Tamron 35 100 f2.8
p.1 #1Tamron 35 100 f2.8
There is this welcome news of Tamron announcing their new 35-100 mm F2.8 FE lens. At 590 g weight, it is likely to prove a good travel lens, perhaps more useful relative to 24-70mm for some, depending on the optical quality. Any comments?
Feb 13, 2026 at 04:43 AM
p.1 #3Tamron 35 100 f2.8
j4nu wrote:
I'd prefer 35-100/2.
I'd prefer a 28-135mm f/2.8
I'd prefer 35-100/2.
I'd prefer a 28-135mm f/2.8
Feb 13, 2026 at 06:20 AM
p.1 #4Tamron 35 100 f2.8
Maximilian wrote:
I'd prefer a 28-135mm f/2.8
https://www.sonyalpharumors.com/cool-news-samyang-schneider-also-teasing-a-new-50-200mm-f-2-8-full-frame-e-mount-lens/
j4nu wrote
I'd prefer 35-100/2.https://www.sonyalpharumors.com/cool-news-samyang-schneider-also-teasing-a-new-50-200mm-f-2-8-full-frame-e-mount-lens/
Feb 13, 2026 at 08:14 AM
p.1 #5Tamron 35 100 f2.8
I’m assuming this is more of a travel lens in the size class of the 28-75/2.8 or 25-200. At 100mm, the latter is already f5.6 (though the old 28-200 achieves f4.5 at 100mm). Seems like an interesting alternative paired with a single ultrawide lens. Though for hiking/travel having the 200mm range is very compelling too.
Feb 13, 2026 at 10:31 AM
p.1 #6Tamron 35 100 f2.8
If the optical quality was as good as the 28-75, I would definitely be interested in buying it. It would pair better with the 16-35 GM II to eliminate the overlap at 28-35 and extend the range to 100mm. The 60-75 portion of the 28-75 is its weakest area anyway so this could be a great upgrade for landscape and general work.
Feb 13, 2026 at 10:55 AM
p.1 #7Tamron 35 100 f2.8
Maximilian wrote:
I'd prefer a 28-135mm f/2.8
Yes, I would need wider than 35mm. The 24-50 f2.8 would be a better choice for me.
j4nu wrote
I'd prefer 35-100/2.Yes, I would need wider than 35mm. The 24-50 f2.8 would be a better choice for me.
Feb 13, 2026 at 11:50 AM
p.1 #8Tamron 35 100 f2.8
What I’m looking for is a stellar 24-120/4 like Nikon has had for years. I’m not a fan of f4 zooms, but this is one I would probably buy if it were really good.
Feb 13, 2026 at 07:15 PM
p.1 #9Tamron 35 100 f2.8
Hope you Tamron fans get your wish. I'm certainly having so much fun with my Sigma 28-105/2.8 DG DN Art on the A7V!
Feb 13, 2026 at 07:28 PM
|
p.1 #11Tamron 35 100 f2.8
$899 for E-mount version, announcement on Feb. 19, 560g weight as previously mentioned (per photorumors.com)
Feb 16, 2026 at 11:17 AM
p.1 #12Tamron 35 100 f2.8
It's a bit of an awkward combination of range and aperture, but can certainly be worked with! We have a Canon FD 35-105 here at home that's fun to take out occasionally.
Feb 16, 2026 at 11:26 AM
p.1 #14Tamron 35 100 f2.8
nehemiahphoto wrote:
Too bad no OS.
too bad no 28mm...
Too bad no OS.
too bad no 28mm...
Feb 16, 2026 at 12:29 PM
p.1 #15Tamron 35 100 f2.8
Maximilian wrote:
too bad no 28mm...
That lens already exists from Sigma. I'm guessing Tamron was looking for differentiation in the market and did so with size and portability. This is a very interesting lens in terms of size, weight and cost -- curious to see how it performs.
nehemiahphoto wrote
Too bad no OS.That lens already exists from Sigma. I'm guessing Tamron was looking for differentiation in the market and did so with size and portability. This is a very interesting lens in terms of size, weight and cost -- curious to see how it performs.
Feb 16, 2026 at 12:49 PM
p.1 #16Tamron 35 100 f2.8
mudlake wrote:
What I’m looking for is a stellar 24-120/4 like Nikon has had for years. I’m not a fan of f4 zooms, but this is one I would probably buy if it were really good.
Me too - I shoot a lot of telephoto, so the extra 50mm vs. your standard 24-70mm is worth it for the the loss of a stop. I've been very impressed with the photos over on the Nikon forum. Maybe we'll get a II version of the 24-105 G one day...
What I’m looking for is a stellar 24-120/4 like Nikon has had for years. I’m not a fan of f4 zooms, but this is one I would probably buy if it were really good.
Me too - I shoot a lot of telephoto, so the extra 50mm vs. your standard 24-70mm is worth it for the the loss of a stop. I've been very impressed with the photos over on the Nikon forum. Maybe we'll get a II version of the 24-105 G one day...
Feb 16, 2026 at 12:51 PM
p.1 #17Tamron 35 100 f2.8
j4nu wrote:
I'd prefer 35-100/2.
Wouldn't everyone
Well, maybe not everyone, but I'd love to see what modern lens design could do in terms of size for a lens spec'd like that. I think we're just being greedy now with lens choice, but Sony showed what was possible with 50-150/2 in terms of not putting limits on cost, size or weight, so it would be interesting what a shorter focal range would look like.
I'd prefer 35-100/2.
Wouldn't everyone
Well, maybe not everyone, but I'd love to see what modern lens design could do in terms of size for a lens spec'd like that. I think we're just being greedy now with lens choice, but Sony showed what was possible with 50-150/2 in terms of not putting limits on cost, size or weight, so it would be interesting what a shorter focal range would look like.
Feb 16, 2026 at 12:54 PM
p.1 #18Tamron 35 100 f2.8
Dave Sanders wrote:
too bad no 28mm...That lens already exists from Sigma. I'm guessing Tamron was looking for differentiation in the market and did so with size and portability. This is a very interesting lens in terms of size, weight and cost -- curious to see how it performs.
You mean the 28-105/2.8? Cause that’s appreciably bigger, heavier, spendier and also has no OS…
Maximilian wrote
nehemiahphoto wrote
Too bad no OS.You mean the 28-105/2.8? Cause that’s appreciably bigger, heavier, spendier and also has no OS…
Feb 16, 2026 at 02:04 PM
p.1 #19Tamron 35 100 f2.8
A friend who is an excellent photographer switched from Sony to Nikon just for the 24-120.
Feb 16, 2026 at 02:15 PM
p.1 #20Tamron 35 100 f2.8
nehemiahphoto wrote:
too bad no 28mm...That lens already exists from Sigma. I'm guessing Tamron was looking for differentiation in the market and did so with size and portability. This is a very interesting lens in terms of size, weight and cost -- curious to see how it performs.You mean the 28-105/2.8? Cause that’s appreciably bigger, heavier, spendier and also has no OS…
Yes - that was my point
Tamron likely didn't go wider because they didn't want something appreciably bigger, heavier and spendier. My guess is that they looked at what was currently available in the market and then prioritized size and weight, so it won't be f2, won't go to 24 or 28, won't go to 135, etc.
Dave Sanders wrote
Maximilian wrote
nehemiahphoto wrote
Too bad no OS.Yes - that was my point
Tamron likely didn't go wider because they didn't want something appreciably bigger, heavier and spendier. My guess is that they looked at what was currently available in the market and then prioritized size and weight, so it won't be f2, won't go to 24 or 28, won't go to 135, etc.
Feb 16, 2026 at 02:27 PM