I saw that the 150-500mm Di III VC VXD is native for the Z mount now which sounds great but then I see guys on some forums claiming the older 150-600mm G2 with an FTX adapter is actually sharper at the long end even if its way bulkier. It makes no sense to me why the older glass would be better. I'm heading to Yellowstone in like three weeks and I really need to pull the trigger on something soon but my budget is strictly under $1300.

I mainly want to catch bison and maybe some bears if I'm lucky but I dont want to be stuck with something that hunts for focus the whole time. Is the native Z mount 150-500mm actually fast enough for moving animals or am I better off trying to find a used G2 and dealing with the adapter weight? I also looked at the 70-300 but that seems way too short for what I need. Everyone says something different and I just want to know what works in the field without failing me...

My budget is pretty firm at around $850 tops since I already blew a ton of cash on the flights and the rental car for the trip. I've heard amazing things about the Tamron E-mount lineup for being lightweight which is huge for me since I'm planning on doing some pretty long hikes near Olympic National Park too but the options are honestly overwhelming. I was originally looking at the 17-28mm f2.8 because everyone says you need that ultra wide perspective for big vistas but then I saw the 20-40mm f2.8 which is so compact and seems like it would be easier to pack. But is 20mm wide enough? Then there is the 28-75mm G2 which everyone raves about for being a do it all lens but I feel like I'm gonna be kicking myself if I cant get those sweeping ocean shots at 17mm.

I'm mostly worried about:

• Weather sealing since it's gonna be super damp and salty near the ocean


• Weight because I'm carrying a full pack for 10 plus miles a day


• How they actually perform on the 33MP sensor of the A7IV when stopped down

I keep going back and forth between the 17-28 and the 20-40 and I just cant make a decision and the shipping window is closing fast if I want to test it before I leave. Which one of these Tamron zooms is actually the better bet for landscapes when you're trying to balance weight and that crispy sharpness you need for big prints?

My logic was that the 28-75 is sharper and obviously better for low light at night in the city but then I read some reviews saying the 28-200 is surprisingly crisp for a superzoom and having that extra reach for street shots or details on temples would be huge. I dont want to be swapping lenses constantly while my wife is waiting for me to keep moving lol. I also looked at the 35-150mm f2-2.8 but that thing looks like a literal brick and is way out of my budget which is around 1100 bucks anyway.

I am really torn because I love the idea of one lens for everything but I dont want to regret the slower aperture when the sun goes down. Is the image quality gap really that noticeable on a 24mp sensor like the Z6II or am I just overthinking the specs? I am trying to keep the weight down too since we will be walking miles every day. Should I stick with the faster f2.8 or go for the range?

• I can spend maybe $1100, $1200 max if I really stretch it.

I spent all last night reading reviews and honestly I'm more lost than when I started. I saw a lot of people raving about the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 G2 but then I saw some forum posts saying it's not actually native for Z mount yet or something? Or maybe it is? I get so confused with the Sony vs Nikon versions and which ones actually have the Z mount built in vs needing that annoying FTZ adapter. Then there's that 35-150mm which looks like an absolute beast and would be perfect for not having to switch lenses in the cold, but it looks heavy as hell and I’m worried about my wrist since I’ll be hiking all day. Plus it’s probably way over my price range anyway.

I've got a few things I'm looking for:

• native mount so I don't have to use the FTZ


• fast aperture for those early morning shots


• something that isn't gonna break my back on a 6 mile hike


• good autofocus because I don't have time to fiddle with it

I also saw some guys talking about using the older 24-70 G2 with the adapter but I really want to avoid the extra bulk. Does Tamron actually have a solid, native-mount zoom for the Z6 that actually balances well? I need something that can handle big landscapes but also some closer portrait stuff of the group. Is the 28-75mm wide enough for mountains or am I gonna regret not having that extra 4mm on the wide end? Some people say the 28-75 is a dream for the price but others say the autofocus is finicky on Nikon bodies. I’m just super stressed about picking the wrong one before I fly out next week... what do you guys think is the move?

Its honestly exhausting lugging that thing around. I have about $1300 to spend and need something before my trip to Glacier in three weeks. Is the 150-500mm worth it or does it lose too much light? I just want something that doesnt feel like a workout every time I go for a walk...

Im really looking at Tamron since everyone says they are great for E-mount but I cant decide which one is actually the best for just walking around and shooting. Here is what I need:

• needs to be under like 800 dollars cause I already spent too much this year


• fast autofocus is a must because people move quick and I miss shots constantly


• lightweight enough that I dont feel like I have a brick on my chest


• preferably a zoom but I guess I could do a prime if its really worth it

I was looking at the 28-75 G2 but maybe thats still too big? Or that 20-40mm one looks interesting but I dont know if the range is enough for street. I just want to be able to blend in more and not look like a professional paparazzi every time I step out of my flat. What are you guys actually using day to day?

the 17-70 has stabilization which is huge for me since my camera doesnt have ibis but man that thing looks long.

• budget: under $750 used or new


• weight: light enough for 10 miles of walking


• aperture: gotta be f2.8 for those evening shots

which one would you go with for crowded streets? or is there another tamron fuji mount i missed that works better...

First is that 35-150mm f/2-2.8 Di III VXD. Everyone says it's like the ultimate wedding or portrait lens because you dont have to swap bodies and that f/2 at 35mm sounds amazing for environmental shots where you still want some bokeh. But man it is heavy and it's right at the limit of my $1800 budget. My main concern is just lugging that thing around for 6 hours on the beach or at the park. My wrist already hurts thinking about it lol.

The other option is the 70-180mm f/2.8 G2. It's way lighter and way cheaper too which would leave me room for a nice prime or even just some extra batteries and a better strap. I love the compression you get at the long end for headshots but I'm worried I'll feel too cramped if we move indoors for dinner or if I'm trying to catch candid moments with the kids playing nearby.

I'm really torn between the do everything nature of the 35-150 and the portability of the 70-180. I keep going back and forth every day looking at sample images on Flickr. Does the f/2 aperture at the wide end really make that much of a difference for portraits compared to just carrying a separate small prime? Which one would you guys pick for a long day of shooting people?