Is This a Next-Level Travel Lens?

Generally, travel lenses are meant to cover a wide range of focal lengths to allow you to be able to photograph most things you are likely to encounter. On the other hand, when you go for a large focal length range, that often means sacrificing wide apertures for low-light situations and sharp image quality. This lens might be able to give you the trifecta of reach, aperture, and sharpness, however. 

Coming to you from Dustin Abbott, this great video takes a look at the Tamron 35-150mm f/2-2.8 Di III VXD lens for travel photography. The 35-150mm f/2-2.8 is a remarkable lens, offering an extremely wide maximum aperture despite its wide focal length range and impressive image quality. Of course, to get all those things, it takes a lot of glass, and the two downsides that equates to are a fairly high price (compared to something like a 24-300mm superzoom) and a heavy footprint, at 41.1 oz (1,165 g). That is something that is definitely worth considering, as it could become a bit tiring to carry around such a lens if you plan on going for long days out on vacation. Nonetheless, it is quite a unique lens that offers an impressive combination of features. Check out the video above for the full rundown from Abbott.

Log in or register to post comments
John Nixon's picture

It’s probably great. Probably not so great that it would be worth swapping to Sony E-Mount if you’re not already using it…

John Herzel's picture

I'd buy this if they release it in the RF mount. I'd even "settle" for the f2.8-f4.
35-150 is perfect for traveling light. I'd probably bring my 20mm prime as well.
The RF 24-240 is probably a bit too dark for my taste.

David Pavlich's picture

I bought the 2.8-4 version about a month ago. So far, it's been as advertised. Definitely my new walk around lens. I'm fortunate that I didn't have to do any micro adjustments to get the focus correct. The last couple of Tamron lenses needed some adjustment.

EDWIN GENAUX's picture

I really like your reviews! Back in '11 or '12 I had a Canon and I saw in a travel Mag the 50-500 and then the 60-600 almost bought. But when I went Sony in '14 and had the basic A7s I got the Sony FE 24-240mm f3.5-6.3 OSS (360 in APS-C) '15 not a wide f/, but with OSS made for a great travel. With center focus point you do get great bokeh or DOF in day. This lens you never hear about maybe because it is so old '15. If Sony redid in 2.8 and OSS II would it be grabbed up fast. I did solar eclipse, wide landscape as well as zoom landscape and great to have in your bag after a night of Milky Way with the FE 1224 f/4 and birding walking back through a swamp during golden hour light and walk through a zoo for close-ups of critters.
Wide aperture lenses were great in film days for hand holding shots getting faster SS's now for bokeh and DOF. IBIS got us off the sticks even in low light.
It would also be great if it was internal zoom!

Rk K's picture

Bit too heavy for travel, and too many lens changes at 35. It's more of an event and portrait lens. Wish they did something like a 24-120 2.8-4 for travel.

Rick Sander's picture

Im sure this is a fine lens, but to me travel lens means - SMALL - a light prime lens I can put on a camera and carry for 12 hours without breaking my shoulders. I compromise by keeping them in the 2.8 range - and not the huge 1.4-1.8 chunks of glass.

I usually carry a 18mm, 24mm and 45mm to my destination and choose one for the day - It's usually the 24.

Patrick Lafont's picture

It's hard to see how a 1.1kg lens can be the ideal travel lens. And the Tamron 28-200mm is not wide enough for me, 35mm would be even tighter...