great lens！

Concur.

What prime lens do you think become the great pair with this lense?

@@izzatti7446 I'm taking a gamble on a Laowa 45 0.95f

Yes

Almost every video I’ve seen shows this…

How sharp is it at the 150? As a sports photographer my biggest issue with the 70-200 Sony 2.8 is how soft it is at the telephoto ranges. Would love to hear, thanks!

​@@AlexVasquezytSuper sharp

How do you shoot video with this lens ? Handling it is possible ?

@@ClementFaucher To be honest, it's not comfortable for handheld since it's a front heavy lens. Most of the time film some short B-roll style short, also I use it with a7s3/ a7iv which has active stabilization, handheld video not the best way for it. But when you use it on tripod, it is quite a good option. I can set at f/2.8 for constant aputure, from 35 to 150. It's like a 24-105 bigger aputure version, better at some dim lighting scenario.

It's hurting my shoulders, and arm just thinking about it. lol

Or tamron 150-500 to keep it compact

I wish it were a 24 too!

man, imagine if it started at 24mm

Nice setup...

the lens is not light. It weights 1.16kg i have it and light is no where near it

@@zcw123 you're right, but 1 heavy lens is better than 2 heavy zooms or 4 primes

@@JoeHan268 still my favorite lens. Everything is great

@@JoeHan268 i dont mind weight. You get used to it ( :

Thanks ❤

I'm really hopeful to see Tamron bring some nice lenses to Fuji, such as the 17-70mm f2.8... The 35-150mm f2-2.8 is also a nice option, but doesn't make much sense on Fuji being full-frame, maybe an even better crop version though?

@@MatheusPratta Normally I would agree with you that it makes little sense to carry the full frame weight and only use half the light. However, as Joel states, the APS-C 50-140 F2.8 lens (which is kind of the 70-200 f.28 equivalent lens) is even heavier and has less range. So this is not an entirely crazy thought here. Still a shame of all the light being wasted though.....

I agree completely. In fact, I love my 70-180, but wish it were 200mm. I wouldn't want to sacrifice another 30mm on the long end. I would be in favor that it is the "best concept ever."

Its all about versatility, its not just a nice concept...

@@NikosPer I see your point, but at the same time, it not always about versatility if you're not able to get the shot. I do a lot of event photography and the 150 range is just a bit too limiting for me. But I find between the 28-75, and 70-180, it works very nice. Plus, speaking about versatility, both lenses are extremely lighter than the 35-150, which to me makes a huge difference when shooting an event for 4 or 5 hours. Everyone has their own needs and perspective.

@@martin9410 just an amateur here-i dont own the lens, my point was about that you dont need to change lenses especially in the professional field which might be crucial for money shots. Even at 150 you may crop a bit and even AI upscale it later. Also dont forget that going out with a "35-150" in back of your mind, you might position yourself in places that you would avoid otherwise. Just my amateur thoughts.

@@NikosPer I understand...and many are in agreement with you. I've held the lens for a brief time and it is a heavy lens, but for some, that won't be an issue. I find carrying two light lenses an easy thing, rather than a heavy one. But this is why different lenses appear to different people for different reasons.

Hafod estate, near Aberystwyth, Wales

We will definitely see it in our lifetime. Manufacturing has gotten so crazy good, this lens was physically impossible a few years ago. One day hopefully we'll get to a point when primes are almost useless - I'm looking forward to our future 12-24 f2, 35-135 1.8, 200-600 f4.5 haha

How’s the sharpness?

@@rilcycopa superb

I'll keep the 28-75 for its weight and for B roll. Same for the 50mm 2.5G. I haven't yet decided for an ultra wide what to do. Yes this lens is very sharp, and great to use for pro work.

very suitable for commercial and event occasion use.

When wide open, peripheral light is partly blocked in regards to the outer portion of the sensor. Lens hoods try to mitigate some of this, allowing more light to come in from the corners (the reason for the petal design), but nothing can negate physics. Also, the iris is so wide at this point that the corners really can't see the outer part of it due to limits of lens design (the barrel itself will block some of the peripheral light). When stopped down, the outer corners can now actually see that peripheral light fairly un-impeded. So you are actually looking at it wrong. When wide open, it isn't that they are out of the way, its that the light is focusing in a way that can't effectively expose the corners, which is because the way the light gets blocked. When it is stopped down, the iris is now small enough that nothing is blocking that light. There are probably more detailed ways to explain this, but this is about the simplest version I can muster LOL

No, forget all you knew about the rubbish plasticy Tamrons of the 90's. And this is the best of the best in what Tamron has done so far -- superior to the 28-75 2.8 RXD, 70-180 2.8 etc.

@@catalin-ap the old 35-105 and 28-105mm 2.8 were well built to pro grade, its the optics which were suspect, i'll certainly think about this new one though