It's a little funny because IIRC there is no wide-angle zoom in Z mount that ends at 35mm, only at 30mm, so it wouldn't be seamless [end OCD-induced rant ]
I think too many people are thinking of this as a standard zoom replacement, and I don’t think knots really the intended use. I see this much more as an affordable means to get th most common portrait focal lengths in an f/2.8 zoom without having to carry something enormous or spend huge amounts of money.
It’s be a fantastic lens for portrait or event work and would make your bag a lot lighter than carrying a 24-70 and 70-200, or the 24-105/2.8 or even Tamron own 35-150. The 35-150 is the ultimate lens for this but it’s also a lot more expensive and a lot bigger and heavier.
My first thought about this lens was it was silly, not needed. But then I got to thinking about the cost / size of f/2.8 zooms and realized it may be a very attractive lens after all. Carry the 35-100 f/2.8 plus some 20mm or 24mm prime and have fast glass coverage from UWA to 100mm with two lenses.
The alternative is the 24-120 f/4 but that is f/4. Some of us may prefer reducing the zoom range to gain f/2.8.
I think this could be a neat lens for travel, esp. for trips where you want to keep the weight down as much as possible but still take a mix of landscape and portrait images.
For me hiking in Nepal would be an example for such a trip - just this lens and the Zf or a Z5II would be a nice combination at around 1.3kg.
Of course it competes with the 24-120mm then and I guess many would prefer that lens.
A mirror-less version of the 35-150/2.8-4 VC OSD (84x126 mm; 790 g) would not be as compact and lightweight, but it would be much more versatile when paired with a 14-30 S.
the review photos here are with my Vintage Film recipe, definitely not what I'd showcase the lens with given that clarity is cranked down for effect within it. Just an FYI if you ran into this review.
The only application I could ever see for this lens for my own purposes is studio backdrop stuff when I'm closing down to 5.6 most of the time any way and for that I already have a GF 45-100. And if I needed something in Z mount I'd just get the 24-120.
I find it a bit funny that the main criticism people seem to muster against this lens is that the focal length range is not to their liking. Okay, sure, but in that case perhaps use one of the other many zooms produced by Tamron and others that have other focal ranges?
I’ve never been a zoom shooter, but I think this looks nice as a generally useful lens that covers the focal lengths I tend to like (35 mm is on the wide side for me). I also mainly shoot (photos of) people, so perhaps that informs my opinion. I prefer primes but sometimes I find myself wishing I had something more convenient.
JadedWriter wrote:
The only application I could ever see for this lens for my own purposes is studio backdrop stuff when I'm closing down to 5.6 most of the time any way and for that I already have a GF 45-100. And if I needed something in Z mount I'd just get the 24-120.
I think the main application is for people who don't have much to spend and what they gain are the 3 most useful focal lengths in a single lightweight lens that is decently fast. It's not super deep, but that 2.8 number is "better" than 4 for marketing purposes to these folks.
It's the old, tired "bag o' primes" argument, though who is buying a bag full of f2.8 primes
All that said, I know a few people personally whose photography would benefit hugely from upgrading to a lens like this vs their crappy kit telephoto.
I'm pretty sure this lens is aimed at people that don't have my equipment cabinet. It's also a matter of what do you intend to photograph. I'd probably pair this with my 14-24 for a walk around kit, but it really depends on what I'm trying to do. RoamingScott wrote:
I think the main application is for people who don't have much to spend and what they gain are the 3 most useful focal lengths in a single lightweight lens that is decently fast. It's not super deep, but that 2.8 number is "better" than 4 for marketing purposes to these folks.
It's the old, tired "bag o' primes" argument, though who is buying a bag full of f2.8 primes
All that said, I know a few people personally whose photography would benefit hugely from upgrading to a lens like this vs their crappy kit telephoto.
This lens doesn't seem to be particularly popular among Nikon users. And yet, in the film era we used to be quite happy with the AF 35-70/2.8D, aside from the issue with the internal doublet separation ...
For sure, the 24-120/4 S is a very good zoom, more versatile, but not as fast.
Has anyone bought the 35-100/2.8 and is using it? Any photos?
]
the review photos here are with my Vintage Film recipe, definitely not what I'd showcase the lens with given that clarity is cranked down for effect within it. Just an FYI if you ran into this review.