If I didn't have the Sigma 28-105/2.8 DG DN Art I might have been interested in the Tamron. I prefer the range of the Sigma albeit it's heavier and bulkier. But I like doing some shoots on the streets and then do a beach shoot afterwards. The Sigma is perfect for it.
Hmm, on its own this lens doesn't seem that interesting to me, but when I think about a compact combo with 16-30/2.8 (or 20-40), it starts to look better .
It will probably pair well with the 16-30mm f2.8 or 20-40mm f2.8 on the wide end, but what do you pair with it on the long end? BTW, I preety much have the same question with the Sigma 28-105mm f2.8 and Canon 24-105mm f2.8. I think we need something like a 100-300mm f2.8-f4 zoom.
DWOfPaul wrote:
It will probably pair well with the 16-30mm f2.8 or 20-40mm f2.8 on the wide end, but what do you pair with it on the long end? BTW, I preety much have the same question with the Sigma 28-105mm f2.8 and Canon 24-105mm f2.8. I think we need something like a 100-300mm f2.8-f4 zoom.
I would imagine that the Canon 24-105/2.8 is an outstanding lens. However, I got my new Sigma on sale at less than half of the Canon price even though it's a 28-105 but I love it for a 'do all' lens for me.
DWOfPaul wrote:
It will probably pair well with the 16-30mm f2.8 or 20-40mm f2.8 on the wide end, but what do you pair with it on the long end? BTW, I preety much have the same question with the Sigma 28-105mm f2.8 and Canon 24-105mm f2.8. I think we need something like a 100-300mm f2.8-f4 zoom.
livefromphilly wrote:
Would pair nicely with their 20-40 f/2.8.
---------------------------------------------
Choderboy wrote:
About half the weight, half the price.
IMHO, not odd, at all.
---------------------------------------------
tuomkok wrote:
35-150 is not a dedicated telecom, and neither is 35-150. Both are a new kind of convenience zooms that sacrifice some wide end for more tele reach. Sort of a new iteration of std zoom. Tamron is doing here something that other manufacturers have neglected, although I admit that 35-150mm being a much more radical concept of the two.
Regarding 35-100, it is somewhat interesting to me. I might use it for street and outdoor photography (see the Petapixel video). It is small, f/2.8 and optically good enough (probably). However given a choice of Sony making a second better and smaller version of 24-105mm... Or even the current 24-105mm... Or Tamron 28-75mm... ...I am not so sure anymore. I just wish Tamron would ad aperture ring to lenses
ryanli wrote:
No, the 35-150 is not a dedicated telezoom, but my point was that it is so usable at 70-150mm that for all intents and purposes - given my use cases - it can completely replace a dedicated telezoom. APS-C mode on Sony cameras make it easy to digitally zoom to 225mm with decent resolution at the press of a Fn button.
Do you call 24-105mm also a telezoom because it extends into tele range? Even more when cropped.
aCuria wrote:
I think the 24-120 is over-hyped. Its not that close in sharpness to the Nikon 24-70/2.8 according to various tests, especially outside of the center of the frame
"I didn’t expect the Nikon Z 24-120mm f/4 S to beat the best-performing midrange zoom we’ve ever tested… and it doesn’t. The biggest difference is in corner performance, where the Nikon Z 24-70mm f/2.8 S outperforms the 24-120mm f/4 S at every focal length except 70mm (and simply smokes it at 24mm and 35mm)."
What I want out of a f/4 zoom is to be as good or better than the best zooms at f/4 specifically ...Show more →
I am another big fan of the Nikon 24-120mm f4.
I had the Sony first, got it in 2019, then got the Nikon in 2023. The Sony was good and changed how I felt about standard zooms, and then the Nikon is better in basically every way.
Sure, the Nikon 24-70 f2.8s is arguably better in the corners at f4, but the 24-120mm is more than adequate, we are basically getting into the point of diminishing returns. I have not seen anyone complain about the 24-70 f2.8 s being soft at f2.8, and the 24-120mm f4 is usually sharper at f4 than the 14-20f2.8 is at f2.8. Even at 24mm, where the 24-120mm at f4 is the weakest against the 24-70 f2.8 at f2.8 the corners are about 300 softer, but the mid and centers are about 200 sharper in the photography life review. Step the 24-70 f2.8 down to f4, and now the mid and centers are tied. Add that you gain the 70-120mm rnage without changing lenses, and the slight sharpness difference in the corners starts to seem like a small trade off.
Persoanlly if I could dream up a lens, I would like a 20-200mm f4 with the IQ of the 24-120mm f4 across the zoom range. Even if it was 3k and 3-4lbs it would quickly end up in my bag, and probably become my most used lens of all time. It could probably cover 90% of my photography needs.
35-100 is interesting. f/2.8 and it's light.
however, for travel, it probably needs to be paired w/ another wide angle lens.
people have different opinions, but
i'd rather keep 20-70G for my travel,
tamron 35-150 for portrait, and
tamron 50-400 for sports activities.
35-100 has no use in my lens line up...
i think he really made a good point,
35-100 is really a replacement for 28-75, and you may end up still needing to fill the wide and tele, (adding 20-40, 16-30 etc, + 70-180) and will be another trinity line up.
35-150, although it's heavier, will only likely require an additional wide zoom lens, ( will be good w/ 2 lens set up).
it comes down to, whether you want to complete your standard range w/ 2 versus 3 lenses, and whether you are okay with the weight.
i think he really made a good point,
35-100 is really a replacement for 28-75, and you may end up still needing to fill the wide and tele, (adding 20-40, 16-30 etc, + 70-180) and will be another trinity line up.
35-150, although it's heavier, will only likely require an additional wide zoom lens, ( will be good w/ 2 lens set up).
it comes down to, whether you want to complete your standard range w/ 2 versus 3 lenses, and whether you are okay with the weight.
If covering an event I work with the 2 bodies, Tamron 35-150 on one and 16-35GM on the other. This is basically all I need though I will often have 2 smaller fast primes in the bag for more discreet/intimate moments. I often find myself shooting at the 150mm end of the range and f2 at 35mm. IMO as a working lens the 35-150 can't be beat
j4nu wrote:
Hmm, on its own this lens doesn't seem that interesting to me, but when I think about a compact combo with 16-30/2.8 (or 20-40), it starts to look better .
I currently have the Tamron 17-28mm f2.8, 20-40mm f2.8 and 28-200mm f2.8/5 6. If I get the new 35-100mm f2.8, it would be to replace my 28-200mm f2.8/5.6. In my particular case, I would use a two-lens option of my 17-28mm f2.8 and the 35-100mm f2.8.
My problem would be that I wouldn't have coverage between 28mm and 35mm, plus I'd lose 100mm at the long end. In order to cover those missing focal lengths, I would have to bring along my 20-40mm and 28-200mm, thereby making it a 4 lens travel kit. I definitely won't be doing that. I'm leaning toward the 35-150mm f2/2.8 despite the lack of coverage between 28mm and 35mm.
In my case, the perfect lens would be a Tamron 28-200mm f2.8 non-variable aperture if they ever make one.
snegron7 wrote:
I currently have the Tamron 17-28mm f2.8, 20-40mm f2.8 and 28-200mm f2.8/5 6. If I get the new 35-100mm f2.8, it would be to replace my 28-200mm f2.8/5.6. In my particular case, I would use a two-lens option of my 17-28mm f2.8 and the 35-100mm f2.8.
My problem would be that I wouldn't have coverage between 28mm and 35mm, plus I'd lose 100mm at the long end. In order to cover those missing focal lengths, I would have to bring along my 20-40mm and 28-200mm, thereby making it a 4 lens travel kit. I definitely won't be doing that. I'm leaning toward the 35-150mm f2/2.8 despite the lack of coverage between 28mm and 35mm.
In my case, the perfect lens would be a Tamron 28-200mm f2.8 non-variable aperture if they ever make one....Show more →
Well, I think of it a bit differently. For starters, I wouldn't keep both 17-28 and 20-40, because they overlap too much. Secondly, I don't think I could replace any 200mm lens with a 100mm one easily, as when I shoot long I tend to want more & more reach...
Personally, I think I could live with some gap between 28-35 or 30-35, but if you shoot mostly in that range it's a better idea to stick to 20-40 on the wide lens of course .
As I said earlier, I'd prefer 35-100/2, as a lens that could potentially replace my 35-150/2-2.8 I guess, but as a compact-ish fast travel combo 16-30+35-100 looks tempting to me now.
tuomkok wrote:
Do you call 24-105mm also a telezoom because it extends into tele range? Even more when cropped.
I don't really understand the intent of your question, but taking it at face value - the answer is no. This is not a textbook definition, just how I define a "telezoom" based on my own use case and how far tele most/all telezooms on the market go. If I used it exclusively on APS-C, then yes perhaps it could count as a telezoom.
Let me throw the question back at you. Do you call the Sony 50-150 GM a telezoom? Because that's how they have been marketing it, as a faster (albeit shorter) alternative to the 70-200 GM. It is also not difficult to find examples of pro portrait, wedding, and event photographers who have migrated from 70-200 to 50-150 or indeed 35-150. Taylor Jackson to name but one, and there are a few more examples on this thread.
Back to the 35-100 - I agree with the reflection that this is more a competitor for the 28-75 than 35-150.
.
.