chemdoc Loc: West Coast

I bought a Tamron 24-70 F/2.8 lens in March to go with my new Nikon D750. I immediately noticed fuzziness along the right side of the frame and Tamron had me exchange the lens. I did so and still had the problem, so I sent it in for adjustment and still have the problem. This past week I have been evaluating the Nikon 14-24 F/2.8 and Tamron 15-30 F/2.8 to decide which to buy. I have taken a large number of comparison shots in a wide variety of locations and while the Nikon seems to have the edge in sharpness, the Tamron is very close. However, both are vastly superior to the 24-70 on the right side of the frame.

I am attaching three shots I took this morning, all on a tripod at f8 and ISO 100. I would appreciate any opinions on the sharpness of the 24-70 lens. I am wondering if this is as good as it gets or I just have a poor example. Thanks.

By the way, the D750 is my first Nikon, upgrading from my Canon T4i. What a great camera! What really amazes me is that I barely use HDR any more since the dynamic range is so good. I can underexpose an image by 2 stops to get the sky right and then pull every detail out of the shadows.

Phil

Tamron 24-70

(Download)

Tamron 15-30

(Download)

Nikon 14-24

(Download)

mas24 Loc: Southern CA

According to one pro photographer, Matt Granger, he ranks the Nikon, Canon, and Tamron, in that order, as best 24-70mm lenses. Best bang for the bucks, and considered a pro lens, is the Tamron, he claims. I saw 2 images today, posted by DOOK (uhh) from Australia. He shot the Tamron 15-30mm paired with a Nikon D750. Both photos were taken at 15mm. Your 14-24mm photo is the very first image seen by me. Others will give opinions on these lenses. Good luck.

londonfire Loc: NY to NC

I had good luck recently using the fine tune AF adjustment on my D7100. Not the same camera, by any means, but the principle is the same. I didn't make any focusing setup rigs like You Tube shows, I just played with different amounts until it was sharp. It was in combo with a Nikon 18-200 VR zoom. Big difference at 200 mm now.

lone ranger Loc: Port Saint Lucie, Florida

my gosh, look at the definition in the brick photo, you can't beat nikon for sharpness!!.........tamron is ok..but i personally would never own anything but Nikon Lenses.......they truly are the best, remember you get what you pay for!!

DOOK Loc: Maclean, Australia

Hi Phil. I have a D750 (& a D7100) & my favorite lens (for landscapes, etc) is my Tamron 15-30mm. It is super sharp throughout its aperture range & is the only full frame ultra wide lens with image stabilization (4 stops, & this is genuine--I have tested it). People say, 'Why stabilization on a lens this wide?'--the answer is simple...for hand held sunsets & indoor shots with no flash, you can easily shoot at a full second & get tack sharp results. Most comparisons/reviews put it as good as, if not better than comparable offerings from the 'big two' (big price advantage, too). I would unreservedly recommend this lens. Earl.

jeep_daddy Loc: Prescott AZ

I couldn't agree more. OEM is always best if you are really looking for build quality and best results.

Canonman333 Loc: Far Northern End of California

Were all three photos shot at 24mm or ?
Perhaps this would explain the difference. If they weren't, perhaps that made a difference. Or, even if they were, it may make a difference as to which end of the zoom range you used. I've found on my 70-200 2.8 that I have more issues at 200 than something short of that. However, I see the difference with the entire image not just the edge. But I'm far from an expert on lenses. I'd be interested in knowing what more knowledgeable hogs think aside from opinions on which brand lens is best.

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

Consider that I am almost 80 years old and my eyes are not what they were when I was younger but I use corrective lenses for a 20-20 vision.
In my humble opinion the three images are pretty close and I cannot see the "softness" in the Tamron 24-70 lens that you mention. Color rendition and contrast can vary from one lens to the next one but it seems to be pretty consistent with Nikon optics. Independent optics, especially Sigma, are producing excellent optics at reasonable prices.
Nobody is going to deny the quality behind Nikon optics but for the price Tamron is doing a great job. If you want the best quality you have to spend your money with Nikon.
Money aside, I believe Tamron offers a reasonable alternative.

lsimpkins Loc: SE Pennsylvania

Download the Tamron image, then click with your mouse to enlarge the upper left wooden siding. Then scroll to the right. The softness should be apparent.
This looks to me like a lens with a decentering issue. Since the OP said they did an exchange with Tamron as well as an adjustment of the exchanged lens, I think Tamron may have produced a bad batch. Several reviews (including the Camera Store) have stated that the lens can produce really good results.

aflundi Loc: Albuquerque, NM

Your test results really surprise me given how highly thought-of the Tamron 24-70 is, but sure enough, it definitely looks soft on the right.

With this test, which looks like a pretty good one, it does depend on the lens axis being perpendicular to the building wall. It looks to me like the 24-70 is aimed more to the right than the other two. Is it possible the right hand side is just further away because the aim is slightly off perpendicular? How about re-doing the test by bracketing the aim spot a little between right and left?

chemdoc Loc: West Coast

I set up my camera on a tripod and just switched out the lenses. I understand your concerns and can check this. However, I have done a number of side by side comparisons in many different locations and the results always come out the same with softness on the right side of the 24-70. Tamron has offered to have me send the lens back again along with the camera body so they can try another adjustment.

Phil

Bob Yankle Loc: Burlington, NC

PaulR01 Loc: West Texas

I have the 24-70 on a Canon 5Diii and its just plain soft at 2.8 but the more you stop it down the better it gets. It's very sharp at f4 to f10 I haven't shot higher than that yet. The only real issue I have had with mine is the barrel lock. Sometimes it doesn't want to unlock.

David Morrison

Dook,,
Hope its ok to reply to your (reply) .I am looking for a a lens about the focal length of the Tamron you describe ( for Canon ) , so thanks- will look into that .I have been considering the Canon 16-35 f4L which is supposed to be a little better than the 2.8 , and is stabilised, but not really cheap at around $1000 US.The Tamron may be a cheaper option with good quality.The question of stabilisation on wider lenses is an interesting topic.I've often thought that having a wider lens on the camera obviously doesn't stop camera movement, so the stabilisation must be a good thing?-- or does any movement not show up the same ?Cheers,D.

Jim Bob

Personally I think the Tokina 24-70 is better built and sharper.