# Are you interested in the Tamron 35-150mm F2-2.8 coming to RF mount?



## pj1974 (Aug 6, 2021)

Hi All

I discovered that Tamron has developed a 35-150mm f/2-2.8 lens (for Sony E-mount) ... and wow, this lens would be great (it would be even better if it also came in RF mount). You can find more information on this lens via the following link to Tamron's website press-release








Press Release | The development of 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD (Model A058) | E-mount | Telephoto Zoom Lens - TAMRON


Press Release (August 5, 2021) | 35-150mm F/2-2.8 Di III VXD (Model A058) is a "travel zoom" lens, achieved the world's first mirrorless zoom lens with a maximum wide-open aperture of F2.




www.tamron.com





It is a useful focal length, and appealing relatively wide aperture for certain applications. I have been searching for a lens like this for some time.. and would use it for event photography - including birthdays, weddings, camps, church and Christian events, and other celebrations. Event photography is one of the photographic genres I do - and often get requests for). 

I would certainly want (need) AF to be speedy and accurate... and hopefully the RF protocols would be able to do that - if opened up to 3rd party manufacturers.
Also, it would be a great bonus is Canon's IBIS worked seamlessly and effectively with this Tamron lens. In fact, that would be an important factor for me to consider purchasing it (or not). 

*So, CR friends, my questions to you are:*
1) would you find this a lens useful - if so, what would you use it for?
2) depending on the price (and other factors) - would you likely add this to your lens collection?

DPReview also posted about this lens' announcement, saying "Tamron 35-150mm F2-2.8 Di III VXD for full-frame Sony E-mount on the way"
It seems a lot of forum members there would love to see this lens for Canon RF mount (and Nikon Z mount too).

Regards

PJ


----------



## Ozarker (Aug 6, 2021)

Sounds very interesting. I'll hold out for a similar Canon "L". Unfortunately, I can't afford anything at all right now.


----------



## jd7 (Aug 7, 2021)

pj1974 said:


> Hi All
> 
> I discovered that Tamron has developed a 35-150mm f/2-2.8 lens (for Sony E-mount) ... and wow, this lens would be great (it would be even better if it also came in RF mount). You can find more information on this lens via the following link to Tamron's website press-release
> 
> ...


I've said it several times before, but there are a whole bunch of lenses for the Sony system which I am very interested in. Apart from the Tamron 35-150mm f/2-2.8, examples include the Tamron 17-28 f/2.8, Tamron 70-180 f/2.8, Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 DN, Sigma 85 f/1.4 DN, Sigma 35 f/2 and 65 f/2 i series lenses, Sony 35 f/1.4 GM, and Samyang/Rokinon 35 f/1.8, 45 f/1.8, 75 f/1.8 and AF 85 f/1.4. The hard part would be trying to decide which ones to actaully buy! If those lenses were available for the RF system, it would dramatically increase my interest in the RF system. (And yes, I know the Samyang/Rokinon AF 85 f/1.4 has been available for RF, but last I knew it seemed like it may have been discontinued for some reason.)

As for your specific questions about the 35-150mm f/2-2.8, if I had the lens I think the most obvious way I would use it (assuming I was happy with it optically) is for candid and action shots of people and for portraits generally. However, if it is reasonably light and small, as it seems likely it will be, I would use it for landscape and travel photography too. Whether I would buy it would depend on cost, and probably also on whether I decided to stick with a 24-70 and 70-200(ish) set up. I do find a 24-70 (or 105) very useful practically, so I might stick with a 24-70 and 70-200, in which case it would become that bit harder to justify a 35-150 as well. On the other hand, 35-150 f/2-2.8 does sound like it could be excellent for a variety of portraits/people shots.


----------



## dilbert (Aug 7, 2021)

If Sigma/Tamron don't start appearing for Canon RF then it will reduce the appeal of RF cameras.


----------



## Ozarker (Aug 8, 2021)

dilbert said:


> If Sigma/Tamron don't start appearing for Canon RF then it will reduce the appeal of RF cameras.


The genius of the EF to RF adapter: It gives third party providers a chance to catch up. I'd imagine Tamron and others are scrambling since they were so invested in EF (for their Canon offerings). However, I don't believe Canon cares whether 3rd party lens mfgs. produce or not. In my opinion, the bigger profits are in attracting users who buy multiple Canon lenses. Canon makes nothing off of 3rd party lens sales.


----------



## pj1974 (Aug 9, 2021)

jd7 said:


> I've said it several times before, but there are a whole bunch of lenses for the Sony system which I am very interested in. Apart from the Tamron 35-150mm f/2-2.8, examples include the Tamron 17-28 f/2.8, Tamron 70-180 f/2.8, Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 DN, Sigma 85 f/1.4 DN, Sigma 35 f/2 and 65 f/2 i series lenses, Sony 35 f/1.4 GM, and Samyang/Rokinon 35 f/1.8, 45 f/1.8, 75 f/1.8 and AF 85 f/1.4. The hard part would be trying to decide which ones to actaully buy! If those lenses were available for the RF system, it would dramatically increase my interest in the RF system. (And yes, I know the Samyang/Rokinon AF 85 f/1.4 has been available for RF, but last I knew it seemed like it may have been discontinued for some reason.)
> 
> As for your specific questions about the 35-150mm f/2-2.8, if I had the lens I think the most obvious way I would use it (assuming I was happy with it optically) is for candid and action shots of people and for portraits generally. However, if it is reasonably light and small, as it seems likely it will be, I would use it for landscape and travel photography too. Whether I would buy it would depend on cost, and probably also on whether I decided to stick with a 24-70 and 70-200(ish) set up. I do find a 24-70 (or 105) very useful practically, so I might stick with a 24-70 and 70-200, in which case it would become that bit harder to justify a 35-150 as well. On the other hand, 35-150 f/2-2.8 does sound like it could be excellent for a variety of portraits/people shots.


Thanks for taking the time to reply. jd7

I hear you on the various great lenses that are available for Sony E-mount (with some of these having no equivalents in Canon RF mount). Thankfully Canon have also brought some great RF lenses to the market (some of which are unique too).

My hope is that the RF mount (and AF / IBIS protocols, etc) may be 'opened up' to third party manufacturers so there will be more lenses to use/choose from (including some budget options). I have owned a number of third party lenses for my Canon DSLRs, including Sigma and Rokinon/Samyang.

The 35-150mm range is one that I use a lot for taking photos of people at events, so I would find that much more useful than a 70-200mm lens. The 35-150mm range would not be a 'general walk around' (indeed, the 24-105mm type lens suits me better as a general walk around)...

In recent years Tamron have achieved a decent balance between price, size, weight and quality (optical and handling)... so here's hoping

PJ


----------



## pj1974 (Aug 9, 2021)

CanonFanBoy said:


> The genius of the EF to RF adapter: It gives third party providers a chance to catch up. I'd imagine Tamron and others are scrambling since they were so invested in EF (for their Canon offerings). However, I don't believe Canon cares whether 3rd party lens mfgs. produce or not. In my opinion, the bigger profits are in attracting users who buy multiple Canon lenses. Canon makes nothing off of 3rd party lens sales.


Yes, CFB, I agree with you.

The EF to RF adapter does give a lot of decent scope for 3rd party manufacturers to still have an 'in' into the Canon RF market.
However I also know that many users prefer not to use adapters, at times because of weight/size and convenience.

I have been using a EF to EF-M adapter for years, and it certainly has been helpful for when I want certain lenses on my M5.
However in the end, I would like to have as many lenses 'native' RF mount too.

Cheers

PJ


----------



## pj1974 (Aug 9, 2021)

dilbert said:


> If Sigma/Tamron don't start appearing for Canon RF then it will reduce the appeal of RF cameras.


Hi Dilbert 

I get what you're saying... the lack of third party lens manufacturers does indeed reduce the appeal of RF cameras for some.

For Canon- opening their mount (and related protocols) to 3rd party manufacturers introduces both pros and cons ...
Pros
1) some new customers will be tempted to buy RF mount cameras because of a specific 3rd party lens manufacturer, so some additional sales of RF bodies (but probably quite small as a % of overall camera sales)
2) overall Canon's reputation within the mirrorless camera business might be seen as an 'open team member' (even though from a business perspective, manufacturers are in competition with each other)
3) there may be benefits realised between RF and EF, and EF-M mounts we are not yet aware of (e.g. some current overlapping - or new/future technology that will be a major aspect... I think of the DPAF that Canon came out with in the 70D years ago... and how many 3rd party lenses didn't do that well with it).

Cons
A) some customers will forfeit buying a specific Canon lens because they will go with a comparable 3rd party lens instead (some fewer lens sales for Canon)
B) some customers will forfeit buying a specific Canon lens type because they will go with a different (but somewhat overlapping in purpose / function) 3rd party lens, again fewer lens sales for Canon

Regards

PJ


----------



## dilbert (Aug 11, 2021)

pj1974 said:


> Cons
> A) some customers will forfeit buying a specific Canon lens because they will go with a comparable 3rd party lens instead (some fewer lens sales for Canon)
> B) some customers will forfeit buying a specific Canon lens type because they will go with a different (but somewhat overlapping in purpose / function) 3rd party lens, again fewer lens sales for Canon



That's a very narrow view to take.

If Canon's goal is to grow the RF ecosystem and pool of users, then it needs to have a bigger view than just "how many RF lenses" can be sold.

Lets assume that camera bodies are roughly equal in terms of price and performnce from Canon, Nikon, and Sony. If I can choose Sony and get more capability with 3rd party lenses than with Canon or Nikon, then why not go that path.

3rd party lenses not only provide competition, but they have better price points and increasingly more diverse capability than the name-brand lenses.


----------



## Ozarker (Aug 11, 2021)

dilbert said:


> That's a very narrow view to take.
> 
> If Canon's goal is to grow the RF ecosystem and pool of users, then it needs to have a bigger view than just "how many RF lenses" can be sold.
> 
> ...


Why not the Sony path? Go for it. Personally, I think Sony sucks bowling balls.


----------



## dilbert (Aug 11, 2021)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Why not the Sony path? Go for it. Personally, I think Sony sucks bowling balls.



Established owners are of less interest to manufacturers than those who are new.

You're already a Canon owner, the effort to get you to move to Sony is huge for them. Better and easier for them to attract someone that doesn't own Canon/Nikon. Get them when they make their first move from phone to real camera.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 11, 2021)

dilbert said:


> Established owners are of less interest to manufacturers than those who are new.
> 
> You're already a Canon owner, the effort to get you to move to Sony is huge for them. Better and easier for them to attract someone that doesn't own Canon/Nikon. Get them when they make their first move from phone to real camera.


Are you sure? When the bulk of the market was in entry level cameras that made sense, now the big three are chasing higher and higher priced bodies I'm not so sure that old model still stands. Indeed I see and hear of more and more keen amateurs (mostly) that own several bodies from different companies, either because their main camera manufacturer doesn't make a body or a lens they particularly want.


----------



## pj1974 (Aug 12, 2021)

Hi friends

Thanks for your valued contributions, thoughts and discussion on this topic / thread.

With full frame (e.g. Canon RF) mirrorless, it's definitely a different market than the "entry level DSLRs" of even a handful of year ago, mainly because of the following reasons:
a) the prices of FF entry level mirrorless body and lens is significantly more than a APS-C DSLR + 18-55mm lens (and it is notably more than even a Canon 6D with 24-105 STM lens was)
b) most of the photo-taking community now consider their smart phones good enough (because smart phone photo/video capability has improved a lot in recent years, and "instant" / social media connectivity has become all important for so many)
c) convenience (size/weight) is valued higher than ever, and that is why the EF-M cameras - and smaller / crop mirrorless equivalents are still a viable market. (Hence why smart phones are so popular too)
d) even adding a digital filter to a smart phone image is seen as good enough to get a 'cool / pro-looking' photo (as 'cheap & nasty' as we in these forums might believe)
e) speaking of us CR forum members, we are the 'enthusiasts' whom make up a small % of total consumers owning a dedicated camera, and for whom a lens like the Tamron 35-150mm lens are targeted. We will be more brand loyal than most, but ALSO potentially have more than one camera body (and potentially even across more than one photography brand)... so there's an interesting interplay

Hence the reason why I asked my initial question. I would love to see this Tamron lens 'designed' for Canon RF (and work flawlessly). I have multiple camera bodies and many lenses (both DSLR and mirrorless) - but I don't plan to buy a non-Canon body, because I prefer the Canon bodies - and to a fair degree, most Canon lenses over other brands (I've used Nikon, Sony, Pentax and Panasonic).
However, I am willing to buy third party lenses if they have some expectation (or even "guarantee") of usability for years to come, i.e. if they'll be compatible with future RF bodies. That's where lens firmware updates are something I keep my eye on.

Regards

PJ


----------



## dilbert (Aug 12, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> Are you sure? When the bulk of the market was in entry level cameras that made sense, now the big three are chasing higher and higher priced bodies I'm not so sure that old model still stands. Indeed I see and hear of more and more keen amateurs (mostly) that own several bodies from different companies, either because their main camera manufacturer doesn't make a body or a lens they particularly want.



Yes. Current advertising campaigns by Canon (that I see - not online) show that they are trying to encourage people that take lots of photos with their phones to upgrade to cameras.

But the "dosn't make a les they particularly want" is where 3rd parties can step in, not only to fill a void but to create new "wants".


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 12, 2021)

dilbert said:


> Yes. Current advertising campaigns by Canon (that I see - not online) show that they are trying to encourage people that take lots of photos with their phones to upgrade to cameras.
> 
> But the "dosn't make a les they particularly want" is where 3rd parties can step in, not only to fill a void but to create new "wants".


It depends where you look for advertising, though. If you look at the places where pros and keen amateurs are looking for future bodies (like the Olympics) you hear nothing but Canon R3, if you look in more traditional places you find ads targeted to a more traditional market. But at the end of the day entry level sales are down massively and all three big manufacturers have said they see the future as high end expensive bodies with more profit margin in them.

How much profit can there be in a $599 kit compared to a >$4,000 body that then need >$2,000 lenses? You have to sell a lot of Rebel kits to make the same profit as an R3 and a couple of RF 2.8 zooms.


----------



## dilbert (Aug 12, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> It depends where you look for advertising, though. If you look at the places where pros and keen amateurs are looking for future bodies (like the Olympics) you hear nothing but Canon R3, if you look in more traditional places you find ads targeted to a more traditional market. But at the end of the day entry level sales are down massively and all three big manufacturers have said they see the future as high end expensive bodies with more profit margin in them.



Maybe Canon is taking a chance that there's room to grow in the low end? Who knows. "Traditional places" and "traditional market" are terms that vary with the definition of "traditional" and could be anything.

Advertising to existing owners is challenging and I'm glad it's not me doing it. I'd hate to be trying to target EF system owners as targets of RF cameras. Canon's problem there is an EF owner can go to either Nikon Z or Sony E.

Only doing high end expensive bodies is a massive market retreat and effectively cuts off the blood supply. Huge risk.

Anyway, you asked if I was sure that Canon was trying to grow the bottom end of its camera business and I said yes and why - Canon are spending money on trying to do exactly that. That doesn't mean Canon forgets about trying to grow other parts of its camera business.




privatebydesign said:


> How much profit can there be in a $599 kit compared to a >$4,000 body that then need >$2,000 lenses? You have to sell a lot of Rebel kits to make the same profit as an R3 and a couple of RF 2.8 zooms.



I expect the profit margin to be the same in terms of percentages. Other than that, I've no idea and could only speculate.

Problem is, if there's no $600 camera, who's going to spend $4000 on a camera cold turkey? Or that's how I see the problem.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 12, 2021)

I never suggested Canon are going to abandon the entry level market, it is still where they get their volume sales. Just pointing out that because ‘traditional’ marketing campaigns you have seen might be targeted at the entry level does not mean they are not also going after the higher end. 

The choice is not a $600 Rebel or a $6,000 R3/1 series, there are steps in between. From a marketing point of view all companies need to be in that intermediate space if they want to grow. Somebody with a Rebel or M50 or entry level Sony or Nikon that wants something ‘better’ isn’t tied into that system yet.

But from what I am seeing more and more now is people are not tied to a system, they might have one body for one lens, the Nikon D500 and PF500 seem a popular choice for ‘Canon” users, in the past it was a TS-E17 and 5DS for Nikon users. Or they might have an Olympus 4/3 for their ‘travel’ camera and one of the big three as their ‘enthusiast’ camera.


----------



## Too_Many_Hobbies (Mar 29, 2022)

I find this range and speed appealing. I moved back over to Canon and the R5 with the Canon 15-35 2.8 and 70-200 2.8 plus the 24-105 F4 in the middle. If I could fill that middle with a fast 35-150 2 to 2.8 I would buy it right now.

When I heard about this lens I was ready to buy it, but only Sony made me go with the 24-105 instead 

I agree that Sigma and Tamron releasing RF native lenses could only be good for Canon. I was on the fence about going with Sony, but I've just never enjoyed shooting with their system as much as I do Canon.


----------



## Ozarker (Mar 31, 2022)

I've had problems with my Tamron 45mm f/1.8 photos looking "muddy" at wide open apertures on bright days, with lots of CA. Not very sharp wide open. However, the lens was inexpensive. I'd rent this before I'd buy, but the focal range is interesting. Just saying that wide apertures suck when they can't be used from an IQ perspective.. No point. That, to me, is the advantage of very bright RF glass. Yes, it has a high entry price, but every wide aperture (at least on the 28-70mm, 50mm, 85mm) can be used and they are sharp.

Guess I got spoiled by all that pre-pandemic RF glass. If I could only have one lens? RF 28-70mm f/2L. No question about it. That, and a 135mm, would suit me fine.


----------



## Ozarker (Mar 31, 2022)

Too_Many_Hobbies said:


> I find this range and speed appealing. I moved back over to Canon and the R5 with the Canon 15-35 2.8 and 70-200 2.8 plus the 24-105 F4 in the middle. If I could fill that middle with a fast 35-150 2 to 2.8 I would buy it right now.
> 
> When I heard about this lens I was ready to buy it, but only Sony made me go with the 24-105 instead
> 
> I agree that Sigma and Tamron releasing RF native lenses could only be good for Canon. I was on the fence about going with Sony, but I've just never enjoyed shooting with their system as much as I do Canon.


I agree, the focal range is interesting.

I understand that these third party manufacturers will always be there. However, I fail to see how they are good for Canon. In my opinion, the big bucks are in the lenses. Canon's goal might be to get us to buy more of Canon's lenses. Buying a Tamron doesn't help Canon.

Could one say that there are people that buy a $2k-$6k camera and slap on a Sigma or Tamron? Sure. Does that help Canon? I don't see how. In a miniscule way, yes. Because a body was sold. Then again, most people stick with just the Canon kit lens. I think that helps Canon more than Tamron. 

Yeah, yeah, yeah... competition is good. However, I don't see how my Tamron 45mm is any competition at all for the RF 50mm. Different class altogether. Does Tamron make a lens that will compete? As far as I know, nobody does. Nobody. Somebody is going to pipe in and say, "Zeiss". I just hope that person has used both. People who have not used a lens should keep quiet. Don't need no YouTube parrots.


----------



## Del Paso (Mar 31, 2022)

For me, the 35-150 Tamron is rather a "neither nor" lens.
Neither WA, nor real tele. It's mostly the 24mm focal length I'd miss in a truly universal lens.
Yet, I could easily imagine using it in combination with a 24mm, but alone, I'd rather take an RF 24-105 or a 24-120 Nikkor.


----------

