Thanks for your reply!! I am using the e mount version on Z6 with adaptor for a long time, and now i will change to the Z mount version. I have been searching for the answer for weeks!!! The only thing that bothers me about this lens is the distortion.
Marcin
June 22, 2024 7:57 am
I’m still a beginner (fun, non-exotic travel, videography), I just bought my first full frame (Nikon Z6 ii in a 24-70 f4 bargain kit) and of course I’m immediately looking for options (for when I’ll be able to use the camera properly and be ready to pay some more). I imagine this lens could be a particularly good choice for the outside in city trip scenarios (as very wide areas are rather rare there). I also speculate that maybe buying a 20 or 24 mm (where both mentioned lenses are non-existent or weak) prime lens as an addition would round it up for me in the wider end.
Mike B
June 10, 2024 5:47 am
I am a multi-genre working photographer. From weddings to corporate work and events to commercial, to headshots, to architecture and industrial and editorial. Little bit of everything. Including video and drone work. I bought the Plena in November of 2023 and the Tamron 35-150 in February of 2024. As of June 2024, guess which lens I have used the most for moderate telephoto work? The 35-150.
Over the years I have also owned, and tried to love, several iterations of the 70-200. I have always sold them from lack of use. 70mm being too limiting on the wide end. I bought the 35-150 for a specific event. One where I had to use my Z9 & 24-70 2.8 for video at the back of the room and to let it run autonomously while I moved around shooting stills with my Z8 and requiring a versatile zoom lens. As great as the 24-120 f/4 is, f/4 is too slow for most indoor applications where the 4000 ISO on a 2.8 lens is at least more desirable than 8000 ISO with f/4. Enter the 35-150.
It’s well built, but I find the zoom ring a bit stiff to rotate. Definitely not a one finger actuation. It needs a firm finger and thumb grip to rotate. I’ve put a geared ring over the zoom ring to give me a bit more grip and leverage. But for the versatility it provides it’s worth it. I have been pleasantly shocked how good this lens is. My use case for it is tripod video work and one lens event work. Wedding ceremony, wedding reception, corporate conference (AGM) or if I’m helping out as second angle at a wedding…. always in spaces where 35mm is wide enough. I still have a second body on me, often a Z8 with 14-24 to cover all bases, but it might get used 2% of the time.
Optically, it’s pretty good, it’s no Plena. Nothing is. It’s no 70-200. But neither of those are as versatile. And the 70-200 is still heavier. A Sony user friend of mine with the same lens calls it his lazy lens, and I agree.
For landscape, the 24-120 is better. For sports and action the 70-200 is better. For events and such where you’re flipping between a 24-70 and 85/105/135 or 70-200, this is a goldilocks lens covering 90% of the focal lengths I normally use. For headshots I still use 85 1.8. For critical IQ I still use the Plena. For video interviews I still use 50 1.2 or 24-70. But i am glad this is in my bag.
JohnD
February 21, 2024 10:47 pm
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.
Thanks for the review!
Does anyone know if any distortion correction applied in camera when shooting jpg?
Yes, both Sony and Nikon camera bodies can correct those of this lens.
Thanks for your reply!!
I am using the e mount version on Z6 with adaptor for a long time, and now i will change to the Z mount version. I have been searching for the answer for weeks!!! The only thing that bothers me about this lens is the distortion.
I’m still a beginner (fun, non-exotic travel, videography), I just bought my first full frame (Nikon Z6 ii in a 24-70 f4 bargain kit) and of course I’m immediately looking for options (for when I’ll be able to use the camera properly and be ready to pay some more).
I imagine this lens could be a particularly good choice for the outside in city trip scenarios (as very wide areas are rather rare there).
I also speculate that maybe buying a 20 or 24 mm (where both mentioned lenses are non-existent or weak) prime lens as an addition would round it up for me in the wider end.
I am a multi-genre working photographer. From weddings to corporate work and events to commercial, to headshots, to architecture and industrial and editorial. Little bit of everything. Including video and drone work. I bought the Plena in November of 2023 and the Tamron 35-150 in February of 2024. As of June 2024, guess which lens I have used the most for moderate telephoto work? The 35-150.
Over the years I have also owned, and tried to love, several iterations of the 70-200. I have always sold them from lack of use. 70mm being too limiting on the wide end. I bought the 35-150 for a specific event. One where I had to use my Z9 & 24-70 2.8 for video at the back of the room and to let it run autonomously while I moved around shooting stills with my Z8 and requiring a versatile zoom lens. As great as the 24-120 f/4 is, f/4 is too slow for most indoor applications where the 4000 ISO on a 2.8 lens is at least more desirable than 8000 ISO with f/4. Enter the 35-150.
It’s well built, but I find the zoom ring a bit stiff to rotate. Definitely not a one finger actuation. It needs a firm finger and thumb grip to rotate. I’ve put a geared ring over the zoom ring to give me a bit more grip and leverage. But for the versatility it provides it’s worth it. I have been pleasantly shocked how good this lens is. My use case for it is tripod video work and one lens event work. Wedding ceremony, wedding reception, corporate conference (AGM) or if I’m helping out as second angle at a wedding…. always in spaces where 35mm is wide enough. I still have a second body on me, often a Z8 with 14-24 to cover all bases, but it might get used 2% of the time.
Optically, it’s pretty good, it’s no Plena. Nothing is. It’s no 70-200. But neither of those are as versatile. And the 70-200 is still heavier. A Sony user friend of mine with the same lens calls it his lazy lens, and I agree.
For landscape, the 24-120 is better. For sports and action the 70-200 is better. For events and such where you’re flipping between a 24-70 and 85/105/135 or 70-200, this is a goldilocks lens covering 90% of the focal lengths I normally use. For headshots I still use 85 1.8. For critical IQ I still use the Plena. For video interviews I still use 50 1.2 or 24-70. But i am glad this is in my bag.
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 🙏