Review Tamron 35-150/2.8-4, short review

Jul 8, 2019
SF Bay Area, California, USA
Like my review of the Tamron 70-210, this is an operational review.

I used the 35-150 to shoot a night soccer game.
Camera was a Canon T7i.

First off, the 35-150 is the closest lens for a DX camera to the coverage of the 70-200 on a FX camera.
The nearest other lens is the Nikon 24-120. Wider but less reach.

The lens is a bit plump/fat.
Considering that the 70-210 is an f/4 lens, I was expecting the 35-150 to be somewhat similar in diameter, being f/4 on the long end.
But it is FATTER.

The lens is an extending zoom. As you zoom out, to 150mm, the lens extends. This extending zoom mechanism is why the lens is FATTER.
I personally don't understand some extending zooms. They are shorter, in stowed position, but they are FATTER. There is no free lunch.​
The zoom ring has about a 90 degree throw, which seems to be the standard on many zooms.
This design means that the zoom ring has to push/pull the front optics and barrel out/in. So the effort to turn the zoom ring is nowhere near as easy as the internal zoom 70-210. While it wasn't too bad, I did have to grip the zoom ring with my hand, and use my arm to turn it. That may be an issue on longer multi-hour games.
The zoom ring turns smoothly, though stiff, no cheap sticky/jerky plastic on plastic feel.
My personal beef is that extending zooms should have a longer 120+ degree throw of the zoom ring, to reduce the effort needed to turn the zoom ring. A longer throw would also make is harder for the lens to self-extend (what some call "zoom creep").

The focus ring turns as the camera autofocuses.
So don't put your hand too far forward. This would be more of an issue if you reverse hold the lens, pinky finger forward.

I shot it at the same game as the 70-210/4. First half with the 35-150, second half with the 70-210.
I really appreciated the wider short end. When the players got close, it was too close for the 70-210, but I could still get the shot with the wider 35-150.
IF you shoot as part of a team, then not having the reach of a 70-200 or 70-300 is not an issue, as you have your team mates covering the other parts of the field.
If you shoot lone, then you do loose some reach. But remember you get the close shots that the 70-210 can't do. So the coverage range moves closer.

I think if this lens was available when I got my Nikon 70-200/4, I may not have bought the Nikon lens.

My only wish is that it were a non-extending lens, to get a lighter/easier to turn zoom ring like on the 70-210/4.
Last edited:

Latest threads

Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Nikon Cafe is a fan site and not associated with Nikon Corporation.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji:
Forum GIFs powered by GIPHY:
Copyright © Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom