Forums > Photography Talk > Nikon 24-70 vs Tamron 24-70 lens?

Photographer

Sonn

Posts: 338

Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

So im going to buy a 24-70mm lens for my camera.
I have a d800.

Has anyone tried the 24-70 tamron lens on a d800 and how was it?

Is it worth paying almost twice the price just to get the nikon version?

Sep 13 13 04:20 pm Link

Photographer

Images by MR

Posts: 7777

Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada

Crack The Sky wrote:
So im going to buy a 24-70mm lens for my camera.
I have a d800.

Has anyone tried the 24-70 tamron lens on a d800 and how was it?

Is it worth paying almost twice the price just to get the nikon version?

Not sure where you're getting your pricing?  In Canada the nikon 24-70 is only $370 more and IMO worth it.

Sep 13 13 04:29 pm Link

Photographer

J O H N A L L A N

Posts: 10330

Santa Ana, California, US

I have Nikon's 24-70 2.8 on my D800E.
Honestly, I wouldn't even consider a 2nd tier brand of lens - particularly on this camera.
But, I can afford the Nikon. Still, if you can't afford the better lens, maybe save up until you can.
I'm sure there are ok copies of the 2nd tier lenses out there. Not the kind of sacrifice I'd personally take.

Sep 13 13 04:32 pm Link

Photographer

London Fog

Posts: 6770

London, England, United Kingdom

Crack The Sky wrote:
So im going to buy a 24-70mm lens for my camera.
I have a d800.

Has anyone tried the 24-70 tamron lens on a d800 and how was it?

Is it worth paying almost twice the price just to get the nikon version?

I have the Nikon 24-70 2.8 G ED, and personally speaking I think it's way overrated and overpriced. My 22 year old Nikkor 50mm 1.8 AF (non D) absolutely smokes it in every respect! It weighs a ton, and just my opinion again, but I think Nikon got the focus and zoom rings round the wrong way. The focus ring is at the end, just where you need to hold the lens the most to steady it and this is easily moved when framing and firing...crap design!

Besides this it's not even that much better optically than the consumer Nikkor 24-85's. However, build wise it's without equal and would make a great hand weapon if you were mugged!

I also have the Canon version, the new 24-70 2.8 MKII, now this lens is absolute perfection. In terms of design, build and optics it's possibly the most amazing zoom lens ever made!

Sorry for the rambling, but yes go for the Tamron!

Sep 13 13 04:36 pm Link

Photographer

London Fog

Posts: 6770

London, England, United Kingdom

Images by MR wrote:

Not sure where you're getting your pricing?  In Canada the nikon 24-70 is only $370 more and IMO worth it.

Wow, $370.00 for the Nikkor 24-70 2.8 ED Nano, that's amazing! You sure it's this lens you're referring to?

Sep 13 13 04:40 pm Link

Photographer

Leo Howard

Posts: 6795

Phoenix, Arizona, US

Images by MR wrote:
Not sure where you're getting your pricing?  In Canada the nikon 24-70 is only $370 more and IMO worth it.

London Fog wrote:
Wow, $370.00 for the Nikkor 24-70 2.8 ED Nano, that's amazing! You sure it's this lens you're referring to?

Read that again, I know I read it wrong at first and said the same thing.
$370 MORE not just $370

Sep 13 13 04:59 pm Link

Photographer

London Fog

Posts: 6770

London, England, United Kingdom

Leo Howard wrote:

Images by MR wrote:
Not sure where you're getting your pricing?  In Canada the nikon 24-70 is only $370 more and IMO worth it.

Read that again, I know I read it wrong at first and said the same thing.
$370 MORE not just $370

Ooops, yes my mistake! Still overpriced though...IMHO!

Sep 13 13 05:04 pm Link

Photographer

Leo Howard

Posts: 6795

Phoenix, Arizona, US

London Fog wrote:
Ooops, yes my mistake! Still overpriced though...IMHO!

Cant say that I disagree, I have been looking at them all for a while, Nikon, Sigma, Tamron, and trying to justify $1900 for the Nikon, I dont know, seems C r A Z y

B&H has all 3

Nikon 24-70 f/2.8 ED - $1887

Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 - $1299

Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 EX - $899

Is the Nikon better? I dont know, but for a difference of $588 over the Tamron, and $988 over the Sigma, is it that much better?

Sep 13 13 05:06 pm Link

Photographer

T-D-L

Posts: 10303

Los Angeles, California, US

From the copies I've borrowed from friends in the past (although technically it was only 2 samples, and they weren't new) I was never impressed with the 24-70mm for the price.  I ended up opting for the 28-70mm, which despite the rather large size, focused just as fast and was just as sharp wide open.  Best of all, less color fringing.  But again, much bigger/heavier, and not as wide 28mm vs. 24mm.  For me, the savings of $1000 was worth the loss of 4mm on the wide end.  I've seen them recently drop to as low as $700-800 on ebay/craigslist. 

I have no experience with the new Tamron, but from what the guys on the Canon forum (I recently switched brands) say, the Tamron is supposedly just as good as the new 24-70L for what it's worth, and has the benefit of VC (VR/IS if you're a CaNikon guy).

Sep 13 13 05:12 pm Link

Photographer

Zack Zoll

Posts: 2643

Glens Falls, New York, US

I've used both lenses, but they were both on D3-series cameras, and they weren't back-to-back, so perhaps my memory is colouring my impressions.

I was really impressed by the Tamron.  It seemed every bit as crisp and quick to focus as the Nikon.  I don't really like the 82mm filter size, but then again the VC is nice.  I don't think most people really need VC at this focal length, but I've found it to be very handy when shooting weddings, as it allows me to drag the shutter a bit when using a flash.  It's not an enormous difference, but I'm always very glad to have the option.  Outside of weddings though, I never really cared about anti-shake on normal-length lenses.

If you're shooting video, the VC could potentially be a really handy feature to have.  I don't know if VC triggers continuously for video or just when you're pressing the shutter button though, so I'm not sure if it would help or not.

The Nikon lens might be sharper or faster to focus than the Tamron - since I haven't had the chance to A/B them, I can't say.  But I can say that it's not a very large difference, or I probably would have remembered it.

Sep 13 13 05:24 pm Link

Photographer

- BP Photo -

Posts: 224

Cincinnati, Ohio, US

I have the Nikon and it is nice to know that I am using the best possible lens for that focal length and zoom.  And as I get more into photography, I generally regret buying the cheaper lenses and wish I had started with the top of the line.  Over the life of the lens, the price difference is not much.

If you already have a D800, the price difference shouldn't matter.  But if you are still thinking Tamron, why not check out the Tamron 28-75 for about $500? and maybe get a great prime lens as well.

Sep 13 13 06:04 pm Link

Photographer

M Pandolfo Photography

Posts: 12116

Tampa, Florida, US

IMO most Tamron lenses that I've used are crap, including that one. If I had a choice it would be:

1. Nikon 24-70 f2.8
2. Sigma 24-70 f2.8 a distant 2nd

My first choice would be to go with the Nikon 16-35mm and then pick up the $469.00 Nikon 50mm f1.4 and just bypass the midrange zoom altogether.

Sep 13 13 06:16 pm Link

Photographer

M Pandolfo Photography

Posts: 12116

Tampa, Florida, US

- BP Photo - wrote:
If you already have a D800, the price difference shouldn't matter.  But if you are still thinking Tamron, why not check out the Tamron 28-75 for about $500? and maybe get a great prime lens as well.

? Why wouldn't the price difference for lenses matter for D800 owners? Because they're so wealthy that price isn't an issue? It's a $3,000 camera,which is very reasonable for the product. Not exactly a $30K Hasseblad. That doesn't make sense to me.

And then you advise checking out one of the most low-end lenses in the midrange category. It's cheap for a reason.

This has me so confused lol.

Sep 13 13 06:22 pm Link

Photographer

Happy Guy Photos

Posts: 1144

Upland, California, US

London Fog wrote:
I have the Nikon 24-70 2.8 G ED, and personally speaking I think it's way overrated and overpriced. My 22 year old Nikkor 50mm 1.8 AF (non D) absolutely smokes it in every respect! It weighs a ton, and just my opinion again, but I think Nikon got the focus and zoom rings round the wrong way. The focus ring is at the end, just where you need to hold the lens the most to steady it and this is easily moved when framing and firing...crap design!

Besides this it's not even that much better optically than the consumer Nikkor 24-85's. However, build wise it's without equal and would make a great hand weapon if you were mugged!

I also have the Canon version, the new 24-70 2.8 MKII, now this lens is absolute perfection. In terms of design, build and optics it's possibly the most amazing zoom lens ever made!

Sorry for the rambling, but yes go for the Tamron!

I agree, it's a no brainer. I would go for the Tamron. It's my "bread and butter" lens for both my Canon cameras. I have the non-VC models.

My avatar is a testimony to that lens.

Sep 13 13 06:29 pm Link

Photographer

Paul AI

Posts: 1046

Shawnee, Oklahoma, US

I have the Nikkor 24-70 2.8G and use it as my primary studio lens on my D800.  I definitely don't have any complaints with the lens- it's tack sharp and the build quality is excellent.  I personally don't have a problem with the weight of the 24-70, but I'm also used to carrying the 70-200 2.8G for non-studio work. 

FWIW, DxOMark rated the Tamron really well on the D800.  Chromatic aberration was the big concern with the Tamron as I recall.

Sep 13 13 06:33 pm Link

Photographer

Photos by McQ

Posts: 25

HAYDENVILLE, Massachusetts, US

On my D7000, the Nikon 24-70 is way sharper than my Sigma 24-70. Should have bought the Nikon first......

Sep 13 13 06:47 pm Link

Photographer

enriquePHOTOs

Posts: 6

Dallas, Texas, US

nikkor 24-70 is a good lens but the nikkor 70-200 is king

Sep 13 13 06:52 pm Link

Photographer

David M Russell

Posts: 1134

New York, New York, US

All the Nikon G series lenses, in my experience, are ridiculously sharp.

I doubt very seriously that the Tamron is even close.

A good value for the money? Maybe. I can't say. Personally, I don't skimp when it comes to glass.

Sep 13 13 06:59 pm Link

Photographer

DOUGLASFOTOS

Posts: 8463

Los Angeles, California, US

Crack The Sky wrote:
So im going to buy a 24-70mm lens for my camera.
I have a d800.

Has anyone tried the 24-70 tamron lens on a d800 and how was it?

Is it worth paying almost twice the price just to get the nikon version?

http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/456-ni … 2470_28_ff

http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/474-si … _28_hsm_fx

http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/789-tamron2470f28fx

Sep 13 13 07:01 pm Link

guide forum

Photographer

-JAY-

Posts: 6705

Las Vegas, Nevada, US

I've gotten absolutely fantastic results from my older, pre-VC Tamron 28-75/2.8 ($300) on my D600

No way I'd pay the price for the Nikon when this fits every one of my needs.

Sep 13 13 07:05 pm Link

Photographer

Sonn

Posts: 338

Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

-JAY- wrote:
I've gotten absolutely fantastic results from my older, pre-VC Tamron 28-75/2.8 ($300) on my D600

No way I'd pay the price for the Nikon when this fits every one of my needs.

Very interesting, this could be a good option to use for awhile and see if i want to upgrade later since its so cheap.

Sep 13 13 07:10 pm Link

Photographer

Chuckarelei

Posts: 9566

Seattle, Washington, US

London Fog wrote:
Ooops, yes my mistake! Still overpriced though...IMHO!

Leo Howard wrote:
Cant say that I disagree, I have been looking at them all for a while, Nikon, Sigma, Tamron, and trying to justify $1900 for the Nikon, I dont know, seems C r A Z y

B&H has all 3

Nikon 24-70 f/2.8 ED - $1887

Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 - $1299

Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 EX - $899

Is the Nikon better? I dont know, but for a difference of $588 over the Tamron, and $988 over the Sigma, is it that much better?

YES!

Sep 13 13 07:16 pm Link

guide forum

Photographer

-JAY-

Posts: 6705

Las Vegas, Nevada, US

Sep 13 13 07:21 pm Link

Photographer

Canceled

Posts: 61

Aleknagik, Alaska, US

Look buying a Tamran or Sigma for a D800 is just dumb. There is no comparison, Nikon makes better lenses for it's cameras. Sub series lenses are a joke on that high quality of a camera. Look at any real publish photographer, the don't waste money on those off brand pieces of crap. Would you buy a Mercedes and put generic tires on it. NO the off brand is the better buy.

Sep 13 13 11:29 pm Link

Photographer

T-D-L

Posts: 10303

Los Angeles, California, US

Divination Prime Studio wrote:
Look buying a Tamran or Sigma for a D800 is just dumb. There is no comparison, Nikon makes better lenses for it's cameras. Sub series lenses are a joke on that high quality of a camera. Look at any real publish photographer, the don't waste money on those off brand pieces of crap. Would you buy a Mercedes and put generic tires on it. NO the off brand is the better buy.

Voigtlander, Leica, Zeiss, even Sigma (35mm 1.4 anyone?) would disagree wink

Pros and published photographers buy the best tool for the job, and don't get caught up in fanboy-ism's or being overly brand loyal to the detriment of their job.  Besides, Nikon makes plenty of shit lenses too (ie. almost every kit lens this past decade lol).

Sep 14 13 12:11 am Link

Photographer

mphunt

Posts: 901

Missouri City, Texas, US

User ratings at B&H are very high.

Sep 14 13 03:26 am Link

Photographer

Hikari Tech Photography

Posts: 791

Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada

Crack The Sky wrote:
So im going to buy a 24-70mm lens for my camera.
I have a d800.

Has anyone tried the 24-70 tamron lens on a d800 and how was it?

Is it worth paying almost twice the price just to get the nikon version?

I wouldn't mount a Tamron lens onto any of my Nikon bodies period!

Tamron's glass is no where near close to 50% of the quality of Nikon's glass so even if the lens was free I wouldn't mount it. I'd sell it and buy Nikon glass. smile

If you can't afford the good glass now, wait until you can. You'll be kicking yourself later if you don't wait. Rent or borrow each to see the difference.

Sep 14 13 04:25 am Link

Photographer

ChanStudio

Posts: 9183

Alpharetta, Georgia, US

Crack The Sky wrote:
So im going to buy a 24-70mm lens for my camera.
I have a d800.

Has anyone tried the 24-70 tamron lens on a d800 and how was it?

Is it worth paying almost twice the price just to get the nikon version?

Since you have the D800, go with 24-70mm f2.8G.  The 24-70mm f2.8G is sharper than the Tamron at 24-50mm.  Also, the 24-70mm f2.8G feel more solid, has better weather seal and metal body.

  Sometimes Nikon do offer the $200 instant rebates on the 24-70mm f2.8G so that would bring it down to around $1690 ish.

  If you are doing video, then the Tamron has advantage because of the OS.  Otherwise go with the 24-70mm f2.8G if you get a good deal.

Sep 14 13 05:23 am Link

Photographer

pdxROCKpix

Posts: 118

Hillsboro, Oregon, US

I've owned the Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 for about a year and a half now and have also shot with a friends Nikon 24-70. The Nikon seems to focus a bit quicker but as far as images are concerned I can't say it's worth twice what the Sigma costs. The only down side to the Sigma I've found so far is the filter size, 82mm. Not very common so you end up having to mail order most of the time because local shops don't stock that size.

Sep 14 13 05:39 am Link

Photographer

Maxximages

Posts: 2045

Los Angeles, California, US

I think there is a lot of confusion with regard to which Tamron the OP is asking about.

If it is the new one, Tamron SP 24-70mm f/2.8 Di VC USD it is supposed to be very good.
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/show … =43&page=1

Sep 14 13 07:12 am Link

Photographer

TJ PhotographyPA

Posts: 463

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, US

I have a Nikon 24-70 for my Nikon D600.

Sep 14 13 07:15 am Link

Photographer

fullmetalphotographer

Posts: 2789

Fresno, California, US

Crack The Sky wrote:
So im going to buy a 24-70mm lens for my camera.
I have a d800.

Has anyone tried the 24-70 tamron lens on a d800 and how was it?

Is it worth paying almost twice the price just to get the nikon version?

My first choice would be the Nikon 24-70mm. Its is a great lens. My second choice which is the one I shoot now is the AF-S Zoom-NIKKOR 28-70mm f/2.8D IF-ED. This lens you can pick up KEH for about $900 http://www.keh.com/camera/Nikon-Autofoc … 5252K?r=FE . It is very sharp has fast AF and is well made and durable.

My third choice is AT-X 287 AF PRO SV - TOKINA 28-70mm f/2.8 which I shot for about 10 years until a reporter killed it. It was not as well made as the Nikon AF camera driven, but it is as sharp. you can get it for about $325 http://www.keh.com/camera/Nikon-Autofoc … 91710?r=FE .

4th choice would be the Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8, the big issue is warranty repairs Sigma repe in that area is a pain. I shot a lot Tamron lenses at one paper they were clunky and did not hold up as well as their name brand counterparts, The warranties were good but Tamron literally follows the letter of the law so if you violate the warranty you are SOL. I do own the the TAMRON SP AF ASPHERICAL LD [IF] 28-105mm f/2.8, it is ok but the AF-S Zoom-NIKKOR 28-70mm f/2.8D IF-ED and AT-X 287 AF PRO SV - TOKINA 28-70mm f/2.8 both kill it on image quality and lens build.

I view third party lenses as lenses that fill the Gap between the Pro Name brand and consumer lenses. The big issues is that third party lenses are Hit and Miss. Tokina made two really good lenses that worked great with Nikon the AT-X 287 AF PRO SV - TOKINA 28-70mm f/2.8 and AT-X 300 AF PRO -TOKINA 300mm f/2.8 but there 80-200 f/2.8 was a heavy slow AF dog that could been made by a Russian Tank designer.

Sep 14 13 07:54 am Link

Photographer

DBVE Imaging

Posts: 1907

Fort Worth, Texas, US

Nikkor makes some of the best lenses in the world, and are known for being so.  I would not even consider buying an off-brand lens.  Save the money and get the Nikkor.  You will not be sorry.

Sep 14 13 08:02 am Link

Photographer

Select Models

Posts: 36230

Upland, California, US

TJ PhotographyPA wrote:
I have a Nikon 24-70 for my Nikon D600.

D600 shooter here also with the ED-VR 24-120 Nanocoat F4.  Amazingly sharp lens with a much stronger telephoto advantage.  Definitely one to consider... wink

Sep 14 13 08:41 am Link

Photographer

Image Works Photography

Posts: 2890

Orlando, Florida, US

T-D-L wrote:
From the copies I've borrowed from friends in the past (although technically it was only 2 samples, and they weren't new) I was never impressed with the 24-70mm for the price.  I ended up opting for the 28-70mm, which despite the rather large size, focused just as fast and was just as sharp wide open.  Best of all, less color fringing.  But again, much bigger/heavier, and not as wide 28mm vs. 24mm.  For me, the savings of $1000 was worth the loss of 4mm on the wide end.  I've seen them recently drop to as low as $700-800 on ebay/craigslist.

the 28-70mm is a half the price and just a gen older with af-s. I bought it 3 years ago and never looked back. My only pet peeve was 70mm and wide open which I ended up using f/4. The only weakness I see.

Sep 14 13 09:28 am Link

Photographer

John Fisher

Posts: 1948

Miami Beach, Florida, US

With third party lenses there seems to be more lens to lens variation in initial quality than there is with Nikon or Canon (although the original Canon 24-70 f2.8L had an "interesting" reputation for lens to lens quality!). Get a good one and you are happy, get a less than good one, and you are bummed out (you see this played out in the various opinions of these lenses in some of posts above this one).

Another thing to take into account is that the resale of third party lenses tends to be dramatically lower (as a percentage of initial price) than a similar lens from Canon or Nikon. When I sold my Canon 70-200 f2.8L to get the same lens with IS and when I sold the 70-200 f2.8L IS to get the Mark II version, I was able to sell the older lenses for 90% of what I originally paid for them.

That said, Sigma is apparently making a run at producing very high quality lenses for Nikon and Canon. While they may not yet have the lens you are looking for, keep an eye on Sigma as their recent releases have been very well received.

John
--
John Fisher
900 West Avenue, Suite 633
Miami Beach, Florida 330139
(305) 534-9322
http://www.johnfisher.com

Sep 14 13 01:27 pm Link

Photographer

London Fog

Posts: 6770

London, England, United Kingdom

I personally would not consider any Tampon, Enimga or Crapkina lens for any of my Nikon's or Canon cameras, but Zeiss yes!

Sep 14 13 01:47 pm Link

Photographer

Jerry Nemeth

Posts: 28001

Dearborn, Michigan, US

John Fisher wrote:
With third party lenses there seems to be more lens to lens variation in initial quality than there is with Nikon or Canon (although the original Canon 24-70 f2.8L had an "interesting" reputation for lens to lens quality!). Get a good one and you are happy, get a less than good one, and you are bummed out (you see this played out in the various opinions of these lenses in some of posts above this one).

Another thing to take into account is that the resale of third party lenses tends to be dramatically lower (as a percentage of initial price) than a similar lens from Canon or Nikon. When I sold my Canon 70-200 f2.8L to get the same lens with IS and when I sold the 70-200 f2.8L IS to get the Mark II version, I was able to sell the older lenses for 90% of what I originally paid for them.

That said, Sigma is apparently making a run at producing very high quality lenses for Nikon and Canon. While they may not yet have the lens you are looking for, keep an eye on Sigma as their recent releases have been very well received.

John
--
John Fisher
900 West Avenue, Suite 633
Miami Beach, Florida 330139
(305) 534-9322
http://www.johnfisher.com

I use the Sigma 17-50 f2.8 with my Canon.  It's a great lens!

Sep 14 13 01:55 pm Link

Photographer

ELiffmann

Posts: 1414

Baton Rouge, Louisiana, US

Sep 14 13 02:15 pm Link

Photographer

Dan OMell

Posts: 1335

Ufa, Bashkortostan, Russia

if you're so price-sensitive, buy all those three:

1) Nikon 28mm f1.8G
2) Nikon 50mm f1.4G
3) Samyang 85mm f1.4

and you will get much better value for your money.

Samyang is in general better then Nikon 85mm f1.4D or even f1.4G, but has only a manual focus, and DRAMATICALLY cheaper. If you need an auto-focus and cannot justify the Nikon 85 f1.4 price, buy Nikon 85 f1.8G instead.

If you miss the range, you may want to consider the manual focusing Samyang 35mm f1.4 too.

As a rule, any prime lens is MUCH better than ANY zoom lens. In theory, and in practice. Zooms are a compromise, and the heavy one.

If you love a manual focus (better control), don't buy Nikon 50mm f1.4, and buy the manual focusing Nikon 50mm f1.2 (it is still in production) instead. Canon has 50mm f1.2 and 85mm f1.2 with autofocus, though.

If you have trouble with manual focusing, use LiveView mode and zoom function in D800. You can customize LCD settings, incl. sharpness for better focusing, and use a Hoodman loupe. (Canon LCD has better resolution).

Both Nikon 24-70 and Tamron 24-70 are BAD.

The single Nikon zoom worth to buy is 70-200 VRII f2.8 (bread and butter). Only because 200mm f2 and 400 f2.8 are pretty heavy lenses.

Even if some lens costs, say $9,500 (Nikon 400mm f/2.8G ED VR II f2.8), putting aside like only $25 per day (unsubscribe from some TV channels, cook your own food, brew your own coffee) you can afford it in a year, even if your photography doesn't bring your any profit. Some Nikon lenses is a pretty good investment too (you cannot say the same about the 3rd party lenses!); and, at the same time, your currency bill buys less and less every day, after all.

IMHO

Sep 14 13 02:16 pm Link