24-70 f/2.8 - Nikon or Tamron

[NTP66]

Anyone out there have the Tamron 24-70 Di VC USD? If so, are you able to compare it to Nikon's 24-70? This is the one lens that I've wanted from day one, as it seems to be everyone's favorite (I know 2-3 other photographers who use it as their walk around lens).

The problem is that I'm having a hard time justifying the $1800 price tag for the Nikkor, and even the $1200 for the Tamron, given that this is just a hobby for me.

One of these two is definitely going to be my next lens, and might even replace my 16-85 which I love, but I'd really like to hear from somebody who currently owns the Tamron version to see how they like it. Keep in mind that this would be going on a Nikon D5200.

 

[Misled]

I have Sigma's 28-70 2.8, and Nikon's 24-70 2.8. The Sigma is a fairly capable lens and if I'm out in the boonies, that's what I'm using. It's about half the weight of the Nikon, and a bit smaller. It doesn't have IF or IZ but for out in the woods, it doesn't matter.

All that being said, it's not the Nikon. I can tell the difference when looking at shots which was being used. The Sigma's good and fairly sharp, but the Nikon blows it away. It is my carry when in normal shooting conditions. The Nikon is heavy, built like a tank, and somewhat large, (it does have IF and IZ though), but there's no comparison. Even at almost twice the cost. Which body are you using?

 

[3dees]

I had one a few years ago and didn't use it as much as I thought. big and heavy lens. my walk around lens now is a Sigma 17-70 2.8-4.0 OS. pretty happy with it.

 

[jroovers]

If you are having a hard time justifying the price tag, maybe rethink what you are going to use the lens for. Is there any reason you need that wide of an aperture (2.8)? You can get lenses with similar focal lengths, at f4, that are going to be cheaper, and may be just as practical. For example, you are not going to take many portrait or landscape shots at 2.8, the depth of field is just too shallow. I have the Canon 24-105L f4, and use it primarily as a walk around lens and for family/landscapes, and rarely do I attempt a shot below f5.6. I do also have a Samyang 14 mm 2.8 that I picked up separately to use for nighttime landscapes.

 

[NTP66]

Well, one major factor that I didn't realize was that Nikon's 24-70 doesn't have VR - a feature I'd actually prefer to have available to me, especially at these price points. I was focusing on the 24-70 based on what others have told me, and really don't care about the weight of it. I know some view a walk around lens as something versatile and light, but you can scratch the light part for me.

What I'm looking for is basically a better version of my current Nikon 16-85 f/3.5-5.6. I'm going to be using it for everything from landscape shots to portraits, and not always in the best lighting (which is why I was looking at 2.8 lenses). It sounds like I should also be considering the Nikon 24-120 f/4, since it does have VR and seems to be rated pretty highly online.

So, yeah, lots of procrastination going on over here.

And Jesse, I have a Nikon D5200.

 

[Misled]

While you may not be using 2.8, a lens than can do 2.8 has the ability to draw light faster than a lens that's an f4, allowing a lower shutter. And while you may be able to get lenses with a similar focal length, sharpness and aberrations on edges and corners can make a difference in a shot. All that being said, it really depends on how critical you want to be. Like I said above, my Sigma isn't bad. Does the Nikon give you twice the better shot, maybe not, but that's an opinion, but it gave me the ability to get rid of primes in it's range. It's also as sharp or sharper than any Nikon within that range. IMHO, it is the best by far.

 

[Misled]

And Jesse, I have a Nikon D5200.

I'd put one on your camera and try it first. If you check CL, there's a local guy that used to rent them, (it's Rick from kdka news). I understand you aren't worried about weight, but it really is a beast. That's a smaller body if I remember right. It will be a bit front heavy.
Have you considered this?

 

[NTP66]

I'd put one on your camera and try it first. If you check CL, there's a local guy that used to rent them, (it's Rick from kdka news). I understand you aren't worried about weight, but it really is a beast. That's a smaller body if I remember right. It will be a bit front heavy.
Have you considered this?

It's only slightly heavier than my Tamron 70-300, but yes, it'd likely be a little front heavy. I hadn't considered that one because I wouldn't really want to lose the range. Going from 85mm down to 70mm was okay with me, but I don't think I'd like 55mm being the max. I do take a lot of shots in the 70-85 range, looking at my older photos.

 

[jroovers]

What I'm looking for is basically a better version of my current Nikon 16-85 f/3.5-5.6. I'm going to be using it for everything from landscape shots to portraits, and not always in the best lighting (which is why I was looking at 2.8 lenses).

I haven't shot Nikon lenses, but sounds like you are in for a significant upgrade! What do you anticipate shooting at f2.8 in low light? The only thing I can think of landscape and portrait wise is star trails/astrophotography - if that is the case, pick up a cheap prime at the wide end of the focal length. 24mm is workable but wider would be better for non-trail shots. The capability of your body is going to go a long way as to how your camera performs in low light in addition to the lens.

While you may not be using 2.8, a lens than can do 2.8 has the ability to draw light faster than a lens that's an f4, allowing a lower shutter. And while you may be able to get lenses with a similar focal length, sharpness and aberrations on edges and corners can make a difference in a shot.

Only at that aperture though, and how often will you use it? While you do get an extra stop of light and increased DOF at 2.8 over 4, the difference is pretty minimal - and can come at a significant price difference, which you may not end up using all that much. If you plan on using the lens at 2.8 in low light for portraits or similar subject matter, then the difference may be worth it - but focusing in low light for such subjects at 2.8 is going to be tricky and your body is going to dictate a considerable amount of what you are capable of in addition to a 2.8 lens.

Anyhow, I'm not trying to persuade you one way or another. All the lenses you are looking at and are considering are pretty fantastic. That said, I find it gets pretty ridiculous with some of these upper end lenses the "flaws" people are capable of finding. My Canon 24-105L f4 is a pretty amazing lens, and takes incredible pictures, but if you read all the reviews and complaints out there, you'd think it was a piece of garbage. One of the biggest complaints is significant distortion, but that type of thing is pretty easily corrected in post with lens correction profiles, which conveniently come with most editing software these days (eg LR5). Another thing is noise - for the most part, PP will be your best friend for low light shooting, unless you have a body that excels in that department. I think part of these upper end lens complaints come from the price point - you are starting to get into the serious amateur/avid hobbyist/professional category, and some of these folk can be pretty anal and perfectionistic, myself admittedly included.

 

[jroovers]

I should add that the only Tamron I've owned is the 90 mm macro. Pound for pound it stacks up against the Canon 100 mm macro just find in the IQ and sharpness department. If I had to do it over again, I would have kept the Tamron and wouldn't have bothered to "upgrade" to the Tamron. I actually think the AF on the Tamron focused much quicker. I think often a lot of people overlook the third party lenses.

 

[NTP66]

Oddly enough, DxO Labs rates the Tamron 24-70 ahead of Nikon's version for my body. And yes, I completely understand what you're saying about reviews. I deal with the same thing on Amazon all the time, and it drives me nuts. With regards to lenses and such, like you said, it takes seconds to correct in LR/PS, so those things become less of an issue.

Clearly, I need to think a little harder on this, because it's quite a bit of money we're talking about here.

 

[jroovers]

Oddly enough, DxO Labs rates the Tamron 24-70 ahead of Nikon's version for my body. And yes, I completely understand what you're saying about reviews. I deal with the same thing on Amazon all the time, and it drives me nuts. With regards to lenses and such, like you said, it takes seconds to correct in LR/PS, so those things become less of an issue.

Clearly, I need to think a little harder on this, because it's quite a bit of money we're talking about here.

In my last post I meant upgrade to the "Canon" lol. A lot of times those Tamrons and Sigmas have better warranties too, I know the Sigma 30 mm I had carried a 10-year transferable warranty.

 

[NTP66]

Tamron has outstanding warranties on their lenses, and given that I love my 70-300, I wouldn't hesitate to buy from them again if it made sense.

 

[Misled]

Only at that aperture though, and how often will you use it?

Technically, no. There are other things to look into when looking at "fast glass". It's more looked at as light transmission. There are quite a few variables that can factor into this. A few are the number of elements in a group, types of coatings on the lens, and the largest the glass being used itself. All that being said, you really can't go wrong with any of the upper end glass. The gripes most have won't affect much of what most would do. Though I'd never own a nikon 14-24 2.8 again. They say it I had a bad copy, but others had the same problems I did. It had nothing to do with the glass or speed though, more the mechanics.

 

[jroovers]

Technically, no. There are other things to look into when looking at "fast glass". It's more looked at as light transmission. There are quite a few variables that can factor into this. A few are the number of elements in a group, types of coatings on the lens, and the largest the glass being used itself. All that being said, you really can't go wrong with any of the upper end glass. The gripes most have won't affect much of what most would do. Though I'd never own a nikon 14-24 2.8 again. They say it I had a bad copy, but others had the same problems I did. It had nothing to do with the glass or speed though, more the mechanics.

Getting down to the hair splitting level of comparison. With the lenses being compared, the difference at f4 will be negligible, unless you fancy yourself Ansel Adams. If speed is that important for what the OP is shooting, which it doesn't sound like, forget the zoom altogether and move to a prime.

 

[Misled]

Getting down to the hair splitting level of comparison.

He asked for a compairison, that's what I gave him. If you read my post, I did get rid of a couple primes after I got the 24-70. It is that good. It's not for everybody and I said that also. Ansel Adams I ain't, but if he were alive and shot Nikon today, I'll bet he'd have one. You never know what the future will bring. I'd like to be ready to shoot it the way I want.

 

[NTP66]

I've been researching this and doing a lot of thinking, and apparently wasted a lot of time. I completely forgot about the crop factor, since the 24-70s are FX lenses and my body is a DX, which would essentially make those lenses 36-105. That won't work for me as a walkaround lens, as I take a lot of landscape photos. I know, I can buy a fast prime lens, but the entire purpose of this was to see if there was a better fast, all-around lens that I could go with.

I ended up looking at Tamron and Sigma's 17-50 lenses and concluded that they were not worth switching to, and likely would be a downgrade from where I stand. So, it looks like I'm going to just roll with the 16-85 for now, which is actually having the VR system replaced on it right now.

So, yeah, sorry for wasting everyone's time, but I certainly appreciate the feedback and comments.

 

[jroovers]

I've been researching this and doing a lot of thinking, and apparently wasted a lot of time. I completely forgot about the crop factor, since the 24-70s are FX lenses and my body is a DX, which would essentially make those lenses 36-105. That won't work for me as a walkaround lens, as I take a lot of landscape photos. I know, I can buy a fast prime lens, but the entire purpose of this was to see if there was a better fast, all-around lens that I could go with.

I ended up looking at Tamron and Sigma's 17-50 lenses and concluded that they were not worth switching to, and likely would be a downgrade from where I stand. So, it looks like I'm going to just roll with the 16-85 for now, which is actually having the VR system replaced on it right now.

So, yeah, sorry for wasting everyone's time, but I certainly appreciate the feedback and comments.

Well at least you'll have a lens to use, as opposed to no lens :thumbsup:

Either way, looking forward to seeing some landscape photos posted from you in the near future. 16-85 is a nice range to have even on a crop body, 16 is pretty wide.

I have never shot Nikon, but the whole Canon EF vs. EF-S lens thing can be confusing (with the EF-S line being designed for crop body cameras).

 

[xtm]

The problem is that I'm having a hard time justifying the $1800 price tag for the Nikkor, and even the $1200 for the Tamron, given that this is just a hobby for me.

Used Nikon 24-70's go for 1300-1400 if you don't mind buying used.
Since you are on DX, perhaps the 17-55 2.8 or even the 16-85 VR might be a better choice.

 

[NTP66]

Either way, looking forward to seeing some landscape photos posted from you in the near future.

I meant to reply a few weeks ago, but must have forgotten. I'm hoping to re-take this photo from 2011 (originally shot with a Canon PS G11), because it's where my wife and I were married, and is my favorite spot on Earth. I think the new camera/lens can do a much better job.

Po'olenalena Beach, Maui