4 replies to this topic

[rsallsopp]

Hi all, I'm looking to get myself a 24-70mm f2.8 lens. My camera body is the D750 and I’ve been a photography geek for over a decade.

 

I currently have (but am selling) the 24-120mm f4 VR which is a fine lens when used in the f8 to f11 range. Below f8 is acceptable for some things, but I’m not personally happy with the quality at wider apertures when photographing people. I’m not necessarily after razor sharp images from a zoom (although I wouldn’t say no, obviously); I have a small selection of primes for when I need absolute quality. I tend to use the primes when I’m working in a more controlled way, such as a portrait shoot, corporate head shots, etc, or when I just fancy one focal length on a walkabout. I prefer a zoom when things get a bit more random and candid, or when I need to be more flexible.

 

My choice, based on budget, is between a secondhand Nikon 24-70mm f2.8G IF-ED (non VR) and the Tamron 24-70mm f2.8 Di VC USD SP lenses.

 

I’ve done quite a lot of research into this and seen sample images from both, albeit jpegs, but would like to hear from any of you guys that have actually used one or both of these. I’m currently leaning towards the Nikon as quality seems more reliable (and it looks gorgeous :-)). I know many people like the Tamron and say it’s as good as the Nikon, but then there are also plenty out there that say different. There seems to be QC issues with Tamron and I wonder if this has something to do with the different opinions: someone gets a good copy=like, someone gets a dodgy copy=dislike. It’s hard to find anything bad said about the Nikon.

 

Thanks for looking,

Rod.

 

[Merco_61]

Buying a used Nikon 24-70 is a good choice, but you need to be aware that early production had some sample variation and the breakaway plastic section the mount screws into was strengthened as a running change somewhen around 2010 or so because the first version didn't quite stand up to the abuse pros subject their equipment to.

 

Another good reason to go with the Nikon is that you will then be free to use AF fine tune if you get a Tamron 70-200. The 24-70 and the 70-200 Tamron pro lenses share the same ID, so changing the fine'tune for one will change the other as well.

 

I have the Nikon, have had and sold the Tamron and mostly use the Tamron 28-75/2.8 when I am not getting paid to shoot. The 28-75 is so light and unobtrusive compared to the 24-70 lenses. The quality isn't quite at the same level, but it is easier to blend in when aiming a 67 mm front element instead of a 77 or 82 mm at people. When shooting for clients, quality trumps everything, but 400g less mass is welcome in other situations.

[ScottinPollock]

Why not wait and have a look at the G2 Tamron? Should be here any day now. The new stuff has been very good.

 

For me, I would have a hard time justifying a lens these days without VR (as I use it more often than not).

 

BTW, Tamron's G2 stuff can be fine-tuned to a greater extent than Nikon cameras via their TAP console.

[rsallsopp]

Buying a used Nikon 24-70 is a good choice, but you need to be aware that early production had some sample variation and the breakaway plastic section the mount screws into was strengthened as a running change somewhen around 2010 or so because the first version didn't quite stand up to the abuse pros subject their equipment to.

 

Another good reason to go with the Nikon is that you will then be free to use AF fine tune if you get a Tamron 70-200. The 24-70 and the 70-200 Tamron pro lenses share the same ID, so changing the fine'tune for one will change the other as well.

 

I have the Nikon, have had and sold the Tamron and mostly use the Tamron 28-75/2.8 when I am not getting paid to shoot. The 28-75 is so light and unobtrusive compared to the 24-70 lenses. The quality isn't quite at the same level, but it is easier to blend in when aiming a 67 mm front element instead of a 77 or 82 mm at people. When shooting for clients, quality trumps everything, but 400g less mass is welcome in other situations.

 

Thanks for your reply. I'm not sure if, or how, I'll know if the lens is one of the ones you mentioned. All I know is that I will check the lens over after buying and return it if it's not at the level it was sold at. If it seems fine, I'm pretty sure I won't "abuse it" like a working pro photographer would. I tend to treat my stuff well. I will be buying it from mpb and they've been good in the past at listing items correctly.

 

As for a 70-200mm lens, I have no intentions (yet) of buying one of these. My style of photography and the sort of things I'm currently photographing don't require a longer lens. Obviously this may change in the future. If it does, I'll also be in the market for another camera bag. 

Why not wait and have a look at the G2 Tamron? Should be here any day now. The new stuff has been very good.

 

For me, I would have a hard time justifying a lens these days without VR (as I use it more often than not).

 

BTW, Tamron's G2 stuff can be fine-tuned to a greater extent than Nikon cameras via their TAP console.

 

Unfortunately the new Tamron will most likely be out of my budget. The only benefit the new one would have for me would be the older one coming down in price a little more. Anyhow, my gut is saying to go with the Nikon, so I think I am going to listen and do just that. Thanks for replying. 

[ScottinPollock]

Unfortunately the new Tamron will most likely be out of my budget. The only benefit the new one would have for me would be the older one coming down in price a little more. Anyhow, my gut is saying to go with the Nikon, so I think I am going to listen and do just that. Thanks for replying.

My understanding is that it will be $100 more than the current one. If the choice is between the current Tamron and the older Nikon… I'd go with your gut as well.