These plus the 50 1.2

Any reason why you chose the sigma 150 over the Tamron 150-500?

Yes! I was thinking something very similar regarding the new Trinity for focal lengths

M pleasure, Daniel - and welcome!

I’m exactly in your decision situation 😂. Let me know what you decided 🙏

Yeah. My favourite lens is a 35mm 1.4, 35mm so versatile FL och 1.4 makes for composing e.g. environmental portraits with interesting surroundings (actual context) and good looking background separation. Then 'downgrading' to 2.8 is not an option really, but 2.0 could pass.... and add so many more options for framing the shot...

Thank you, Jonathon!

Glad you enjoy it, David! :)

How do you like the 11-20?

Thanks for sharing!

@RM Clark, how do you find the weight of that lens when hiking?

@@zbieraj It's heavy but not overly burdensome in my opinion. I have a good shoulder strap and that helps. Most of my hikes are 2-3 hours. I can see though if someone is on an all day hike the weight might be an issue. I love the versatility and picture quality. I suggest renting one or find one in a camera store so you can get a idea of the weight.

Enjoy!

It’s a pretty irresistible combo, Mark. I can just see you carrying it on the street wearing your Apricoat!

enjoy!

Yeah but then it would be huge and heavier.

It could probably be done...in a body the size of the 200-600mm G

Welcome!

I believe I HAVE mentioned when I've been disappointed any number of times before for specific issues (e.g., distortion in the 70-180).

Jenny! It’s been a while - nice to see you here!

@@3BMEP still checking in with the content regularly, just been quite busy with life - hope you all are doing well over there!

Good point! I'd be less concerned about carry as I've described it than having the camera parked on a tripod (like we do in the bat cave). An optional tripod collar would allay that particular fear.

Thanks for sharing your perspective!

😜😊🖖🏻

@@3BMEP You should absolutely share your voice to the Sleepcasts of Headspace :D.

Well, I put the order in for the 'IV yesterday... but I don't want to give up the a7s III much before the 'IV arrives...

@@3BMEP Totally understand. When you’re ready to sell, how much are you thinking of selling for? If I saw pics and knew the shutter count, I may be willing to buy from you. Great review by the way! My Tamron is on it’s way now!

The short answer: I’d suggest Tamron’s 28-75/2.8 G2 as a better choice given your concerns, perhaps with a high resolution a7 R IV to give you some additional reach.

@@3BMEP Thank you for your response and your time to write it :). I appreciate it. And sorry for the weird way I wrote the comment, it was after midnight in DK and I was too tired. Regarding your response, I was wondering then about two other things: - The reason why I use Sigma 56mm f/1.4 for MFT is that I have that 112mm reach. Which sometimes still feels like it is not large enough. Just 3 days ago I wanted to take pictures of my daughter iceskating, but then I realized that even with this FF 112mm, she was still pretty far away. Therefore I think that for Tamron 28-75/2.8 G2 I would need additional 75mm+ lens. That brings back two problems: heavy bag, even heavier than the current setup I have and the fact that I still need to switch lenses. What I also don't like about my current MFT system is that I can not go under F/1.4 AF (in MFT setup), without spending a lot of money on bulky and heavy OLY F/1.2. What is tempting with this Tamron is that on every focal length of that Tamron I can go with shallower DOF than on any OLY PRO F/1.2. - The a7 R IV weights 665g with batteries (comparing to 509g from A7C). Tamron 28-75/2.8 G2 weights 539g, giving together 1.204g. A7C + Tamron 35-150mm weight all together 1.674g. Yes, heavier by 450g for the hand, but the bag would be lighter due to the additional need for some telephoto range then. - One extra thing: A7R IV price is way over my budget for the body. Yes, I like to have UWA/WA lens for those specific cases of landscape/architecture/night sky photography and sometimes for (other) YT channel. But I think that I could have here one lens from range of 12-24mm, which could be even f/4.0 (maybe cheap prime). But in recent years I really switched to use the range of 35mm-112mm (unfortunately not more than those 112mm). This is why I am stuck regarding the decision what to do. The range of that Tamron is exactly the range I need from 95-99% of all the pictures I am taking. But again, I just wonder about the weight, especially on the longer trips. I wonder if I can hold it in my hand for like 10-15 minutes, while walking in the landscape before I will put it back to my waist bag. I don't want to have the stripe for puting the camera on my neck (I like the wrist ones though and actually on my Oly right now I use the finger one). Eh, I don't know that to do. I would buy this Tamron 35-150mm lens anytime now, but the weight... I know that trying to hold 1,5kg potato bag is not the same as holding a camera with the lens :D, but maybe I should make such test for my wrist... Sincerely, Zbieraj

@@zbieraj Stay with your micro-four-thirds (MFT) system. The Tamron 35-150mm f/2-2.8 Di III VXD lens is a boat anchor. It weighs a whopping 41.1 oz (2.57 lbs)/1165 g and has a front element of 82 mm. That's a large piece of glass. You asked whether you could hand hold that lens for 10 minutes! Unless you're built like King Kong, you'd be doing well to hold that lens steady for 30 seconds, let alone 10 minutes. This is what I recommend for your MFT system: 1) Olympus OM-D E-M5 Mark III: 14.6 oz / 414 g 2) Panasonic Lumix G X Vario 12-35mm f/2.8 II ASPH. POWER O.I.S. Lens: 10.8 oz / 305 g (Alternatively,: Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 12-40mm f/2.8 PRO: 13.47 oz / 382 g) 3) Panasonic Lumix G X Vario 35-100mm f/2.8 II POWER O.I.S. Lens: 12.59 oz / 357 g Total weight = 1076g/2.37 pounds

@@chesslover8829 I switched last winter. My A7C + Tamron 35-150mm weights 1,5kg, whereas my MFT gear, that I always had to have with me, had 1,6kg. The problem with your setup is that it is f/2.8, with DOF level of f/5.8 of FF eq. With A7C + 35-150 I was able to take more pictures than before, due to fact that I did not need to change any lens, since I have one 24/7 and also due to the fact that I could shoot in many occasions with much stronger DoF. My height is 186cm, I have overweight, I do not attend to gym, I have asthma and I can hold that camera for hours in idle position (camera turned towards ground). I was able to comfortably hike in Norwegian fjords last summer. No issues. When shooting - no-one shoots hand-held photos beyond 0.5s on FF, so this is is also not a problem. I actually think that switching to that Tamron 35-150mm was one of the most important photo-gear decision I made in my entire life and I think it was the best one.

You would feel the difference, that’s for sure.

For photography only, I’d go with the primes for video or 50/50 hybrid shooting where AF and focus breathing are top concerns, I’d go with the zoom (as I am planning to do - I already have the primes and love them).

@@3BMEP Thank you for responding. Not changing lens all the time is an advantage for the zoom but sometimes I find myself strugling in which focal length to use because I also zoom with my legs with a zoom lens.

In that case and, if you have the money, go for it. It’s amazing and “In Stock” in almost every retailer.

@@tecnolatino5552 Yeah, haha, still working a bit on that first part. But i'll get there...

Thanks for the insight!

I also have the Tamron trinity: 17-28, 28-75 original, 70-180. As well as the Sigma 100-400, Sony 85 1.8, and Sony 200-600 with1.4 tc. Maybe my lenses are not the best for the A9?

Don’t second guess. Enjoy the a7 IV recognizing that you’ll have to put in the time to get it dialed in for you - just less time than the a9!

They’re all fine.

I’ve found significant differences in image quality from one Sony 24-105/4 to the next among less than half a dozen samples over as many years, so I can’t really tell you. But if someone were to offer me the choice as a gift, I’d take the Tamron.

Thank you for responding

Thank you -- and welcome!

In the same way as with any other non-dedicated macro lens, by attaching extension tubes or a dioptre (or both).

It’s not a macro lens but it has close focusing capabilities.

It’s a very front-heavy set-up that doesn’t work well for Claudia (I don’t imagine it would work well for me, either); it would put too much stress on the Weebill S class gimbal that we favor - that is, a gimbal perfectly adequate when used with, say a 35 prime; and it would put too much stress, I fear, on the lens mount itself unless used with a lens support. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to articulate the specific set of considerations which led me to say what I did!

@@3BMEP I appreciate the insights. Thank you, sir!

Thank you for such a generous take - and sharing a bit of your history!