Really? That small zoom range?
For that I would use a 28mm, maybe a upcoming 28 1.2 and crop if needed.
I have nothing between a 35 and a 70(-200) and don't miss anything. I can easily crop 50mm or so out of the 35mm, if I want to.
I also don't have anything between my 17 TZE and a 35 (except a 1.4 TK for 17=>24), and this works too. I sold my 24-105 years ago.
But I can imagine to buy this 14-35/4 to use this and with the 70-200/4 as a small two lens setup. I would never add a 24-105 or a 24-70 to fill any gaps between... so I never understand the holy-trinity (or the one for f/4) talk, but everybody is different...
Yes, that small a zoom range, but because I am imagining it being half the size of a 24-70, which isn't necessarily true. My 16-35 f4 is my first zoom ever, so I am new to zooms. With the adapter, the EF 16-35 is HUGE on my rp and r5. I used to favor an 85 prime doing street, isolating subjects in narrow DoF, but now I want to do entire scenes at f4 or slower, and I find myself using 24, 28, and 35 most of all.
The biggest factor for me is hiding the gear, the reason I want small or discreet lenses. I only shoot full frame, so this doesn't leave many options for my budget. ( I had tried sigma dp2, canon m3, m5, m6, canon g5x, and
I hate aps-C.)
So that is what motivates me to have a zoom like that. Sigma makes a 24-35 f2, but it is designed for several brands, and the lens is accordingly 10 feet long. I don't mind 3rd party sometimes, but in this case it needs to be special-designed for the massive R mount, not compromised by making sure the lens also fits the tiny APS-C Sony E-mount. Why SONY chose an aps-c mount to go over a full frame sensor seems stupid to me. It would be like if Canon had put the M mount on the R cameras. Yes, the smaller backfocus allows for aps-c DSLR to work on FF MILC, but at huge detriment to lens size and price.
I will likely do what you suggest, buy a fast 28 prime. I have no idea why I own so many 50's. I hardly use them. Anyway...thanks for the 28 advice.