I have never found that
but who am i to say ............... Tamron for ever ... what a load of crap
But if you never try anything else, you'd never realise. Saying you've shot Nikon since 1976 means nothing as ALL you've shot is Nikon. It's like people saying in defence of their driving, that they've been driving for 30 years.... utterly meaningless, as they could easily have been driving really badly for 30 years.
You've never used the Tamron lens in question.. I have. It's better than the Nikkor 24-70 2.8G ED. It just is. Without using it, how can you say I'm wrong unless you are operating on blind faith and brand loyalty... which makes you an ad man's dream and rather stupid.
but I bow to your "expert" opinion
So you should... because it is.
Unlike you I don't just assume Nikon lenses are the best and will actually try other stuff.
I'm slightly baffled why you mention the Nikon F or post a picture of it... but then again, you always do make rather odd, out of context comments.
Clearly you're just a Nikon fanboy... although I use the word "boy" in it's loosest possible context. You'd never accept anything other than Nikon because you're only interested in cameras.
They're just tools. You buy what does the job best. There are loads of Sigma lenses that wipe the floor with Nikkors, but you'd rather bury your head in the sand, compromise your images, just so you can have a Nikkor lens... like anyone gives a crap when looking at your images.
Up to you... I tried... but you're stubborn. (shrug).