Nikon or Tamron 24-70 f2.8

Teagan

Teagan

Messages
195
Name
Gerard
Edit My Images
Yes
I've decided to start off with a mid zoom lens in upgrading to full frame but cannot decide which one to choose. Reports on both lenses seem very positive but of course there is the price difference. Any body tried these two if so what are your opinions good and bad.

Regards Gerard.
 
AF faster and more accurate on Nikon. Not sure if you really need VC for this sort of range? just get 2nd hand nikon :)
 
Bad barrel distortion at the short end. Never realised it was that bad.
 
You can lose parts of the image if major correction is required,and therefore the ability to compose precisely... and indeed the whole point in having a 100% viewfinder - although barrel distortion is less prone to this, excessive amounts will mean you lose the corners upon correction. Surely it's better choose a lens with less distortion though, even if it is fully correctable?

Phil Young said:
How close were you to the shelf??
Click to expand...

Fairly close by the look of it... which isn't helping.

Looking again at the images, it's obvious he's closer to the shelf with shorter lengths... which is really a bad idea, as what appears to be barrel distortion may well be made a lot worse by the shelf being so close.

Not a great test image really. These images are not really selling the lens very well. I've used this lens myself, and don't recall it looking so horrible at the short end.


Vignetting looks pretty bad wide open too. I know this can be corrected too... but effectively, you're correcting areas of the frame that appear to be around 2 stops darker than the rest. You're recovering under-exposure in those areas, and that always reduces quality, especially in the shadows. Recovering shadow detail from -2 stops WILL increase noise. Fact. I don't recall the one I used being that bad... then again, I never used it to shoot a single colour wall.

Something strikes me as odd here the more I look at these images. I don't recall the one I used being as bad as this. We talking about the same lens here? The AF 24-70mm f/2.8 SP Di USD VC

Overall this is a great lens... I just don't think these images are doing it any favours.

One thing I did notice with this lens though, is it's nowhere near as good in the middle of the range for sharpness as it is at either end. 40-50mm were quite soft unless you stopped down to around 5.6, and even then it wasn't stellar. For the price though.. still a good lens. All mid range zooms have their respective poor points regardless of price.

This is still a lens I'd recommend as an alternative to the Nikkor 24-70, simply because it's so much cheaper.
 
Last edited:
You're right I was very close to the shelf (prob <1m). I've never really done any test images before so wasn't sure how to setup. Tips gratefully received. Out of curiosity did your copy not suffer the same vignetting?
 
ChrisHeathcote said:
You're right I was very close to the shelf (prob <1m). I've never really done any test images before so wasn't sure how to setup. Tips gratefully received. Out of curiosity did your copy not suffer the same vignetting?
Click to expand...

It did, yes.... but didn't seem to be that bad. Looking at other lens reviews, it seems to be around 1.8stops vignetting wide open... so it seems normal for that lens. I probably just never noticed, as shooting a single colour surface like a wall will always be a devilishly hard test for any lens regarding vignetting.

All fast mid range zooms will have a problem.. they're very difficult to design. With the Nikon it's terrible chromatic aberration... with the Tamron it appears to be distortion and vignetting.
 
Last edited:
Any wide l lens will have distortion at that distance... I'd take it down and mark it as unfair to the lens :)

Vignetting is quiite a lot but depends on the photographers style as to weather this is a huge concern or not - I'd probably not be too bothered since I'm a fan of the effect anyway and use it a lot.

More of a problem for higher iso (6400) where bringing back EV will significantly show up noise.
 
I'm in the market for either one or the other of these lenses!
The Tamron is currently £500 cheaper than the Nikon.
My question is the Nikon really worth an extra £500?
How are you Tamron users finding it now after using it a while?
I have the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 for my crop body and have always been happy with it,so have no problems with Tamron,but as I've now started doing a bit of paid work I need something to complement my Nikon 70-200 F2.8 VRII on FF.
I have no problem getting the Nikon if it is that much better but if I can save a few quid without compromising the image quality I will.:)
Thanks.
 
I have never used any Tamron lens but the Nikon 24-70 is a fantastic lens on full frame. It is however very heavy, but IMO that just reflects the build quality. They also hold their value very well if looked after. You wont be disappointed with the Nikon.
 
cotty332000 said:
What's the af/quality like on this lens Shaheed?
Click to expand...

For my needs I'd say its unbelievable value for money. Performance/AF is good. Just be sure to get a decent copy of the lens!










Loads more on my flickr....all with a d800.

I'd imagine it'd be pretty good on my D90 too but then the tamron 17-50 was great on that too!

Shaheed
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
Sir SR said:
Some cracking shots on there!
Click to expand...

Full res is the only way to really check the images, Flickr depending on upload size (I upload small) and display size then chosen can look great or cack. Full res never lies....

Your images from Flickr look smart mate, but the acid test is to shove a full res up.

I'm using a D610 body wise, most of these are F11-F16

Distortion on the Nikkor is ok, I am 35mm or shorter here

http://1-stephen-taylor.artistwebsites.com/featured/1-bbc-studios-glasgow-stephen-taylor.html

Here is what came off a D80 and Sigma 10-20mm

http://1-stephen-taylor.artistwebsites.com/art/all/snowdonia/all

See the difference in edge definition.

I am pleased with the Nikkor and on a 35mm format camera, covers a lot of bases
 
You can view the original size on Flickr if you go into light box! They look alright at 300% in LR on a 27" iMac
 
Last edited:
I tried a Tamron 24-70 on my D600 last year and was quite impressed with it although at the time decided not to go for it.

Now I've got the D800 though I'm looking toward the Tamron as a good zoom lens when I want a zoom rather than one of my prices (24,35,50) it might not be quite as good as the Nikon (although a lot of reading suggests to me that only the AF of the Nikon is better with very similar lens performance)
 
I saw a comparison between the two which had a lot of images and interestingly, while the Tamron was indeed as sharp as promised in the center, the Nikon was visibly sharper everywhere else. I. e., the Nikon had produced images which overall were considerably sharper.
 
chrism_scotland said:
I tried a Tamron 24-70 on my D600 last year and was quite impressed with it although at the time decided not to go for it.

Now I've got the D800 though I'm looking toward the Tamron as a good zoom lens when I want a zoom rather than one of my prices (24,35,50) it might not be quite as good as the Nikon (although a lot of reading suggests to me that only the AF of the Nikon is better with very similar lens performance)
Click to expand...

I went with the Tamron on my D800 as a landscape/dog portrait lens and have generally been happy with it. The AF isn't that speedy to initially lock on(seems similar to my 50mm 1.8 G if you want a benchmark) but it performs well optically, slightly softer at 70mm wide open but still useable.

One unexpected strength for me is actually its bokeh performance, it does have the "onion" effect on highlights sometimes and the foreground bokeh isn't that smooth but the background is supprizingly free from fringing, I get a little in the transitional zones(between in and out of focus) with very busy backgrounds but besides that I don't often have to do much smoothing out.
 
Gerard given you are using a Nikon 70-200 vr2 I would say get a Nikon 24-70. If you were shooting video or needing very slow shutter speeds handheld then the tamron would be the clear winner. There is good and bad copies of all lenses, I have used a Nikon 24-70 that was an absolute stinker and my old tamron 28-75 smoked it
 
I've always had a love/hate relationship with Nikon's 24-70, its a great lens but can be overly contrasty in some situations and the edges at some focal lengths are a little soft. SWMBO has recently picked up a Tamron and I'm impressed - I simply don't see how the additional cost of the Nikon can be justified, especially considering the Tamron has a 5 year warranty included.
 
cotty332000 said:
My question is the Nikon really worth an extra £500?
Click to expand...

I reckon that the answer to this is like most things: it depends.

It depends if you're buying new or second hand.
It depends if it's a business expense or not.
It depends how hard you beat up on your gear.
It depends whether you're worried about depreciation and resale value.
It depends whether you're shooting static stuff in the studio or whether you're chasing moments in the field.

For me (I'm mainly about portrait and editorial) then it was the Nikon lens without question. YMMV.
 
AchimT said:
Here is the link to the review. Scroll down to the 'Performance at larger distances' headline, then you can compare the images on the left side (Nikon) and in the middle (Tamron) for the different focal lengths.

http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Nikon_vs_Tamron_24-70mm_comparison/
Click to expand...

Analysis paralysis at its best! Try both, its the only way you can make an informed decision. A few shots with the Tamron at the NEC told me all I needed to know (having had two Nikon 24-70's over the last few years), I'd have described the corner sharpeness as being very close to the Nikon, but it may be dependent on the copy...
 
Last edited:
The Nikon 24-70 used will cost not much more than the Tamron 24-70 new.

If you are shooting professionally the Nikon is the one to buy because of the recognised difference in build quality between the 2.

It's not impossible to get a bad copy of the Nikon 24-70 as with any lens, but a lot less likely than getting a bad copy of the Tamron.

If you can get a good copy the Tamron seems to be a steller performer but as with all third part glass represent a greater risk. It's probably also worth considering how well things like the weather sealing on the Tamron will stand up to use as well.

I have the Nikon 24-70 and to be honest for a while there I considered letting it go as I found myself using prime lenses a lot more often and it was getting neglected a little. That phase appears to have passed a little for now though and I am back to using the 24-70 on a regular basis and I can't fault it all really. I can honestly say I have never been dissapointed with it in terms of performance, a.f accuracy or speed.


Oops old thread lol.
 
Last edited:
f/2.8 said:
If you are shooting professionally the Nikon is the one to buy because of the recognised difference in build quality between the 2.
Click to expand...

I'm surprised by that statement, the Tamron feels like it's built very well. Part of being a professional involves justifying additional cost, personally we'd rather have a new lens with 5yr warranty than a used one with none...

If you are considering these lenses then go an try them both out - you may well go for the Nikon but I'll bet any money that you will be surprised at just how close the build quality and IQ is between the two.
 
Last edited:
psenior1 said:
I'm surprised by that statement, the Tamron feels like it's built very well. Part of being a professional involves justifying additional cost, personally we'd rather have a new lens with 5yr warranty than a used one with none...
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top