Choosing between the Tamron 35-100mm f/2.8 Di III VXD and the Nikon NIKKOR Z 24-120mm f/4 S comes down to tradeoffs that show up the moment you start shooting. The differences in reach, aperture, and handling shape how you work in travel, portraits, and day-to-day carry.
Coming to you from Adrian Alford Photography, this practical video compares the Tamron 35-100mm f/2.8 Di III VXD Z mount and the Nikon NIKKOR Z 24-120mm f/4 S side by side, starting with size and build. Neither lens uses an internal zoom design, so both barrels extend as you move through the range. Weight is close, 575 g for the Tamron and 630 g for the Nikon, which you will feel only after a long day. Filter sizes differ, 67mm on the Tamron and 77mm on the Nikon, which affects the cost of polarizers and ND filters you may already own.
Controls and handling split them further. The Nikon includes an AF/MF switch and a third customizable control ring at the rear, which you can assign in-camera. The Tamron drops the external AF switch but adds a USB-C port for customization through Tamron Lens Utility, along with a three-position custom switch on the barrel. Both lenses include an Fn button. If you value direct physical controls without plugging into a computer, the Nikon’s layout will feel more straightforward. If you like setting up custom behaviors for different scenarios, the Tamron offers a different kind of flexibility.
In close focusing tests, that difference shows up quickly. At 35mm, the Tamron focuses as close as 22 cm, compared to 35 cm on the Nikon. At 100mm versus 120mm, the roles reverse: the Nikon focuses down to 35 cm throughout the entire zoom range, while the Tamron stretches to 65 cm at the long end. Wider shots at 24mm on the Nikon capture a noticeably broader field of view than 35mm on the Tamron. That gap is larger than many expect. On the telephoto end, 120mm gives the Nikon a slight framing advantage over 100mm, though it is less dramatic than the wide end difference.
If low light, subject separation, and a lighter filter system matter most, the Tamron leans in your favor. If you often shoot landscapes, interiors, or want one lens that truly starts wide at 24mm and reaches a bit farther at 120mm, the Nikon covers more ground in a single package. Alford also shares real-world framing examples in 4K video that reveal how these numbers translate outside a spec sheet, and he speaks from experience as an owner of the Nikon lens. Check out the video above for the full rundown from Alford.
1 Comment
I used to have the Nikon 24-120 F4 but traded in for the Nikon 28-400 f4-8. I was also interested to see how the Tamron was stacking up and saw a couple of comparisons to the 28-400, which indicate a close race with a tiny smidge of sharpness at the long end to the Tamron- but not enough to make much real world difference. My memory of the quality between the 24-120 and the 28-400 was also not huge. I have not used the 35-100mm, but given the useful range of the 28-400 I can live with the speed difference, especially given the high ISO tolerances of today's cameras (I use Z8 mostly) coupled with the amazingly good results obtainable with judicious use of sharpening / noise software. Bokeh is the most obvious potential downfall of all three of these lenses but I have found that at the long end with medium to distant backgrounds even that is a mute point.
The 28-400mm is a compact lens that is not talked about much, but I have been able to take some really great shots with it and I think it is extremely under estimated. So many lenses nowadays are at least equal to some of those deemed classics in days past, and this is one of them. I think I will pass on the Tamron, not because it is not an excellent lens but it's bulk and weight and relatively small range don't IMHO make it an ideal go to travel lens.