I use the Z8 & 24-120mm regularly - a superb lens. I would need a huge amount of persuasion to part with c.£1800 to buy the Tamron. I'd love to see a comparison though.
I have the Nikon Z 24-120mm f4 S and the Nikon Z 24-200mm f4-6.3. The obvious attraction of the Tamron 35-150mm f2-2.8 is the low light capability and the wide open bokeh possibilities. I've thought about getting the Nikon Z 24-70mm f2.8 to fill a gap for me when shooting indoors under poor lighting conditions, so I would think about the Tamron, but I'm so in love with my Nikon Z lenses that I'd probably go for the Nikon 24-70mm f2.8 for the wider focal length and it pairs nicely with my Nikon Z 70-200mm f2.8 S. Under most outdoor conditions, I'm very happy with the Nikon Z 24-120mm and the Z 24-200mm and they are quite a bit lighter so they are great for hiking.
For decades I mocked people that complained about the weight of gear, but time comes for us all. My 50 f/1.2 and 135 f/1.8(Sigma) are two exquisite lenses that just don't get used as often as I would like. That said, if I were still shooting events professionally I'd have one of these already!
Please do a comparison between the 24-120 f4 and the new Tamron! Thanks! Furthermore, do you think at 35mm the Tamron does a good job, compared to the Nikon 35mm f 1.8 Prime?
If you compare it to the 24-120 f/4, please compare some flower pictures too. I used to use the 24-200 f/4.5- f/6.3 as my walk around lens, but I've replaced that with the 24-120 so I can get more sharpness, better bocah, and better wildflower pictures on my walks. :) Nice Sunday morning video. Thanks guys.
What lens are you using when showing off the Tamron on the Z6? I was wondering for the wobbling of the video, guessing because of having the stabilization being on. Need to know or was it the Tamron for the whole video. Cheers!
Hello Both, Me once more and my thoughts on this lens. I have not seen it other than on the net. But first it has a very useful range, Not quit as nice as Nikon 24mm-200mm, but it is a f2.8 lens so should be better in low light and may give soft portrait images. I think for some wedding photographers and event photographer, if the image quality is any good? I know in the passed when I have used and owned third party lenses I have been left just disappointed with the image quality with one exception was with some of the Ziess lense but they were not cheep. So my line is to stick with OEM glass as this also supports the OEM make better tools. Keep well, keep save and try not to buffer to much. :)
Definitely considering ... I shoot indoor volleyball from the sidelines and have two Z9s - one with a 35mm 1.8 and one with a 70-200 2.8 S ... I swap the 35mm for a Sigma 135mm 1.8 or a Nikkor 200mm f/2 throughout the match, depending on how/where/what I'm shooting. I've been considering a 3rd Z9 to keep my 200mm f/2 mounted on (I really hate swapping lenses much mid match) ... but the 35-150 may be the cheaper/more versatile option.
I mainly shoot people in mostly well-lit situations. I would definitely like to know how this compares with the 24-120 f/4 in terms of edge to edge sharpness and autofocus. I already have one on my GoW supplied Z9 but might have considered the Tamron had it been available. Should I be experiencing self-satisfied serenity or be stomping around my bedroom? BTW, according to Tamron, the USB is as water resistant as those on "waterproof2 cellphones and it allows things like the lens's focus throw to be altered via an app.
When I had my tamron f mount lenses I had a tap in consul to do my uploads. I can’t understand why tamron didn’t continue with this solution and at the same time make sales on the docking station. I was always very happy with my f mount tamron lenses and have no concern about buying again
Really odd focal lengths. I think I’ll keep to the 24-120 for a light walk around lens and bring out the 24-70 and 70-200 when I need the lower aperture.
I always watch your videos, even though I don't 'need' any more gear. With that said, I thought the photos shared today with this lens were superior to many other lenses I've seen reviewed.
The Z 24-120mm f/4 is similar in size, optically outstanding and has a better range. The only advantage of the Sigma is 2.8 (if you even need it/care) and you lose the wide end, starting out at 35mm vs 24mm. For me, this lens is 100% a huge ‘No’ and waste of money. Unless I’m missing some magic feature it has other than a bit more light coming in, I don’t see the point of it. And yes, you do get more on the long end at 150mm, but losing the 24mm on the wide end is a deal breaker for me. I’d rather shoot my Z8 in crop mode if needed once in a while rather than sacrificing the wide end.
You can/could always shoot a quick, hand-held (or use a tripod) Pano at 35mm to get the equivalent wide-angle focal lengths. Bonus points of this method is you'll get more details, less distortion & larger file. It's amazing how many people overlook this obvious solution/"hack" when complaining "35mm isn't wide enough".
I pair with a 14-30 or 14-24. It makes for an incredible landscape or event combo. I have the 24-120 and I like the weight of it but honestly I find this range much more useful. I always find with the 120 it's just not quite long enough and the 2.8 comes in handy way more than you think. I don't mind the weight, it's still alot lighter than my 70-200 which I never use now.
@@scottweiner396 that’s a good combination if you don’t mind switching lenses as needed. My comment was based on having a general purpose lens for travel where you didn’t need to switch lenses at all. That’s where I like the 24-120. I don’t normally want or need to shoot wider than 24 and can live with a little less reach, so the 24-120 works out really well in my case. What the world needs is a 12-1,000mm f/0.95 lens the size of a 24-120 😀
Unfortunately the 24-120mm G doesn't have a lock. Though I've learned that the S line doesn't have the lens creep problem which I wasn't aware of before asking. This Tamron model would be replacing the 24-120 f4 possibly dependent on giving up the 24mm for the 35mm for wedding groups shots.
Nice video, thanks! Love the mirror shots, especially the “double Becky” moment. Where is this please? PS. Kon, maybe it’s not best for you to make tank references holding Z equipment?
Nice looking lens! Images looked great, great bokeh. I wonder about the open USB port though. Guess you just put a piece of gaffers tape over it. How it compares to the 24-120 f/4S that is the question. Yes you get better low light performance with it. But that will be a good comparison test. But one wouldn’t go wrong with that lens.
I'm torn between the two lenses. I bought the Z9. Price is consideration advantage Nikon but f2-2.8 advantage Tamron over Nikon f4. Weight and size does not bother me as long as they perform.
Can someone confirm if the open port on modern Tamron lenses is fully weather sealed? I’d still opt to get a port cover for it (lens should come with a few)
Is this manufactured in Japan or in China? I know that the initial batch of the E-mount version was from Japan but then production was moved to China. What's the case with the Z-mount version?
I’ve been using the Z6ii for a while now with the 24-70 2.8s. Very good lens but it doesn’t work with sport events, so I always have to rent the 70-200 2.8s. But when I have that lens on, I can’t use it for celebration and close up shots of multiple people. So I cant wait to try this Tamron lens out for a all around sport event next time. Thank you for the review 👍
Why it doesn’t work for sports? Do you mean zoom reasons only? I did shoot a sports event on 24-70 f4 but I was able to be on side line. Performance wise I was satisfied.
@@typefundiabetic7188 I can understand that. I am looking to upgrade my f4 and was wondering if you mean that something with the performance is lacking.
@@qamstel No, nothing in performance is lacking with the 24-70mm. Just not enough reach. I also hear that the f4 lens that you have is a very nice lens if you don’t need the f2.8 👍
The comparison with the 24-120 f4 would be great
I agree! The 24-120 would be better to compare to than the 24-70/4.
I use the Z8 & 24-120mm regularly - a superb lens. I would need a huge amount of persuasion to part with c.£1800 to buy the Tamron. I'd love to see a comparison though.
I have the Nikon Z 24-120mm f4 S and the Nikon Z 24-200mm f4-6.3. The obvious attraction of the Tamron 35-150mm f2-2.8 is the low light capability and the wide open bokeh possibilities. I've thought about getting the Nikon Z 24-70mm f2.8 to fill a gap for me when shooting indoors under poor lighting conditions, so I would think about the Tamron, but I'm so in love with my Nikon Z lenses that I'd probably go for the Nikon 24-70mm f2.8 for the wider focal length and it pairs nicely with my Nikon Z 70-200mm f2.8 S. Under most outdoor conditions, I'm very happy with the Nikon Z 24-120mm and the Z 24-200mm and they are quite a bit lighter so they are great for hiking.
Yes please compare it to the 24-120z.
For decades I mocked people that complained about the weight of gear, but time comes for us all. My 50 f/1.2 and 135 f/1.8(Sigma) are two exquisite lenses that just don't get used as often as I would like. That said, if I were still shooting events professionally I'd have one of these already!
Which ones do you use more?
Please do a comparison between the 24-120 f4 and the new Tamron! Thanks! Furthermore, do you think at 35mm the Tamron does a good job, compared to the Nikon 35mm f 1.8 Prime?
If you compare it to the 24-120 f/4, please compare some flower pictures too. I used to use the 24-200 f/4.5- f/6.3 as my walk around lens, but I've replaced that with the 24-120 so I can get more sharpness, better bocah, and better wildflower pictures on my walks. :) Nice Sunday morning video. Thanks guys.
What lens are you using when showing off the Tamron on the Z6? I was wondering for the wobbling of the video, guessing because of having the stabilization being on. Need to know or was it the Tamron for the whole video. Cheers!
Hello Both, Me once more and my thoughts on this lens. I have not seen it other than on the net. But first it has a very useful range, Not quit as nice as Nikon 24mm-200mm, but it is a f2.8 lens so should be better in low light and may give soft portrait images. I think for some wedding photographers and event photographer, if the image quality is any good? I know in the passed when I have used and owned third party lenses I have been left just disappointed with the image quality with one exception was with some of the Ziess lense but they were not cheep. So my line is to stick with OEM glass as this also supports the OEM make better tools. Keep well, keep save and try not to buffer to much. :)
Would like to see the comparison with the 24-120 F4. I own that and would like to see it side-by-side with this lens.
Definitely considering ... I shoot indoor volleyball from the sidelines and have two Z9s - one with a 35mm 1.8 and one with a 70-200 2.8 S ... I swap the 35mm for a Sigma 135mm 1.8 or a Nikkor 200mm f/2 throughout the match, depending on how/where/what I'm shooting. I've been considering a 3rd Z9 to keep my 200mm f/2 mounted on (I really hate swapping lenses much mid match) ... but the 35-150 may be the cheaper/more versatile option.
I mainly shoot people in mostly well-lit situations. I would definitely like to know how this compares with the 24-120 f/4 in terms of edge to edge sharpness and autofocus. I already have one on my GoW supplied Z9 but might have considered the Tamron had it been available. Should I be experiencing self-satisfied serenity or be stomping around my bedroom? BTW, according to Tamron, the USB is as water resistant as those on "waterproof2 cellphones and it allows things like the lens's focus throw to be altered via an app.
Combined with the Nikon 14-30mm It would be amazing - just waiting for the prosumer z dx now as the 2nd body!
When I had my tamron f mount lenses I had a tap in consul to do my uploads. I can’t understand why tamron didn’t continue with this solution and at the same time make sales on the docking station. I was always very happy with my f mount tamron lenses and have no concern about buying again
I do a lot of event photography and the low-light capabilities with this lens would be great to have.
Would love to see the comparison to 24-120. Such a great lens.
Any update on that comparison with the 24-120 f/4? Trying to decide between these two lenses and you guys are letting me down :(
Really odd focal lengths. I think I’ll keep to the 24-120 for a light walk around lens and bring out the 24-70 and 70-200 when I need the lower aperture.
Adrian Alford has done the comparison between this lens and the Nikon 24-120 f4 Z. However, I'd like to see you comparison, too.
I always watch your videos, even though I don't 'need' any more gear. With that said, I thought the photos shared today with this lens were superior to many other lenses I've seen reviewed.
As a third party lens, does it activate nikon's all 5 axis stabilization or just the 3 axis?
The Z 24-120mm f/4 is similar in size, optically outstanding and has a better range. The only advantage of the Sigma is 2.8 (if you even need it/care) and you lose the wide end, starting out at 35mm vs 24mm. For me, this lens is 100% a huge ‘No’ and waste of money. Unless I’m missing some magic feature it has other than a bit more light coming in, I don’t see the point of it. And yes, you do get more on the long end at 150mm, but losing the 24mm on the wide end is a deal breaker for me. I’d rather shoot my Z8 in crop mode if needed once in a while rather than sacrificing the wide end.
You can/could always shoot a quick, hand-held (or use a tripod) Pano at 35mm to get the equivalent wide-angle focal lengths.
Bonus points of this method is you'll get more details, less distortion & larger file.
It's amazing how many people overlook this obvious solution/"hack" when complaining "35mm isn't wide enough".
I pair with a 14-30 or 14-24. It makes for an incredible landscape or event combo. I have the 24-120 and I like the weight of it but honestly I find this range much more useful. I always find with the 120 it's just not quite long enough and the 2.8 comes in handy way more than you think. I don't mind the weight, it's still alot lighter than my 70-200 which I never use now.
@@scottweiner396 that’s a good combination if you don’t mind switching lenses as needed. My comment was based on having a general purpose lens for travel where you didn’t need to switch lenses at all. That’s where I like the 24-120. I don’t normally want or need to shoot wider than 24 and can live with a little less reach, so the 24-120 works out really well in my case. What the world needs is a 12-1,000mm f/0.95 lens the size of a 24-120 😀
How do you think this would hold up to sports photography, say cheer indoor?
Let’s do the comparison between this one and the s-line f4 24-120
I'd like to know if thislens zooms itself when the lens is facing down when walking around.
There is a "lock" to prevent that from happening. But yes, I guess if you don't utilize the lock, it would "lens creep"...as any lens would.
Unfortunately the 24-120mm G doesn't have a lock. Though I've learned that the S line doesn't have the lens creep problem which I wasn't aware of before asking. This Tamron model would be replacing the 24-120 f4 possibly dependent on giving up the 24mm for the 35mm for wedding groups shots.
Guys you can compare the tamron 35-150mm vs the nikon 24-70mm ...as first lens choice for nikon..thanks
Wow,the photos are really good.
QQQ: Would this lens work with the Zf's shallow grip?
At moment you do get a free grip with the Zf!
Nice video, thanks! Love the mirror shots, especially the “double Becky” moment. Where is this please? PS. Kon, maybe it’s not best for you to make tank references holding Z equipment?
This is at Standen House National Trust :) Thanks!
It’s sucks to see my favourite Z6 back focusing on you guys 😂
Nice looking lens! Images looked great, great bokeh. I wonder about the open USB port though. Guess you just put a piece of gaffers tape over it. How it compares to the 24-120 f/4S that is the question. Yes you get better low light performance with it. But that will be a good comparison test. But one wouldn’t go wrong with that lens.
I'm torn between the two lenses. I bought the Z9. Price is consideration advantage Nikon but f2-2.8 advantage Tamron over Nikon f4. Weight and size does not bother me as long as they perform.
Can someone confirm if the open port on modern Tamron lenses is fully weather sealed? I’d still opt to get a port cover for it (lens should come with a few)
It is fully weather-sealed.
Have you thought about doing a fashion show?
Is this manufactured in Japan or in China? I know that the initial batch of the E-mount version was from Japan but then production was moved to China. What's the case with the Z-mount version?
Japan
China, designed in Japan but manufactured in China
I’ve been using the Z6ii for a while now with the 24-70 2.8s. Very good lens but it doesn’t work with sport events, so I always have to rent the 70-200 2.8s. But when I have that lens on, I can’t use it for celebration and close up shots of multiple people. So I cant wait to try this Tamron lens out for a all around sport event next time. Thank you for the review 👍
Why it doesn’t work for sports? Do you mean zoom reasons only? I did shoot a sports event on 24-70 f4 but I was able to be on side line. Performance wise I was satisfied.
@@qamstelI just can’t zoom far enough with just the 24-70mm to get across to the other side of the field.
@@typefundiabetic7188 I can understand that. I am looking to upgrade my f4 and was wondering if you mean that something with the performance is lacking.
@@qamstel No, nothing in performance is lacking with the 24-70mm. Just not enough reach. I also hear that the f4 lens that you have is a very nice lens if you don’t need the f2.8 👍
Too big ! Too heavy! Too expensive. Almost twice the price of the 24-120 Z lens in the US. And a lot bigger.
Returned this tamron, its a good lens but not Stellar compared to the 85 1.2S and 135 Plena.
Well yes. Those aren't really comparable. You have two lens, less range and almost three times the price.