|
Forums >
Photography Talk >
Nikon 24-70 vs Tamron 24-70 lens?
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 Crack The Sky wrote: 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 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 Crack The Sky 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! Sep 13 13 04:36 pm Link Images by MR 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? Sep 13 13 04:40 pm Link Images by MR wrote: London Fog wrote: Read that again, I know I read it wrong at first and said the same thing. Sep 13 13 04:59 pm Link Leo Howard wrote: Images by MR wrote: Read that again, I know I read it wrong at first and said the same thing. Ooops, yes my mistake! Still overpriced though...IMHO! Sep 13 13 05:04 pm Link London Fog 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 Sep 13 13 05:06 pm Link 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 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 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 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 - BP Photo - wrote: ? 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. Sep 13 13 06:22 pm Link London Fog wrote: 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. Sep 13 13 06:29 pm Link 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 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 nikkor 24-70 is a good lens but the nikkor 70-200 is king Sep 13 13 06:52 pm Link 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 Crack The Sky wrote: http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/456-ni … 2470_28_ff Sep 13 13 07:01 pm Link 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 -JAY- wrote: 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 London Fog wrote: Leo Howard wrote: YES! Sep 13 13 07:16 pm Link Sep 13 13 07:21 pm Link 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 Divination Prime Studio wrote: Voigtlander, Leica, Zeiss, even Sigma (35mm 1.4 anyone?) would disagree Sep 14 13 12:11 am Link User ratings at B&H are very high. Sep 14 13 03:26 am Link Crack The Sky wrote: I wouldn't mount a Tamron lens onto any of my Nikon bodies period! Sep 14 13 04:25 am Link Crack The Sky wrote: 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. Sep 14 13 05:23 am Link 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 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 I have a Nikon 24-70 for my Nikon D600. Sep 14 13 07:15 am Link Crack The Sky wrote: 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. Sep 14 13 07:54 am Link 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 TJ PhotographyPA wrote: 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... Sep 14 13 08:41 am Link T-D-L wrote: 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 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 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 John Fisher wrote: I use the Sigma 17-50 f2.8 with my Canon. It's a great lens! Sep 14 13 01:55 pm Link Sep 14 13 02:15 pm Link 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 |
