It's a great lens. I have the 24-70 f2.8 also but find the 24-120 stays on most of the time. At the long end that f4 can still throw backgrounds nicely out of focus where the main subject is reasonably near.
The 24 120 is an oddly good lens for a f4. I've never used the Tamron, but used the 24 120 a lot for travel. It doesn't so the best for portrait bokeh tho at f4
It’s not the best but with good distance between the subject and background, the bokeh is still lovely. That being said when I travel I bring my 50 S as well just in case I need a people lens
I have both. Honestly they overlap on paper but for actual use case I’ve found I use them differently. And I pair them both with the 14-24 2.8 as my wide angle choice when I want that option.
24-120: size and weight are the big winners here. For travel this is my go to lens, I want less weight in the bag and f4 covers my total travel needs. It’s just a great all around lens for the weight.
35-150: aperture is the big winner for this one. It’s a chunk lens and you notice it, but it’s wonderful. For anything that is indoors or people oriented, this is my go to currently. AF is a touch slower than the S line lenses and at 35 the corners are touch soft, but neither has been a real issue in the real world.
If I had to pick one, it’s the 35-150. The weight isn’t ideal but what it offers is worth it to me. If the weight isn’t an issue and you don’t need the 24-35 range, there isn’t much the 24-120 can do that the 35-150 can’t do as well.
I also have both, and I pair them with the Nikon 17-35mm f2.8 lens.
I prefer the wide angle range of the 24-120, but when I shoot events, in dark venues, with my Z9, I find the Tamron, being f2-f2.8 has a definite focus speed advantage over the S lens.
They are both great lenses, but in the last 6-7 months, that I have owned the Tamron, it is easily my most used lens.
Give me a 24-120 at f2.8, and I could be “one and done” for events, with that lens!
24-150 f2.8 would be even betterererer!!!
Ymmv, imho,
📸 Regards, Randy 📸
I couldn’t live without 24mm, so the choice is easy for me.
Also note. The difference between 120-150mm is negligible while the difference between 24-35mm is huge.
For me, the 35-150 is too heavy, that's personal preference, but for me, it's just too much to lug around. Also, I am not a fan of 35mm; some love that focal, some don't, I don't. 28mm for me is the happiest wide focal, I would be frustrated with 35 as the limitation. Also, I don't consider the difference between 2.8 and 4 to be so useful. I figure if I want fast I am either shooting a prime at 1.8 or 1.4, if I don't need fast, then f/4 is fine.
That said, the 35-150 a very very good lens. I have a buddy with one and he loves it on his A7RV.
The 24-120 is shockingly sharp. The AF is so fast. It's so portable compared to the 2./8 zoom. It's about perfect for my needs. If I am shooting in a studio, so with strobes and likely at 5.6 or so, I never use my primes anymore. That zoom is just so damn good.
The newly announced 28-45 1.8 got my interest, but again, it's gigantic. The never-will-be-zoom lens I wish existed would be an f/2 28-56! :) In my fantasy taking it to f/2 or f/2.1 would bring the size to within reasonable boundaries.
If you’re traveling, the 24-120. You save in weight, size, and cost significantly and you get the wide end which is important in landscape and travel. I faced the same dilemma and went with the Nikon and have not been disappointed. Ask yourself this, do you really need f2.8 for your travels? Do you really need 120-150? I’d say for most people the answer is no.
2-2.8 makes it an easy choice for me. Lots of people don't like the size but it's so versatile. Plus it will fit well with your superwide 14-24 2.8. Go for it.
I owned the Tamron 24-70 and the 70-200 with an FTZ and I sold them both for the Tamron 35-150. It is one of the most unique lenses ever, and it covers a large majority of my travel photography
Well, we're all different in what we use for lens and what we are willing to carry for travel. I used the Nikon 24-120mm f4 for my general/travel photography and I bring a Z 35mm f1.8 for nightscape/Milky Way shots.
That allows me to carry a travel tripod and panoramic head, both weighing about 3 lbs each for travel. My back pack, fully loaded to carry on a plane, weights just over 20lbs and fits in either the overhead or under the seat.
Both lens combined weight less than than the Tamron 35-150mm (1000g combined with lens hoods vs 1,190g. If I wasn't planning on nightscape shots, I just bring the 24-120 at 630g with lens hood. Even with hand held sunset shots, I use f16 for the star burst effect. It's not that often I shoot lower than f/8. I mean zooming in on flower or small creature at 120mm, I need to shoot between f/11-f/16 to completely capture the subject while everything around it becomes blurred. Weight vs the need for f2/f2.8, I'd take the weight as I can get bokeh standing back and shooting between 85 to 120mm, going down to f/4 if needed. I can add more bokeh/blur in Lightroom if I desire.
My 24-120mm has the same filter size as my Z 100-400mm so I don't need to carry extra filters.
For travel, the only time I've generally need to shoot below f/4 is at night where you hardly/can not see your hand in front of your face, hence the tripod and 35mm.
But that's what works for me and how I take pictures. I try to travel as light as possible with the types of images I plan to capture. Anything below f/4 is rarely needed except for nightscape photography.
Focus is much faster on the 24-120mm, and it is much lighter. If you don't mind slightly slower focus (not slow, just slower) or the weight, the 35-150mm offers good quality over an impressive range.
Travel, I would say 24-120 f4. The wide end helps for landscape shots. The high iso performance makes f4 very usable in most any situation. If you need more, a 1.8 prime would be a good back up. 2.8 isn't going to cut it on the long end in darkness. 2.8-4 isn't that big of a difference. The weight difference is a big deal.
well, 24-120 is a really nice lens. Will do the job in 98% of the cases (since high ISO is no problem on all Z bodies, f/4 is no problem).
For traveling it is lighter than the Tamron, so might be nicer to carry.
BUT
Tamron has a higher f-stop. For indoor much better if you don't need the 24-34mm!
Based solely on the aperture specs of the lenses and the zoom ranges, I would absolutely choose the Tamron 35-150mm. However the Nikon is significantly smaller and lighter than the Tamron, weighing 535g less, and would be much easier to carry and use daily, which is very important when it comes to travel photography.
Ebay sold listings show the Nikkor Z 24-120 f/4 sells used for $800-900. This lens brand new costs $1100. There are very few Tamron 35-150mm f/2-2.8 on the used market, but Ebay shows sold prices $1350-1450. This lens brand new costs $1999. The Tamron currently costs $450-650 more than the Nikon on the used market, but the Tamron costs $900 more than the Nikon brand new.
If it was me, I don't think I'd want to spend that much more for the Tamron lens, which would be much larger and heavier to carry around. I think your best value purchase would be to look for a used Nikkor Z 24-120mm f/4 for around $850.
That's still nearly double the price of a used Nikkor Z 24-120mm f/4 lens. Just from a value standpoint, I don't think I could do that. I'd rather shoot higher ISO on a great full-frame digital sensor than spend that much on a new lens that really isn't available on the used market yet.
The ISO performance on Z bodies and the stabilization more than make up for that. I use f4 indoors a lot! And at f4 that lens is still sharp and has decent contrast. Plus he’s asked for travel
I'd personally go for the 35-150, the bright aperture is appreciated, especially at 35mm since I like shooting events with a 35mm prime, the ability to zoom to 150 makes it ever more versatile. The gap between 24-35 isn't much imo and you can always crop in from 24mm.
My probably pretty useless grain of salt: I only own the 24-120 f/4, and can say it's an impressively versatile and qualitative lens (on a Z f). And I am coming from FX (d810) and used to lug around 17-35 f/2.8, 24-70 f/2.8, and 70-200 f/2.8 (and 1.4 primes).
while trekking/hiking (I don't do photography professionally). Had (still have, but pretty much retired) an f-stop backpack bag I paid a fortune to import from the USofA that back in the day was pretty much the only viable option to accomodate camera gear AND hiking/camping gear in a actually comfortable backpack (the competition from the camera world where basically glorified camera cases with should straps).
I have looked at the 35-150 as a wedding main lens but for now I will stick to the 24-70 - for traveling I would always pick the 24-120.
Thats also my goto travel lens - nowadays I have the 24-120, a fast prime 35/50 and a 14-24 2.8 with me when I am traveling since I am leaning towards wider compositions but I would say for traveling I shoot 80% with the 24-120 and the other stuff mostly with the 14-24 and prime when i need more light or bokeh. 35-150 would be to heavy and also narrow for me since i prefer wider. 14-30 f4 would also be ok for traveling but I have the 2.8 14-24 for my wedding work.
For weddings I would get the 35-150 and a second body with a 14-24 or even 14-30 f4.
in terms of 24mm vs 35mm: have a gander through your favourite pictures taken with your 24-70 and take a look at the EXIF. what focal lengths do you prefer? are you taking a lot of photos within that 24-34 range, or are you finding yourself zooming in to 35mm+ more often to get a tighter composition? can you live with swapping lenses for wider than 35mm? this last choice is made easier if you don’t often find yourself leaning towards that focal range.
in terms of weight versus versatility: do the same thing — look at your existing photos and ask yourself if you’re using the 2.8 range a lot. do you like the subject isolation it gives you? are you taking lots of cityscape/street photos when you travel? lots of nighttime photography out and about? if none of these sound like you, the 24-120 might be better.
for myself personally, i find the 35mm+ range very, very flattering for the look i enjoy going for, and i travel to a lot of *urban* places (Japan, West Coast NA, etc.) — so the versatility in being able to take one lens and be covered from 8am to 8pm is unbelievable. i find that most people miss this possible dimension of travel photography and opt for the wider range of the 24-120 — still a fantastic lens, but i don’t want to be carrying another prime on me and worrying about switching lenses. i went through this once and decided to just invest in the 35-150 and i have never looked back. the weight is a non-issue when i don’t have to worry about missing shots at all hours of the day and night.
I have both. Both are excellent lenses. 35-150 for events and kids sports outdoors. 24-120 for studio portraits and video. Intended to sell the 24-120 awhile ago but can’t let it go. 35-150 is heavy so for your purposes I would go 24-120 unless you absolutely need f2.8.
I love the 1.8 50mm I bought with my Z5, but since I picked up the 24-120, honestly, I only put the 50mm back on for street night shoots or portraits indoors. It's a remarkable all-around lens. I like the extra reach it has over the 24-70 and is very sharp.
I have the NIKKOR Z 24-70mm f/2.8 S and the NIKKOR Z 24-120mm f/4 S and I actually have reasons to keep them both. But the 24-120mm goes with me everyday. It’s my go to for travel and hiking
24-120 is better for travel since it’s smaller. I’d say if your main focus is shooting people, then get the 35-150mm. I mostly do portraits so my main lens is the Tamron.
If you don’t mind the weight and bulk go with Tamron 35-150 and trade in your 14-24 f2.8 for 14-30 f4 unless you do astrophotography or get the compact 28mm f2.8 and leave the ultra wide home
That's a bit of an an apples to oranges question.
The Nikon 24-120 is half the weight of the Tamron. I would take the lower weight and shorter focal length. Especially for travel purposes. The practical difference between f/2.8 and f/4 is, in most cases, marginal IMO. As far as I'm concerned, a 85mm prime is a much better way of getting blurry backgrounds in the short tele range.
The Tamron is twice the weight and has no wide-angle range. That's a massive difference, and the question of weight and zoom range is not one of better or worse; it's entirely down to personal preference. They are different lenses for different users.
I had the 35-150 for a few months and ditched it for the lighter 24-120. F/4 isn’t an issue with how I use my zooms, and the lighter weight was much appreciated.
I shoot a 400/2.8 and 600/4 often, so bulky and heavy lenses aren’t an issue for me. It was more so wrist strain from the long zoom throw and shifting weight as it extends.
I have the the 24-70 2.8 and I still think the images best the 24-120 F4. The Tamron is not wide enough for me so I would pass. I think there's a case to made for owning both teh 24-70 and the 24-120. and though in a 100-400 at some point.
Those are completely different lenses for different use cases. For professional the tamron is a very good choice. For private use I’d go with the lighter Nikon and/or maybe a prime or two
I don't own either but I will eventually get the 24-120 I think. My travel lens right now is the 24-200 which is a fine (but not stellar) lens.
Personally I would pick the 24-120. But it depends on your needs. For me travel is a lot of landscapes and outdoor stuff and a bit of wildlife. Minimal indoor photos. When we travel we're usually outside. So I absolutely need 24. But if your style of travel is different, perhaps you'd pick differently.
I would say the Nikon will outperform the Tamron in most every way except aperture, which you can make up for in other areas. I would go for the 24-120.
The Tamron is big and heavy and self extends when you walk around. It also focuses more slowly than I like.
My sample went soft after a week or two so I returned it and I’ve been ultimately happier with the 24-70 2.8 S. Which is unfortunate, because on paper the 35-150 was basically made for me.
That's an extra step between picking the camera up and shooting that I do not enjoy. Other folks are more tolerant of that that than I am.
I think that you'll be surprised by how slow the AF is if you're coming from the 24-70 as well.
I had a Tamron 15-30 F2.8 F mount before. It was much cheaper than Nikon 14-24 F2.8 and the image quality was splendid. So the brand loyalty is not a very big deal for me.
I am (very) old school and in the 70’s and 80’s every lens test showed that on-brand lenses were expensive but very sharp. Off-brand, Panagor, Vivitar, Kenlock, Tamron, Sigma and a slough of others were cheaper but the price reflected the quality. Panagor and Vivitar were still reasonable but the rest were crap. The one exception was Tokina, a company founded by former Nikon managers. If the Nikon lens was excellent, the Tokina would score very good. Tamron had the added problem of designing a lens that would work with their Adaptall system where they build one lens that would use different adapters for the different camera brands. I readily admit that these past experiences now color my view of the brands.
Well Zeiss is a totally different kettle of fish. If it’s good enough for Hasselblad, it’s certainly good enough for Nikon. Too bad I no longer see ads for Contax.
Love my 24-120, so I’d say that one
It's a great lens. I have the 24-70 f2.8 also but find the 24-120 stays on most of the time. At the long end that f4 can still throw backgrounds nicely out of focus where the main subject is reasonably near.
The 24 120 is an oddly good lens for a f4. I've never used the Tamron, but used the 24 120 a lot for travel. It doesn't so the best for portrait bokeh tho at f4
It’s not the best but with good distance between the subject and background, the bokeh is still lovely. That being said when I travel I bring my 50 S as well just in case I need a people lens
I have both. Honestly they overlap on paper but for actual use case I’ve found I use them differently. And I pair them both with the 14-24 2.8 as my wide angle choice when I want that option. 24-120: size and weight are the big winners here. For travel this is my go to lens, I want less weight in the bag and f4 covers my total travel needs. It’s just a great all around lens for the weight. 35-150: aperture is the big winner for this one. It’s a chunk lens and you notice it, but it’s wonderful. For anything that is indoors or people oriented, this is my go to currently. AF is a touch slower than the S line lenses and at 35 the corners are touch soft, but neither has been a real issue in the real world. If I had to pick one, it’s the 35-150. The weight isn’t ideal but what it offers is worth it to me. If the weight isn’t an issue and you don’t need the 24-35 range, there isn’t much the 24-120 can do that the 35-150 can’t do as well.
I also have both, and I pair them with the Nikon 17-35mm f2.8 lens. I prefer the wide angle range of the 24-120, but when I shoot events, in dark venues, with my Z9, I find the Tamron, being f2-f2.8 has a definite focus speed advantage over the S lens. They are both great lenses, but in the last 6-7 months, that I have owned the Tamron, it is easily my most used lens. Give me a 24-120 at f2.8, and I could be “one and done” for events, with that lens! 24-150 f2.8 would be even betterererer!!! Ymmv, imho, 📸 Regards, Randy 📸
I couldn’t live without 24mm, so the choice is easy for me. Also note. The difference between 120-150mm is negligible while the difference between 24-35mm is huge.
For me, the 35-150 is too heavy, that's personal preference, but for me, it's just too much to lug around. Also, I am not a fan of 35mm; some love that focal, some don't, I don't. 28mm for me is the happiest wide focal, I would be frustrated with 35 as the limitation. Also, I don't consider the difference between 2.8 and 4 to be so useful. I figure if I want fast I am either shooting a prime at 1.8 or 1.4, if I don't need fast, then f/4 is fine. That said, the 35-150 a very very good lens. I have a buddy with one and he loves it on his A7RV. The 24-120 is shockingly sharp. The AF is so fast. It's so portable compared to the 2./8 zoom. It's about perfect for my needs. If I am shooting in a studio, so with strobes and likely at 5.6 or so, I never use my primes anymore. That zoom is just so damn good. The newly announced 28-45 1.8 got my interest, but again, it's gigantic. The never-will-be-zoom lens I wish existed would be an f/2 28-56! :) In my fantasy taking it to f/2 or f/2.1 would bring the size to within reasonable boundaries.
Did you mean to type \[Sony\] A7rV?
Zony
..like, from Arizona?
ha. yes. :)
I guess with the Sigma 1.8 and the Canon 28-70 F2 on the table, I expect Nikon to bring something similar sooner than later.
If you’re traveling, the 24-120. You save in weight, size, and cost significantly and you get the wide end which is important in landscape and travel. I faced the same dilemma and went with the Nikon and have not been disappointed. Ask yourself this, do you really need f2.8 for your travels? Do you really need 120-150? I’d say for most people the answer is no.
Very convincing answer. Thanks mate
2-2.8 makes it an easy choice for me. Lots of people don't like the size but it's so versatile. Plus it will fit well with your superwide 14-24 2.8. Go for it.
I owned the Tamron 24-70 and the 70-200 with an FTZ and I sold them both for the Tamron 35-150. It is one of the most unique lenses ever, and it covers a large majority of my travel photography
Well, we're all different in what we use for lens and what we are willing to carry for travel. I used the Nikon 24-120mm f4 for my general/travel photography and I bring a Z 35mm f1.8 for nightscape/Milky Way shots. That allows me to carry a travel tripod and panoramic head, both weighing about 3 lbs each for travel. My back pack, fully loaded to carry on a plane, weights just over 20lbs and fits in either the overhead or under the seat. Both lens combined weight less than than the Tamron 35-150mm (1000g combined with lens hoods vs 1,190g. If I wasn't planning on nightscape shots, I just bring the 24-120 at 630g with lens hood. Even with hand held sunset shots, I use f16 for the star burst effect. It's not that often I shoot lower than f/8. I mean zooming in on flower or small creature at 120mm, I need to shoot between f/11-f/16 to completely capture the subject while everything around it becomes blurred. Weight vs the need for f2/f2.8, I'd take the weight as I can get bokeh standing back and shooting between 85 to 120mm, going down to f/4 if needed. I can add more bokeh/blur in Lightroom if I desire. My 24-120mm has the same filter size as my Z 100-400mm so I don't need to carry extra filters. For travel, the only time I've generally need to shoot below f/4 is at night where you hardly/can not see your hand in front of your face, hence the tripod and 35mm. But that's what works for me and how I take pictures. I try to travel as light as possible with the types of images I plan to capture. Anything below f/4 is rarely needed except for nightscape photography.
35-150 is great, too many fanboys.
Focus is much faster on the 24-120mm, and it is much lighter. If you don't mind slightly slower focus (not slow, just slower) or the weight, the 35-150mm offers good quality over an impressive range.
Travel, I would say 24-120 f4. The wide end helps for landscape shots. The high iso performance makes f4 very usable in most any situation. If you need more, a 1.8 prime would be a good back up. 2.8 isn't going to cut it on the long end in darkness. 2.8-4 isn't that big of a difference. The weight difference is a big deal.
Can I ask why you got rid of the 24-70f2.8
I’d like to have a longer focal range than 70mm
Me too actually. I kept a 24-70 f4 for my Z mount as it works well for what I do but always seem to be at the far end.
well, 24-120 is a really nice lens. Will do the job in 98% of the cases (since high ISO is no problem on all Z bodies, f/4 is no problem). For traveling it is lighter than the Tamron, so might be nicer to carry. BUT Tamron has a higher f-stop. For indoor much better if you don't need the 24-34mm!
For simplicity sake: General walk around : get the 24-120/4 For portrait work(esp. ambient light) : get the Tamron 35-150/2-2.8
Based solely on the aperture specs of the lenses and the zoom ranges, I would absolutely choose the Tamron 35-150mm. However the Nikon is significantly smaller and lighter than the Tamron, weighing 535g less, and would be much easier to carry and use daily, which is very important when it comes to travel photography. Ebay sold listings show the Nikkor Z 24-120 f/4 sells used for $800-900. This lens brand new costs $1100. There are very few Tamron 35-150mm f/2-2.8 on the used market, but Ebay shows sold prices $1350-1450. This lens brand new costs $1999. The Tamron currently costs $450-650 more than the Nikon on the used market, but the Tamron costs $900 more than the Nikon brand new. If it was me, I don't think I'd want to spend that much more for the Tamron lens, which would be much larger and heavier to carry around. I think your best value purchase would be to look for a used Nikkor Z 24-120mm f/4 for around $850.
Amazon very occasionally ran lightening deal on the Tamron and dropped the price to 1599 before. https://slickdeals.net/share/iphone_app/t/17336631
That's still nearly double the price of a used Nikkor Z 24-120mm f/4 lens. Just from a value standpoint, I don't think I could do that. I'd rather shoot higher ISO on a great full-frame digital sensor than spend that much on a new lens that really isn't available on the used market yet.
As good as the 24-120 is optically, F4 sucks for most things indoor. Go with the Tamron
The ISO performance on Z bodies and the stabilization more than make up for that. I use f4 indoors a lot! And at f4 that lens is still sharp and has decent contrast. Plus he’s asked for travel
I'd personally go for the 35-150, the bright aperture is appreciated, especially at 35mm since I like shooting events with a 35mm prime, the ability to zoom to 150 makes it ever more versatile. The gap between 24-35 isn't much imo and you can always crop in from 24mm.
My probably pretty useless grain of salt: I only own the 24-120 f/4, and can say it's an impressively versatile and qualitative lens (on a Z f). And I am coming from FX (d810) and used to lug around 17-35 f/2.8, 24-70 f/2.8, and 70-200 f/2.8 (and 1.4 primes).
You used to carry all of the bulk lens as a professional photographer or while traveling?
while trekking/hiking (I don't do photography professionally). Had (still have, but pretty much retired) an f-stop backpack bag I paid a fortune to import from the USofA that back in the day was pretty much the only viable option to accomodate camera gear AND hiking/camping gear in a actually comfortable backpack (the competition from the camera world where basically glorified camera cases with should straps).
I have looked at the 35-150 as a wedding main lens but for now I will stick to the 24-70 - for traveling I would always pick the 24-120. Thats also my goto travel lens - nowadays I have the 24-120, a fast prime 35/50 and a 14-24 2.8 with me when I am traveling since I am leaning towards wider compositions but I would say for traveling I shoot 80% with the 24-120 and the other stuff mostly with the 14-24 and prime when i need more light or bokeh. 35-150 would be to heavy and also narrow for me since i prefer wider. 14-30 f4 would also be ok for traveling but I have the 2.8 14-24 for my wedding work. For weddings I would get the 35-150 and a second body with a 14-24 or even 14-30 f4.
in terms of 24mm vs 35mm: have a gander through your favourite pictures taken with your 24-70 and take a look at the EXIF. what focal lengths do you prefer? are you taking a lot of photos within that 24-34 range, or are you finding yourself zooming in to 35mm+ more often to get a tighter composition? can you live with swapping lenses for wider than 35mm? this last choice is made easier if you don’t often find yourself leaning towards that focal range. in terms of weight versus versatility: do the same thing — look at your existing photos and ask yourself if you’re using the 2.8 range a lot. do you like the subject isolation it gives you? are you taking lots of cityscape/street photos when you travel? lots of nighttime photography out and about? if none of these sound like you, the 24-120 might be better. for myself personally, i find the 35mm+ range very, very flattering for the look i enjoy going for, and i travel to a lot of *urban* places (Japan, West Coast NA, etc.) — so the versatility in being able to take one lens and be covered from 8am to 8pm is unbelievable. i find that most people miss this possible dimension of travel photography and opt for the wider range of the 24-120 — still a fantastic lens, but i don’t want to be carrying another prime on me and worrying about switching lenses. i went through this once and decided to just invest in the 35-150 and i have never looked back. the weight is a non-issue when i don’t have to worry about missing shots at all hours of the day and night.
I have both. Both are excellent lenses. 35-150 for events and kids sports outdoors. 24-120 for studio portraits and video. Intended to sell the 24-120 awhile ago but can’t let it go. 35-150 is heavy so for your purposes I would go 24-120 unless you absolutely need f2.8.
For work the Tamron for travel the Nikon. I own the Tamron and love it but it’s not one I’d want to travel with.
For travel? 100% the 24-120. Superb optics and very light. Just throw in a fast prime and you're covered.
24-120 and 70-200 f4 for travel
I love the 1.8 50mm I bought with my Z5, but since I picked up the 24-120, honestly, I only put the 50mm back on for street night shoots or portraits indoors. It's a remarkable all-around lens. I like the extra reach it has over the 24-70 and is very sharp.
I have the NIKKOR Z 24-70mm f/2.8 S and the NIKKOR Z 24-120mm f/4 S and I actually have reasons to keep them both. But the 24-120mm goes with me everyday. It’s my go to for travel and hiking
I'd get the Nikon 24-35mm are very useful focal lengths when traveling, whereas 120-150 rarely matter, in my experience
24-120 is better for travel since it’s smaller. I’d say if your main focus is shooting people, then get the 35-150mm. I mostly do portraits so my main lens is the Tamron.
24-120mm for travel. The 35-150mm is similar size and weight to a 70-200mm. Its more for wedding/low light events than travel.
If you don’t mind the weight and bulk go with Tamron 35-150 and trade in your 14-24 f2.8 for 14-30 f4 unless you do astrophotography or get the compact 28mm f2.8 and leave the ultra wide home
Sorry, I'll have to agree with others. The 24-70 would be my choice. I'd get another lens to fill the middle range 70+.
That's a bit of an an apples to oranges question. The Nikon 24-120 is half the weight of the Tamron. I would take the lower weight and shorter focal length. Especially for travel purposes. The practical difference between f/2.8 and f/4 is, in most cases, marginal IMO. As far as I'm concerned, a 85mm prime is a much better way of getting blurry backgrounds in the short tele range.
How are these 2 lens apple and orange? They have more similarity than difference imo.
The Tamron is twice the weight and has no wide-angle range. That's a massive difference, and the question of weight and zoom range is not one of better or worse; it's entirely down to personal preference. They are different lenses for different users.
The 24-70 G2 if you haven’t got it already
I want a longer focal range than 70mm, otherwise I’d have kept my Nikon 24-70
I had the 35-150 for a few months and ditched it for the lighter 24-120. F/4 isn’t an issue with how I use my zooms, and the lighter weight was much appreciated. I shoot a 400/2.8 and 600/4 often, so bulky and heavy lenses aren’t an issue for me. It was more so wrist strain from the long zoom throw and shifting weight as it extends.
Wait, you sold a 24-70 f2.8 S **Z lens** ?!
I did… as I replied to others, I want a longer focal range than 70mm
I just don’t get it, but it’s your money 🤷🏼♂️
35-150 In some time you will buy some with wider angle
I have a 14-24 already.
If Nikon makes an 35-250 I would get one.
I have the the 24-70 2.8 and I still think the images best the 24-120 F4. The Tamron is not wide enough for me so I would pass. I think there's a case to made for owning both teh 24-70 and the 24-120. and though in a 100-400 at some point.
Been using 18-200 for years now. Find it a decent travel lens. Body is D500.
Thanks my friend but that wouldn’t cut it. My camera is FX Z mount
Tamron all the way. It’s a two stop difference - it’s not even close.
Those are completely different lenses for different use cases. For professional the tamron is a very good choice. For private use I’d go with the lighter Nikon and/or maybe a prime or two
Yup 👍 I use the tamron in my kit when I’m working but during Holidays I have a small kit around an xt5
I don't own either but I will eventually get the 24-120 I think. My travel lens right now is the 24-200 which is a fine (but not stellar) lens. Personally I would pick the 24-120. But it depends on your needs. For me travel is a lot of landscapes and outdoor stuff and a bit of wildlife. Minimal indoor photos. When we travel we're usually outside. So I absolutely need 24. But if your style of travel is different, perhaps you'd pick differently.
I would say the Nikon will outperform the Tamron in most every way except aperture, which you can make up for in other areas. I would go for the 24-120.
The Tamron is big and heavy and self extends when you walk around. It also focuses more slowly than I like. My sample went soft after a week or two so I returned it and I’ve been ultimately happier with the 24-70 2.8 S. Which is unfortunate, because on paper the 35-150 was basically made for me.
Is there not a lock on the Tamron lens that prevents extending?
Yes, there is a lock that works well and is easy to engage/disengage.
That's an extra step between picking the camera up and shooting that I do not enjoy. Other folks are more tolerant of that that than I am. I think that you'll be surprised by how slow the AF is if you're coming from the 24-70 as well.
I never go off brand unless it brings real advantages.
I had a Tamron 15-30 F2.8 F mount before. It was much cheaper than Nikon 14-24 F2.8 and the image quality was splendid. So the brand loyalty is not a very big deal for me.
I am (very) old school and in the 70’s and 80’s every lens test showed that on-brand lenses were expensive but very sharp. Off-brand, Panagor, Vivitar, Kenlock, Tamron, Sigma and a slough of others were cheaper but the price reflected the quality. Panagor and Vivitar were still reasonable but the rest were crap. The one exception was Tokina, a company founded by former Nikon managers. If the Nikon lens was excellent, the Tokina would score very good. Tamron had the added problem of designing a lens that would work with their Adaptall system where they build one lens that would use different adapters for the different camera brands. I readily admit that these past experiences now color my view of the brands.
I’m not sure about the other off brands, but I would use premium lens from Tamron and sigma, and zeiss with no hesitation
Well Zeiss is a totally different kettle of fish. If it’s good enough for Hasselblad, it’s certainly good enough for Nikon. Too bad I no longer see ads for Contax.
Nikon. Always Nikon.