.8 (not f/4) or the second-generation Tamron. (The Tamron is cheaper and has IS.) If you want flexibility, go for a 24-105. I use the first-gen Canon 24-105 f/4, and while it is not optically superb, it's pretty good, and I use the 70-105 range so often that I find that the convenience makes it a better choice for me. But it all depends on what you shoot and what your preferences are.

 

Re the primes: the only primes I use are macro lenses, so I have no thoughts to offer for that one.

Agreed, thats probably the point where 2nd cameras come into play. Lazy is realtive . . . But I can see me mixing 85mm on the EOS with 35mm on Leica, etc . . .

 

That's thinking outside the restrictions of your original question, I think this is good.

 

On this part of the question only: when I was shooting Weddings I always carried at least two cameras. My favourite 'Prime Pair' was a fast 35 and fast 85. Very flexible very useful for almost everything I encountered. I didn't find that a burden, in fact it could be termed the 'lazy' alternative to carrying two cameras and two zooms. Now, (as an amateur walking around the streets etc) I'll often use a fast 85 (or 135) on one of my 5D Series Cameras and use my Fuji X100s as my second camera (equiv FoV 35mm).

 

WW

Strange, I've gone through the gallery on DP Review and thought the samples looked really good.

If I'm using my 70D I use the excellent Tokina ATX Pro DX 50-135 f/2.8 which covers all the focal lengths I've ever used for portraits and it's nice to leave the lens on the camera and not swap lenses when I want something wider or longer. I use a 35 f/2, 50 f/1.8STM, 85 f/1.8 USM and a Tamron 90 f/2.8 Macro. My favorie is the 85 f/1.8 I think it isolates better and the out of focus areas look creamier. All nice lenses capable of taken awesome portraits and reasonable cheap if bought used. My cheaper than say a Canon 28-70 f/2 which would be my choice if I ever give up my collection of nice Canon Dslrs and my awesome L lenses.

For some years now I have been using a Tamron 18-270mm f3.5-f6.3 with VC (vibration control) as my walk about lens on my 80D. I has it's failings but as a 'lazy' lens it suits me just fine. I do have higher quality lenes in that range but find that changing lenes in the field is becoming more and more of a hassle. The only other lens that I carry about is my Canon 10-22mm. If I had to give up all my lenses this is the one I would keep.

As other have said, it depends on specific use.

I think the 35-150 would be a GREAT field lens to shoot soccer, football and lacrosse (from next to the sidelines) on an APS-C camera.

When I shot with my 18-140, I found that most of my shots would be covered with the 35-150.

 

On a FF camera, my "walk around lens would be a 24-105 or 24-120.

I like the extra reach, over the 24-70. But there is IQ compromise, to get the extra zoom reach.

 

I would add a 70-300 or 100-400 as the long companion to the 24-105 or 24-120.

The 150-600 is an option, but bigger and heavier than I want to deal with.

 

Or the standard kit: 24-70 + 70-200. And if you use the f/4 lenses, it isn't too heavy.