Nikon or Tamron 24-70 f2.8

If i can be antagonistic for a second...I always think when comparing high quality 3rd party vs OEM products...the phrase build quality seems to be a bit of a cop out or excuse to buy the OEM.

The build quality of the 24-70 is fine, you only need to feel it to see that. If you're throwing the two against rocks then maybe there's a difference I don't know...doubt it though.

Of course it's different if talking something with obvious build differences like the 17-50mm...
 
Last edited:
f/2.8 said:
You say personally then use the word we'd?

It's is just my opinion. The Tamron 24-70's I have looked at didn't feel to me as good of build quality as the Nikon version. I know two other togs that have the Tamron and they both agree that it doesn't feel as good in terms of build quality in comparison to the Nikon or Canon version. That's not to say that the build quality is bad, just not as good, it's hardly surprising considering the cost difference. Interestingly enough the issues they have both had with there lenses would appear to back this up. Both have had issues with the V.C and the Canon user has had his back to Tamron twice with issues with a.f as well. Not ideal as professional photographers who rely on there equipment. In the case of the Canon user who requires 2 bodies this mean't he had to purchase another body as Tamron needed him to send them the camera body back as well. To be fair the issues now seem to be resolved but for the Canon user he is only happy to use the lens on the body that Tamron calibrated the lens too, as he still has issues on his other camera bodies with a.f accuracy. Obviously they have both got backup equipment to use while there lenses were away but still not ideal. Tamron were not exactly quick to resolve the issues either. I was only chatting to them about this last night actually as I was considering buying a Tamron 70-200 V.C and wanted some feedback from them as to how Tamron dealt with their issues as there also appears to be more than a few bad copies of this lens around as well.
Click to expand...

Wow, being picked up on grammar too. I said we'd because its primarily my wife's lens, who is also a full time pro like myself. Fingers crossed we don't have any problems with our copy, but only time will tell. If we do though we certainly wouldn't be sending one of our camera's in with it and buying another, not for the sake of a £700 lens.

As a side note, we have a variety of lenses from Nikon, Tamron and Sigma, and the only lens I've ever had an issue with and had to send in to NPS for repair was a Nikon 24-70mm. Go figure.
 
Last edited:
psenior1 said:
Wow, being picked up on grammar too. I said we'd because its primarily my wife's lens, who is also a full time pro like myself. Fingers crossed we don't have any problems with our copy, but only time will tell. If we do though we certainly wouldn't be sending one of our camera's in with it and buying another, not for the sake of a £700 lens.

As a side note, we have a variety of lenses from Nikon, Tamron and Sigma, and the only lens I've ever had an issue with and had to send in to NPS for repair was a Nikon 24-70mm. Go figure.
Click to expand...

I wasn't picking you up on grammar I just didn't understand why you would say "personally we'd", my grammar is worse than most.
 
Phil Young said:
If i can be antagonistic for a second...I always think when comparing high quality 3rd party vs OEM products...the phrase build quality seems to be a bit of a cop out or excuse to buy the OEM.

The build quality of the 24-70 is fine, you only need to feel it to see that. If you're throwing the two against rocks then maybe there's a difference I don't know...doubt it though.

Of course it's different if talking something with obvious build differences like the 17-50mm...
Click to expand...


I never said it wasn't fine just not as good, have you used either lens?
 
Last edited:
f/2.8 said:
Have you used either lens?
Click to expand...
Have I HELD either lens...that's build quality examination ;)

Yes - both.

Same for the tamron 70-200mm and the nikon VR2...felt the same to me...

Tamroms zoom rings require slightly more effort to move but I don't think that comes into the quality question...rather a matter of preference.

It might be me, but I can't tell a difference between either of the 70-200mm's or the 24-70mm's...
 
Phil Young said:
Have I HELD either lens...that's build quality examination ;)

Yes - both.

Same for the tamron 70-200mm and the nikon VR2...felt the same to me...

Tamroms zoom rings require slightly more effort to move but I don't think that comes into the quality question...rather a matter of preference.

It might be me, but I can't tell a difference between either of the 70-200mm's or the 24-70mm's...
Click to expand...


Really, I am surprised to hear that as there are obvious differences with both and your the only person I have ever come across that has not been able to see that. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion though.

How you finding the 70-200vc. Really tempted to bite on one even with the copy issues. So cheap imported.
 
I suspect that the majority of the difference can only be seen if you spend the entire time photographing focus charts, batteries and memory cards standing on their end. I see comments online from portrait photographers telling others to buy the Nikon as the corners are sharper. If you want sharp corners for portraiture buy a macro lens, your paying the bucks for the fast aperture and the separation/low light ability it gives you, so the corners are likely to be awash with creamy bokeh anyway.
 
Last edited:
there is an over reliance upon sharpness, esp edge to edge when your focus is in the centre
I'm quite happy with mine, managed to have a play in the studio, so here are a couple. not heavily edited just some tests to share at f/11
IMG_3498.jpg

with the crop here, not my sharpest lens, I think the sigma 70-200 is sharper in the studio, but I haven't looked at optimum aperture for sharpness yet, and I'm quite happy so far :)
IMG_3498-2.jpg
 
f/2.8 said:
Really, I am surprised to hear that as there are obvious differences with both and your the only person I have ever come across that has not been able to see that. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion though.

How you finding the 70-200vc. Really tempted to bite on one even with the copy issues. So cheap imported.
Click to expand...
I don't see how much difference they can be...both full metal, good sealing, feels solid...unless I'm missing something...

The 70-200mm is amazing. Stupidly sharp (and that's on DX - I'd love to play with it on FX), no complaints. Very fast, great colours and vibrancy, contrast etc...let's not even discuss VC - I can hand hold 200mm at 1/2s.

Love the fact that no switch is needed for panning, unlike the canon and nikon offerings.
 
Pains me to say that the Tamron seems to be getting better write-ups than either the Nikon or Canon equivalents - I need to have a play with one !
 
Phil Young said:
I don't see how much difference they can be...both full metal, good sealing, feels solid...unless I'm missing something...

The 70-200mm is amazing. Stupidly sharp (and that's on DX - I'd love to play with it on FX), no complaints. Very fast, great colours and vibrancy, contrast etc...let's not even discuss VC - I can hand hold 200mm at 1/2s.

Love the fact that no switch is needed for panning, unlike the canon and nikon offerings.
Click to expand...

yes, I find the 70-200 OS remarkably sharp, and so easy to get that sharpness for the focal length

My next test will be optimum sharpness for the tamron, as at f2.8 I really don't care much, but in the studio where you can pick and choose, I will set that and then adjust the lights/ISO/etc to maintain it if suitable for the situation.
 
Eh, didn't realise thread was still going. I ended up getting the Nikon 24-70. It is a wonderful lens and pin sharp. It compliments the 70-200 very well so my next logical step is a 12-24 Nikon.
Regards Gerard.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top