For a lot of folks this might be a weird comparison but hopefully some can chime in.
These days I primarily shoot commercial work, on a tripod and higher aperture (F11-F14). Using a D810 but soon to be changed out with a Z8.
The commercial work typically emcompasses taking photos for various Client's furniture and fabric swatches. The 24-70 does well for the furniture sets and I switch to the Zeiss 100 to take detailed swatch photos.
Now that I'm moving to a Z-mount, this Tamron naturally came up. My primary concerns getting this lens (vs. just using the FTZ + my lenses now) are sharpeness across frame and colour reproduction. To a lesser extent, I do the rare portrait session and enjoy macro work (the Zeiss is sharp and renders beautifully wide open). We will be having kids soon and that 24-70 range would get a lot of use.
Without being able to rent this specific Tamron, does this seem like a lens that could replace both the 24-70+Zeiss reliably?
The lens won't replace them both reliably. The 35-150 is heavy and large. Not saying the FTZ adapter is a walk in the park either. But start there and figure out what you need after you get the new body.
mrgetalife2 wrote:
The lens won't replace them both reliably. The 35-150 is heavy and large. Not saying the FTZ adapter is a walk in the park either. But start there and figure out what you need after you get the new body.
Agree. You've got known good lenses that work well for the jobs. Do not discard them before vetting any possible replacements. As a long time user of the ZF 100/2 (now on the FTZ), it's hard for me to imagine the 35-150 replacing that lens. BTW, the Z 24-70/2.8 is really good.
I mean, I think it's obvious on its face that the Tamron won't replace the other two lenses for all of the purposes that the other two lenses can fulfill.
For example, the Tamron is pretty terrible in the 24-35mm range. It's also awful at magnification above ~0.2x, and opening up to f/2 at 100mm, since it doesn't do any of those things. I would imagine fabric swatches require a little more magnification than the Tamron provides, and if you do macro work, then for sure the 35-150 isn't going to replace your two lenses.
On the other hand, I've found it to be an exceedingly useful range for toddler+ ages and with general family events. Once those kids get mobile, they move so quickly that lens juggling is often impractical, and I just don't feel like 70mm is enough reach, especially outside. I also generally think that ~24mm is too wide for most of the shots I want of people, but a 70-200 doesn't go wide enough. So I do think the lens is pretty good - it's much larger and heavier than the 24-70, but still easier than carrying a second lens.
In my bag, the 35-150mm is really more of a supplement than a replacement for anything. It's an extremely convenient focal length that isn't perfect at any one thing but is very good at a lot of things. It's been on my camera a lot since I've had it, and dare I say that I've gotten a lot of shots that I simply wasn't getting with my existing kit. But it also didn't make me run out and sell a bunch of lenses.
You may love it. But it depends a lot on the specific utility you're getting from the existing lenses.
