Is This the Ultimate Wedding Photography Lens?

In the past few years, Tamron has reinvented themselves as a company that offers both lenses that make smart compromises to be highly affordable and lenses that push the boundaries of design. The 35-150mm f/2-2.8 Di III VXD falls into the latter category, and it looks like an impressive option, particularly for wedding photographers, and this great video takes you behind the scenes with the lens and shows you just what it can pull off. 

Coming to you from Taylor Jackson, this interesting video takes you behind the scenes of a wedding shot with the Tamron 35-150mm f/2-2.8 Di III VXD lens. Of all the lenses I can't use on my Canon mirrorless, this is probably the one I am most envious of. I am a huge fan of my 28-70mm f/2L lens, as the extra stop beyond the traditional f/2.8 aperture really makes a significant difference in creative possibilities, so much so that I no longer use any primes between 14mm and 100mm, as I simply do not need them, and the increase in convenience is huge. Tamron's option works very much in that same vein, and it does so with what is arguably an even more versatile focal length range. Check out the video above for Jackson's full thoughts on the lens. 

Alex Cooke's picture

Alex Cooke is a Cleveland-based portrait, events, and landscape photographer. He holds an M.S. in Applied Mathematics and a doctorate in Music Composition. He is also an avid equestrian.

Log in or register to post comments

Two words: OUTDOOR wedding. Yeah, it's fast at the wide end, and f2.8 isn't bad at the long end, but f2.8 at 85mm is two stops less than an 85/1.4, and that pretty much kills it for me. Plus, I regularly use my 35/1.4 wide open at ISO 12,800-25,600. For better-lit event work, this lens certainly looks handy, but for the bat cave conditions in which I often shoot corporate events, it's just not bright enough to replace these two fast primes or my 135/1.8, particularly because I've used a lot of on- and off-camera flash over the years and I'm really enjoying the freedom of not having to do that as much. I'm happy to shoot with three bodies (24mm, 35mm & 85mm), and crop mode gives me 52mm and 130mm as well, so my main range is covered and I don't really need a zoom.

It also seems attractive as a walkabout lens, but for landscape work I'm generally stopping down, which makes something like Tamron's 28-200 a better option because this one is bigger and heavier than I need.

I was psyched when this lens was first announced, but after some cogitation I've concluded that while it's a great lens for somebody, that's not me.

At a kilogram+, you better be in shape!

How so? It's lighter than the typical staple lenses. A 70-200 f2.8 is about 27% heavier. And, if you add another body + a 24-70 f2.8, that's well over 90% heavier total you'd need to lug around.

Yes, you're right.

I plead guilty; I was comparing it to the Olympus M.Zuiko 40-150/2.8, which only weighs 760 grams, with hood and tripod foot. (Mine is more like 600 grams in the bag without the hood and foot.)

But *everyone* has been telling me how Fool Frame lenses have "closed the weight gap" with Micro Four Thirds lenses, so…

EDIT: Don't know if you've done the old "reply and block" trick, but I cannot reply to your comment below.

I don't know what "versatility" has to do with it, but a lens with "equivalent" reach in µ4/3rds (17-75mm) is even smaller and lighter.

"Equivalency" is a two-edged sword. Prepare to be cut, if you use it to cut.

....So, that Olympus 40-150 f2.8 is not as versatile as the Tamron in this case since it's more like 80-300mm fullframe. You'll need to spend another $1000 and gain 382 grams on something like an OM 12-40 f2.8 for a more complete range. If you want to be efficient, you'll need a second body, which means more weight.

--- "Don't know if you've done the old 'reply and block' trick, but I cannot reply to your comment below."

C'mon, man, you've been here long enough to know this site has no such feature.

When you can't reply/comment to a post, it's a site glitch. Started happening a year or two ago. The fix so you can reply, go to the URL and remove starting from the "#comment-??????", then, press the Enter key.

--- "I don't know what 'versatility' has to do with it"

It means you will need two lenses to have the range of fullframe 35-150 f2.8. Yes?

--- "but a lens with 'equivalent' reach in µ4/3rds (17-75mm) is even smaller and lighter."

Do you have a link to this imaginary lens? The only thing I can find are people wishing one exists.

--- "'Equivalency' is a two-edged sword. Prepare to be cut, if you use it to cut."

What? That makes no sense. And, besides, the only things getting cut are your arguments. LOL

If you watch the whole video, even Taylor makes a subtle comment about the burden of holding this thing all day.

I got this lens when I heard about it in April of 22. I am primarily a wedding photographer who shoots about 70 weddings a year and was primes only until purchasing this lens. It does everything so well... it has changed how I shoot and how I edit. I still use my 200 f/2 or my 135 f/1.8 for special things but if I am being honest this lens does more than 80% of my shots. I love it and so do my clients!