Tamron has really gone through a renaissance in recent years, creating impressively capable and practical lenses that significantly undercut the prices of many first-party options. The 35-150mm f/2-2.8 Di III VXD is quite a significant step forward, covering a huge range of common focal lengths with impressively wide apertures. Can it be the only lens some photographers need? This fantastic video review takes a look.
Note: there is a bit of NSFW humor in the video.
Coming to you from Tom Calton, this great video review takes a look at the Tamron 35-150mm f/2-2.8 Di III VXD lens and compares it to other options in Tamron's line. The 35-150mm f/2-2.8 is an especially interesting lens in that it offers an uncommonly wide aperture in tandem with the majority of commonly used focal lengths. All of that makes it an intriguing option for a wide variety of applications ranging from wedding photography to sports and wildlife work. As an aside, I have replaced a few primes with my Canon 28-70mm f/2L lens, and the step up in convenience and efficiency is fantastic, and it looks like this lens offers even more of that sort of versatility. Check out the video above for the full rundown from Calton.
Looks like we will never know the answer? I ordered one that's been coming soon since December??
I wish they would make a 35mm - 50mm f/1.8 with OIS. While an odd range, it has its uses, especially with OIS. Useful range for food photography and video of food and similarly sized items.
it's called a 35
given the level of sensor improvement, you can crop from a 35 with little loss.
give me one good 35 instead of a zoom that' filled with compromise
Not wide enough, and completely useless on my APS-C camera.
Conversely, it is not long enough for the vast majority of what I shoot. But it could be an extremely useful, versatile lens for many photographers.
It could never be my main lens, because of how short the range is, but it would serve as a nice compliment to my 100-400mm and 300-800mm zooms, for those infrequent times when I want to shoot something wider than 100mm, but also want some focal length overlap so I can shoot a bit longer without having to switch lenses. I just hope the image quality is right there with the latest premium Canon L series stuff. If it isn't as sharp as my 100-400 v2, or doesn't create as smoothly rendered bokeh as the 100-400 v2, then I'll take a pass.
big lens
a lot bigger than you'd want to carry around all day
and a focal length range that may work for some, but is totally out of synch for many others
--- "a lot bigger than you'd want to carry around all day"
Carrying all day a 24-70 f2.8 + 70-200 f2.8 is much heavier and people are doing that now. Yes?
--- "a focal length range that may work for some, but is totally out of synch for many others"
It's the opposite. Think portraits, wedding, events, sports, etc, etc.
I have its older brother, the f2.8-4 variant. It works well for me. It's not my landscape lens as I have a 16-35 f4 for that. But for a walk around lens, the focal lengths available on the Tamron are quite convenient.
There will never be a "one size fits all" lens, there are too many different subject and techniques. Perhaps we should discuss what two or three lens kit is the most versatile.
--- "Perhaps we should discuss what two or three lens kit is the most versatile."
It's going to fall under your same argument. What's versatile for you isn't going be versatile for others. For instance, based off the images on your profile, you use 50mm and 100mm a lot. Many will find your lens selection either not wide enough or not telephoto enough. And, coincidentally, this Tamron lens would meet your focal range requirements.
My most used lenses are the 50L, 100MacroLIS and 16-35/4LIS. I realize that people have different requirements but at least a three lens kit will find more in common than one.
--- "but at least a three lens kit will find more in common than one"
Your logic escapes me. The Tamron 35-150 literally handles all of your three lenses. The only exception is if you commonly shoot wider than 35mm.
I prefer fast primes, it would not work for me. It’s not just about focal length, it’s speed and weight to name a couple factors.