Backing up a 24 70 f2.8

nikon all the way for me ...why have a d3 then put crap onto it!!
although its been a few years since i used a tamron but it was the worst lens i had ever used !
 
What sort of budget? The nikon 35-70 2.8 or Nikon 28-70 2.8 spring to mind but the latter will cost £600 ish.
 
marklwhittaker said:
nikon all the way for me ...why have a d3 then put crap onto it!!
Click to expand...
Then again, why spout crap. :cuckoo:

I own a Tamron 28-75mm and a D3S and D700 and pound for pound my copy knocks the spots off the Nikon, ive owned 3 Nikon 24-70mm lens, all top quality and very sharp and contrasty, but and heres the winner for me, the Tamron produces images 95-98% as good as the Nikon but at 20% of the cost

Im no skinflint, like i said i own a D3S, D700, Nikon 400mm f/2.8, Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8, Nikon 16-35mm f/4 VR so you can see im prepared to pay good money for the best quality, and in my case that also applies to the Tamron, i simply wont justify spending 400% more for very little gain.

The only side issue could be Tamrons QC, ive owned several 28-75mm's and theyve all been tack sharp, no micro adjust needed but there are reports of "soft" copies and front/back focussing ones as well.

Dont forget, Nikons also have problems and the 24-70 is no different, one was just sold on here with the infamous sticky zoom problem and theres another one ith the exact same problem currently being discussed on here.

If you want to see some images from my Tammy then drop me ma PM and ill email some over
 
Mark, that's the telltale talk of a totally inexperienced photographer.

The 28-75 won't match the Nikon, obviously, but it is a fantastic lens for the money and is the best option really unless you desperately need the 24mm wide end. Tamron is bringing out a VC 24-70 which seems like a real alternative to the Canikon top-end lenses given VC.
 
Tamron 28-75 is the obvious choice, as Gary says it's very close to the Nikon optically but at a fraction of the price. The AF is faster on the screw-driven versions so try to get one of those, for £200 or so it's a gem of a lens.
 
Gary - Seeing it at you place is the reason I thought of it as an ideal backup - to the Nikon 24 70, Just makes sense tbh

Do you think its as good as an older Nikon 24 70 at about the same price?
 
Ive no idea regarding the older Nikon version Bill, ill grab some samples from mine when i get time and post em up here
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Cheers Gary, Very convincing - some nice shots there, not sure I see the make of the lens as a reason not to look at it.

Looking about the net it seems plenty have this particular lens as a backup to the Nikon 24 70.....


:thumbs:
 
Thinking outside the box for a moment, rather than duplicating a lens why not have complimentary lenses like a couple of primes, say 35mm & 50mm?
 
Craikeybaby said:
Thinking outside the box for a moment, rather than duplicating a lens why not have complimentary lenses like a couple of primes, say 35mm & 50mm?
Click to expand...

Because, IMO, it doesn't serve as a proper backup - that's more of an alternative than a backup. The zoom may be of necessity for a constantly changing subject or type of photography.

(and bear in mind I'm a big advocate of primes!)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top