There was a time when you could by a 35-70, 35-105 and even a 35-135. The wide end was expanded to 28-70 and 28-105, and then again to 24-70 and 24-105 and in Nikon’s case 24-120 (and 24-200). If reverting to 35 at the wide end provides a degree of design freedom in a range perhaps more challenging than the long end it makes sense, but I personally can’t think of a use case for this fast, heavy, very large and expensive zoom that restricts me to 35 at the wide end. Perhaps as a fast-ish portrait oriented zoom? Seems like a bulky and expensive solution in search of a problem.
Steven Sparks
February 20, 2024 11:48 am
For use on my Z50 with no IBIS, this lens is not desirable: No VR, heavy, either not wide enough or not long enough. I’ll continue to be happy with my Z 24-200. And of course corner sharpness of a FF lens means nothing on a APS-C camera. For my FF Z cameras I might want this lens if I did event work, but I don’t. Other Nikon Z lenses suit me fine. Thanks for the great review.
TPJ Verhoeven Photography
February 18, 2024 5:58 pm
I actually sent this lens back after a week. It’s a phenomenal focal length and aperture range, that is certainly true. But I couldn’t help but notice the slightly difference in slower focussing speed and more importantly: focus acquisition. As a full time Nikon pro, the Nikon Z lenses are superior in that. Even the 24-120mm f/4. But I’ll stick with the 24-70/2.8S
If you need the fastest autofocus at any of these focal lengths as a Nikon photographer, the Nikon Z 24-70mm f/2.8 and Nikon Z 70-200mm f/2.8 are the way to go.
Yes. As it was even more so the reliability and accuracy of the AF.
Your review is apt tho. Like the article and I basically agree with all that’s being said. Good work. It’ll be helpful for a lot of people out there.
User
February 18, 2024 6:01 am
There is also the Samyang 35-150mm F/2-2.8 FE for only $1199 – only for the Sony, but at much lower price point. Some suggest it is an even better option!
Thanks for the reminder, I just added some mentions of it to the review!
PRG Lagarde
February 16, 2024 2:00 am
Interesting lens and excellent review as always. It could interest me especially because they manage to make 35mm nearly free of distortion. Given homogeneity also looks quite correct at “landscape” apertures, it means panoramic works in post would be easy to handle for softwares with less risk of artefacts, and that could make this lens more versatile for my usage. As some, I’m using the 24-35mm range quite much for landscapes, but having a distortion free 35mm can allow me to get wider with panoramic easily. Though, my concerns may be more about size and weight, and maybe I’d be more tempted by that kind of lens but with a fixed F/4 maximum aperture (it could also probably be cheaper , BTW ;) ).
Indeed. Though having a lens with little to no distortion at “parking” position may be more practical in the field. Anyway, I don’t see how this 35-150 can really compete with the Z 24-120 in most use cases where having a wider aperture than F/4 is not needed. It’s much heavier and more expensive for quite specific benefits. Even if, on paper, it could be a good lens for weddings as you could nearly do everything with it, still, the bokeh issues you pointed are making this questionnable to my sense.
Thomas Herren
February 16, 2024 1:42 am
For outdoor people photography with varying focal lengths this lens could be very interesting. However, with an extended barrel it simply looks unprofessional (“amateurish”). That’s just my personal opinion, of course.
“However, with an extended barrel it simply looks unprofessional (“amateurish”)” In my opinion, you have a case of low self-esteem and confidence if you are worried about how a lens looks to other people. It’s a tool. Would you feel the same about a hammer ?
It’s no matter of self-esteem, believe me. I simply don’t like how a lens looks like when the barrel is extended. that’s why I almost exclusively use primes. And working with “tools” which I don’t like aesthetically could have a negative impact on the results. The comparison with a hammer doesn’t entirely match, in my view. A hammer needs to be well balanced and ergonomically well shaped for usage, as it’s also “required” for the combination of camera body and lens. My Z5 and 85/50mm primes suit me well in this regard.
“Even my Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8G lens, which only has a moving front element (within a nonmoving lens hood), has locked up before in winter conditions because a ring of ice formed around it, preventing me from zooming out. All else equal, I prefer lenses with an internal zoom.”
I also prefer lenses that do not zoom externally, but for midrange zooms, even the professional ones (e.g. 24-70/2.8 S) do that. So, unless you only shoot primes, you will be stuck with a telescoping lens to cover the middle focal lengths.
Kshitij
February 15, 2024 4:43 pm
Another excellent review, Spencer. Thank you!
I am thinking of getting this lens for my upcoming India trip. I already have a 24-120 S and Z 85 1.2S, and thinking of replacing 24-120 with the tamy. I am just a bit nervous about missing out on the 24-35 focal length.
No bad options there! My impression is that you could go either way, but unless you’re also bringing a wider lens, I lean toward keeping the 24-120mm f/4 S and the 85mm f/1.2 S. I think the opportunities for using 24mm will be enough to outweigh the wider aperture and slightly longer focal length of the 35-150mm f/2-2.8. And the 85mm easily covers any portrait opportunities that arise.
If you’re concerned about your maximum aperture on the wide/medium end, you may consider adding the Nikon Z 40mm f/2 to your bag for very little price or weight penalty.
Really valuable information Spencer, thank you. Having used this lens would you prefer it over buying two lenses (almost comparable price) the 28-75 f/2.8 + 70-180? A bit sharper at either end, both relatively compact, etc.
Sure thing! That’s a tough one. Optically, the two-lens combo will be somewhat stronger on the long end and somewhat weaker on the wide end compared to the 35-150mm. The addition of 28mm and 180mm could be nice, but not essential depending upon what other lenses you have. The 70-180mm has the best close-focusing capabilities of any of these lenses.
All that said, the convenience of the 35-150mm f/2-2.8 is the real winner – it would be my personal choice, even though it’s a close call.
Bob Vishneski
February 15, 2024 2:00 pm
The most interesting part of the article was noticing the Nikon 135mm “Plena” f/1.8 performance and comparing it to that of the Samyang 135mm f/1.8 on the ephotozine website (for Sony users). Despite the hype over the Nikon Plena, the Samyang stacks up quite well against it and can be had for just $700 on sale.
I want to be clear that our charts are not comparable to the charts on ephotozine or any other website. I know for a fact that they don’t use precisely the same test chart and methodology that we do.
This isn’t to say the Samyang is a bad lens – I haven’t tested it. However, I will note that the highest measured value on ephotozine for the Samyang lens is approximately 3900 center, 3600 edges. Meanwhile, ephotozine’s highest measured value for the Nikon Z 85mm f/1.8 S is approximately 4900 center, 4900 edges. (Why the center and edges measure the same is between them and their methodology!)
Since I measure the Plena as being even sharper than the Nikon Z 85mm f/1.8 S, my tentative conclusion based on ephotozine’s tests is that the Samyang 135mm f/1.8 is less sharp than the Nikon Z 135mm f/1.8 Plena.
Spencer, Yes, I understood the charts weren’t directly comparable, but at such high resolutions, the differences are marginal and difficult to spot unless you are engaged in some extreme pixel-peeping. The price difference? Very noticeable. BTW, I didn’t mean to dismiss the contents of your article. As always – a very thorough job. It was just the Plena metrics that grabbed my attention, since I once owned the Tamron 35-150mm f/2.8-4.0 for Nikon, and understood the quality of this lens as well as its f/2.0-2.8 successor for the Sony mount.
No worries, Bob, I didn’t take it that you were trying to dismiss the review at all. I just don’t want anyone to get the wrong idea that our numbers can be compared to those of other sites.
I’m looking forward to testing the Samyang whenever I can, although for now I’m prioritizing first-party lenses since I only have so many hours in the day. It’s hard to beat $700 for a 135mm f/1.8, and from the other reviews I’m seeing, it’s no slouch. Not to mention that for many portrait photographers, a little sharpness difference is not the end of the world anyway.
It is not particularly helpful to talk about comparing sharpness when talking about narrow aperture mid telephoto lenses. The Plena is a specialised lens which aims to provide the user with a carefully balanced combination of optical characteristics: Narrow depth, ultra smooth transition to out of focus areas, freedom from vignetting, a specific style of smooth bokeh, absence of colour fringing, intense sharpness and great colour rendition. It is unusual to find all of those so nicely applied in one lens. I am very tempted to add the Plena to my collection because of the way its carefully balanced and unique set of optical features work together. I don’t need another “sharp” lens really, I have two very nice primes in the 85mm 1.8S and the 105 M 2.8 S. I recognise that what the Plena is really offering is however something entirely different. It opens up different photographic opportunities for me. It’s about the look and feel of the images it produces that attracts me, not just how sharp it is.
Agreed. Dustin Abbott was pretty complimentary about the Samyang (I think his reviews are good) and of course you can’t compare them on price. The point about sharpness is: ‘is this lens sharp enough for my use’. Plenty of people say that you need a bit of ‘dreaminess’ in a portrait lens. More sharpness than you actually need is – yes – wasted money. My choice is to give a high priority to value for money. I’ll never buy the Plena; if I had an A7iv I’d seriously consider the Samyang. Others clearly differ – it’s their credit card; their choice. I have used the Samyang 85/1.4 and liked it on my D7500, but the focus was ‘off’ on my Z5 so I didn’t buy it. But it was a nice lens – and decent value.
Steve Mattson
February 15, 2024 1:40 pm
Thanks for the review and affirming my thoughts on this excellent lens. I have been using it regularly for event and portrait photography, along with other general use cases, including landscapes. I find it incredibly sharp throughout the range and it works extremely well on my Z8 and Zf. It has replaced my 24-70 and 70-200 combo, which I’ve hauled around for years. To have this ‘Swiss Army knife’ capability within one lens allows for great flexibility. I accompany it with the great Nikkor Z 17-28 to have a light, wide option. As a footnote, I was so impressed with this lens’ performance that I recently picked up the new Tamron Z 150-500 telephoto zoom. I haven’t yet had a chance to put it through the paces, but it is built as well as the 35-150 and is not that much longer (when not extended). I can easily place both in a bag with no problem. Looking forward to doing some birding this weekend!
Sure thing, Steve! I think that’s the power of this lens – the potential to replace both a 24-70mm f/2.8 and 70-200mm f/2.8 in one lens, with no major image quality compromises.
I’m looking forward to testing the Tamron 150-500mm before long. It’s almost time for the sandhill crane migration here in Colorado, and even though I’m mostly a landscape photographer, I never miss it! I’m going to rent the Tamron 150-500mm as well as the Nikon Z 600mm f/4 for the occasion, and I’ll review them afterwards.
There was a time when you could by a 35-70, 35-105 and even a 35-135. The wide end was expanded to 28-70 and 28-105, and then again to 24-70 and 24-105 and in Nikon’s case 24-120 (and 24-200). If reverting to 35 at the wide end provides a degree of design freedom in a range perhaps more challenging than the long end it makes sense, but I personally can’t think of a use case for this fast, heavy, very large and expensive zoom that restricts me to 35 at the wide end. Perhaps as a fast-ish portrait oriented zoom? Seems like a bulky and expensive solution in search of a problem.
For use on my Z50 with no IBIS, this lens is not desirable: No VR, heavy, either not wide enough or not long enough. I’ll continue to be happy with my Z 24-200. And of course corner sharpness of a FF lens means nothing on a APS-C camera. For my FF Z cameras I might want this lens if I did event work, but I don’t. Other Nikon Z lenses suit me fine. Thanks for the great review.
I actually sent this lens back after a week. It’s a phenomenal focal length and aperture range, that is certainly true. But I couldn’t help but notice the slightly difference in slower focussing speed and more importantly: focus acquisition. As a full time Nikon pro, the Nikon Z lenses are superior in that. Even the 24-120mm f/4. But I’ll stick with the 24-70/2.8S
If you need the fastest autofocus at any of these focal lengths as a Nikon photographer, the Nikon Z 24-70mm f/2.8 and Nikon Z 70-200mm f/2.8 are the way to go.
Yes. As it was even more so the reliability and accuracy of the AF.
Your review is apt tho. Like the article and I basically agree with all that’s being said. Good work. It’ll be helpful for a lot of people out there.
There is also the Samyang 35-150mm F/2-2.8 FE for only $1199 – only for the Sony, but at much lower price point. Some suggest it is an even better option!
Thanks for the reminder, I just added some mentions of it to the review!
Interesting lens and excellent review as always. It could interest me especially because they manage to make 35mm nearly free of distortion. Given homogeneity also looks quite correct at “landscape” apertures, it means panoramic works in post would be easy to handle for softwares with less risk of artefacts, and that could make this lens more versatile for my usage.
As some, I’m using the 24-35mm range quite much for landscapes, but having a distortion free 35mm can allow me to get wider with panoramic easily.
Though, my concerns may be more about size and weight, and maybe I’d be more tempted by that kind of lens but with a fixed F/4 maximum aperture (it could also probably be cheaper , BTW ;) ).
Glad you liked it! I ended up making a few panoramas with this lens to capture the 24mm perspective, and it worked great.
Though it sounds to me like a lighter f/4 lens which reaches 24mm is pretty much describing the Nikon Z 24-120mm f/4 :)
Indeed. Though having a lens with little to no distortion at “parking” position may be more practical in the field.
Anyway, I don’t see how this 35-150 can really compete with the Z 24-120 in most use cases where having a wider aperture than F/4 is not needed. It’s much heavier and more expensive for quite specific benefits. Even if, on paper, it could be a good lens for weddings as you could nearly do everything with it, still, the bokeh issues you pointed are making this questionnable to my sense.
For outdoor people photography with varying focal lengths this lens could be very interesting. However, with an extended barrel it simply looks unprofessional (“amateurish”). That’s just my personal opinion, of course.
“However, with an extended barrel it simply looks unprofessional (“amateurish”)”
In my opinion, you have a case of low self-esteem and confidence if you are worried about how a lens looks to other people. It’s a tool.
Would you feel the same about a hammer ?
It’s no matter of self-esteem, believe me. I simply don’t like how a lens looks like when the barrel is extended. that’s why I almost exclusively use primes. And working with “tools” which I don’t like aesthetically could have a negative impact on the results.
The comparison with a hammer doesn’t entirely match, in my view. A hammer needs to be well balanced and ergonomically well shaped for usage, as it’s also “required” for the combination of camera body and lens. My Z5 and 85/50mm primes suit me well in this regard.
It has an extended barrel, just like all professional 24-70, 24-105, and most 16-35mm lenses.
Nikon Z 24-70mm f/4 S Review, by Spencer Cox
photographylife.com/revie…-70mm-f4-s
“Even my Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8G lens, which only has a moving front element (within a nonmoving lens hood), has locked up before in winter conditions because a ring of ice formed around it, preventing me from zooming out. All else equal, I prefer lenses with an internal zoom.”
So do I.
I also prefer lenses that do not zoom externally, but for midrange zooms, even the professional ones (e.g. 24-70/2.8 S) do that. So, unless you only shoot primes, you will be stuck with a telescoping lens to cover the middle focal lengths.
Another excellent review, Spencer. Thank you!
I am thinking of getting this lens for my upcoming India trip. I already have a 24-120 S and Z 85 1.2S, and thinking of replacing 24-120 with the tamy. I am just a bit nervous about missing out on the 24-35 focal length.
Would love your input on that thought.
No bad options there! My impression is that you could go either way, but unless you’re also bringing a wider lens, I lean toward keeping the 24-120mm f/4 S and the 85mm f/1.2 S. I think the opportunities for using 24mm will be enough to outweigh the wider aperture and slightly longer focal length of the 35-150mm f/2-2.8. And the 85mm easily covers any portrait opportunities that arise.
If you’re concerned about your maximum aperture on the wide/medium end, you may consider adding the Nikon Z 40mm f/2 to your bag for very little price or weight penalty.
Thank you 🙏
Really valuable information Spencer, thank you. Having used this lens would you prefer it over buying two lenses (almost comparable price) the 28-75 f/2.8 + 70-180? A bit sharper at either end, both relatively compact, etc.
Sure thing! That’s a tough one. Optically, the two-lens combo will be somewhat stronger on the long end and somewhat weaker on the wide end compared to the 35-150mm. The addition of 28mm and 180mm could be nice, but not essential depending upon what other lenses you have. The 70-180mm has the best close-focusing capabilities of any of these lenses.
All that said, the convenience of the 35-150mm f/2-2.8 is the real winner – it would be my personal choice, even though it’s a close call.
The most interesting part of the article was noticing the Nikon 135mm “Plena” f/1.8 performance and comparing it to that of the Samyang 135mm f/1.8 on the ephotozine website (for Sony users). Despite the hype over the Nikon Plena, the Samyang stacks up quite well against it and can be had for just $700 on sale.
I want to be clear that our charts are not comparable to the charts on ephotozine or any other website. I know for a fact that they don’t use precisely the same test chart and methodology that we do.
This isn’t to say the Samyang is a bad lens – I haven’t tested it. However, I will note that the highest measured value on ephotozine for the Samyang lens is approximately 3900 center, 3600 edges. Meanwhile, ephotozine’s highest measured value for the Nikon Z 85mm f/1.8 S is approximately 4900 center, 4900 edges. (Why the center and edges measure the same is between them and their methodology!)
Since I measure the Plena as being even sharper than the Nikon Z 85mm f/1.8 S, my tentative conclusion based on ephotozine’s tests is that the Samyang 135mm f/1.8 is less sharp than the Nikon Z 135mm f/1.8 Plena.
Spencer,
Yes, I understood the charts weren’t directly comparable, but at such high resolutions, the differences are marginal and difficult to spot unless you are engaged in some extreme pixel-peeping.
The price difference? Very noticeable.
BTW, I didn’t mean to dismiss the contents of your article. As always – a very thorough job. It was just the Plena metrics that grabbed my attention, since I once owned the Tamron 35-150mm f/2.8-4.0 for Nikon, and understood the quality of this lens as well as its f/2.0-2.8 successor for the Sony mount.
No worries, Bob, I didn’t take it that you were trying to dismiss the review at all. I just don’t want anyone to get the wrong idea that our numbers can be compared to those of other sites.
I’m looking forward to testing the Samyang whenever I can, although for now I’m prioritizing first-party lenses since I only have so many hours in the day. It’s hard to beat $700 for a 135mm f/1.8, and from the other reviews I’m seeing, it’s no slouch. Not to mention that for many portrait photographers, a little sharpness difference is not the end of the world anyway.
It is not particularly helpful to talk about comparing sharpness when talking about narrow aperture mid telephoto lenses. The Plena is a specialised lens which aims to provide the user with a carefully balanced combination of optical characteristics: Narrow depth, ultra smooth transition to out of focus areas, freedom from vignetting, a specific style of smooth bokeh, absence of colour fringing, intense sharpness and great colour rendition. It is unusual to find all of those so nicely applied in one lens.
I am very tempted to add the Plena to my collection because of the way its carefully balanced and unique set of optical features work together. I don’t need another “sharp” lens really, I have two very nice primes in the 85mm 1.8S and the 105 M 2.8 S. I recognise that what the Plena is really offering is however something entirely different. It opens up different photographic opportunities for me. It’s about the look and feel of the images it produces that attracts me, not just how sharp it is.
Agreed. Dustin Abbott was pretty complimentary about the Samyang (I think his reviews are good) and of course you can’t compare them on price.
The point about sharpness is: ‘is this lens sharp enough for my use’. Plenty of people say that you need a bit of ‘dreaminess’ in a portrait lens.
More sharpness than you actually need is – yes – wasted money.
My choice is to give a high priority to value for money. I’ll never buy the Plena; if I had an A7iv I’d seriously consider the Samyang. Others clearly differ – it’s their credit card; their choice.
I have used the Samyang 85/1.4 and liked it on my D7500, but the focus was ‘off’ on my Z5 so I didn’t buy it. But it was a nice lens – and decent value.
Thanks for the review and affirming my thoughts on this excellent lens. I have been using it regularly for event and portrait photography, along with other general use cases, including landscapes. I find it incredibly sharp throughout the range and it works extremely well on my Z8 and Zf. It has replaced my 24-70 and 70-200 combo, which I’ve hauled around for years. To have this ‘Swiss Army knife’ capability within one lens allows for great flexibility. I accompany it with the great Nikkor Z 17-28 to have a light, wide option. As a footnote, I was so impressed with this lens’ performance that I recently picked up the new Tamron Z 150-500 telephoto zoom. I haven’t yet had a chance to put it through the paces, but it is built as well as the 35-150 and is not that much longer (when not extended). I can easily place both in a bag with no problem. Looking forward to doing some birding this weekend!
Sure thing, Steve! I think that’s the power of this lens – the potential to replace both a 24-70mm f/2.8 and 70-200mm f/2.8 in one lens, with no major image quality compromises.
I’m looking forward to testing the Tamron 150-500mm before long. It’s almost time for the sandhill crane migration here in Colorado, and even though I’m mostly a landscape photographer, I never miss it! I’m going to rent the Tamron 150-500mm as well as the Nikon Z 600mm f/4 for the occasion, and I’ll review them afterwards.