Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

https://photographylife.com/reviews/tamron-24-70mm-f2-8

Marsha, according to this review, the Tamron does in fact seem to be a little sharper across the field at the wider apertures and shorter focal lengths - I doubt you could see the difference. But a couple of things - it is not truly 70mm when zoomed in, it is more like 60mm, and it uses a bigger filter - 82mm instead of 77. At F4 the sample test is not really F4, but actually a little wider, inviting overexposure. Focus performance is not quite as good as the Nikon, but not bad by any means. You may find the differences significant enough to cause you to want the Nikon in the long run.

As far as for landscapes, It should be fine at the wide end. But you may find yourself using longer focal lengths anyway, and creating stitched panos for wider views with longer lenses , as opposed to using wide and ultra-wide lenses, so I think you are covered. I do a ton of landscapes, and I while I have a 14-24, 24mm PC-E and the 24-70, by a wide margin my go to lenses for landscape are a 45mm PC-E, 85mm PC-E, 80-200 F2.8 and 100-300 F4. Using wider and ultrawide lenses just result in smaller (pixel count) because of all of the adjustment and cropping to correct keystoning, and getting rid of too much sky or foreground, extension distortion and volume deformation. But there are times when you need a wide lens and nothing else will do, which is why I keep my 14-24, but it is probably my least-used lens, and rarely for landscapes. You can see some examples here:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/gene_lugo/

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Go through these reviews and decide for yourself. Getting the opinions of owners isn't the best way to decide.

http://www.ishootshows.com/2010/10/18/comparison-review-tamron-28-75mm-vs-sigma-24-70mm-f2-8/
https://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Sigma-24-35mm-F2-DG-HSM-Art-Nikon-mount-review-Performance-redefined/Comparison-1-Sigma-24-35mm-F2-DG-HSM-A-Nikon-comparison
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HV9ju8LmRfU
http://www.diyphotography.net/great-24-70mm-f2-8-shootout-pits-nearly-identical-canon-nikkor-pentax-sony/

Nukepr Loc: Citrus County, FL

I own and use the Tokina 24-70 f2.8 and it is the lens that stays on the front of my D7200 most of the time. It is a very sharp lens and it is less than Nikon by far. It does not have vibration reduction, but at these focal lengths that is of marginal value unless you are shooting in very low light. I recommend that you look at reviews of the lens (DXOMark said it was sharper than the Nikon version) before you make a final decision. Hope you find what you want.

Jeffcs Loc: Myrtle Beach South Carolina

Lens choices are so personal, when asked by newbies " what's the best" is an impossible question to answer my suggestion is not to ask what is suggested but rather please describe "what works for you" in X conditions. Your going to get opinions and suggestions please take each with a grain of salt
Rent what you think might be what you want shoot it and test your results
As far as the 24-70 it's a great focal length, is it a do-all no but none the less great lens BTW I have the Nikkor VR love it

bull drink water Loc: pontiac mi.

with all the wide angle and zoom lenses out there, we tend to pigeon hole ourselves. think back to when 28mm was as wide as it got. we did great landscapes. whern 50 or 100mm were the limit, we did ok with sports shooting. if all I had was a 24-70mm f2.8, i'd add a good 1.4 tc and shoot away. back then my pockets were shallow, I shot around what I could afford.it's great that we have super wide and super long lenses, but lets not lock ourselves in a box. I have a nice sigma 24-70mm f 2.8 i'm looking for ways to use it on both my Sony a-850 and my slt a-77.

Tomcat5133 Loc: Gladwyne PA

I kind of feel the 24 70 is not enough reach and limited for even closer shots in sports.
I think a 70 200 would be a more aggressive approach. Good luck.

markngolf Loc: Bridgewater, NJ

Hi Marsha,

My granddaughter played HS volleyball. I used my 24 - 70mm and my 70 - 200mm lenses. (f/2.8) It does not matter, but I shoot Canon. I was also able to situate myself pretty close to the action. I used the 24 - 70 from floor next to the court and the 70 - 200 from the stands. I found volleyball a bit difficult due to lighting and the net. I think the 70 - 200 may very well be worth the expenditure. It a challenging but fun venue. Of course, watching grand kids participating in their activities is pure joy! The parents, kids & coaches love my photos. I posted them on Shutterfly (protected) and shared the link.

Pixelpixie88 Loc: Northern Minnesota

Thanks, Jerry.....I give these a look today!

Pixelpixie88 Loc: Northern Minnesota

Thank Mark...what you said is exactly how it is for me. Now I just need a 24-70mm! I do have the 70-200 which does work better from the bleachers. I also post in Shutterfly for them! :-)

markngolf Loc: Bridgewater, NJ

We must be related, Marsha!! Cool. The 24 - 70 & 70 - 200 versions II are incredible lenses!! I had the I versions. Paid $1350 for the 24 - 70 in 2006. Sold it in 2015 for $1050. I do try to keep my equipment in pristine condition. Canon L's keep their value!! I do not buy any other lenses. I may wait a long time before purchasing, but I feel they are worth the expenditure.
Mark

Pixelpixie88 Loc: Northern Minnesota

Thanks so much Gene for the details. I think the Tamron would be just fine after reading about it. It would be nice for landscapes too and I can overlap if need be. I checked out your Flickr page...very nice! It reminds me of mine with all of the different varities of photography. (Hope you'll give mine a glance too.) Thanks again!

Pixelpixie88 Loc: Northern Minnesota

I think we must be!!;-)

Jules Karney Loc: Las Vegas, Nevada

Hi Marsha:
All I can say is I shoot high school sports. I use a 70-200 2.8 lens for basketball, volleyball.
However I just bought a used 24-70 2.8 for shots under the basket. It is a beautiful lens and takes wonderful pics. Used from B & H camera for about $1300.00 grade 8+.
Good luck.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

First, Tamron makes really good lenses. My former employer was a Tamron dealer, *and* we had 440 of their zooms (28-75mm f/2.8) in the hands of our staff portrait photographers. Their latest 24-70 is a much better lens, and the 28-75 was great. Of course, Nikon makes great glass, and it may focus slightly faster, but if your budget has other priorities, there is nothing wrong with the Tamron pick.

A 24-70mm, used on your D7200, has the field of view of a 36-105mm lens on full frame. If you are thinking about court sports like basketball, volleyball, badminton, wrestling... it might work quite well for you. For baseball, football, track and field, even tennis... not so well. The 70-200 range (105-300mm effective full frame field of view on the D7200) would be more useful, and many photographers would prefer something longer. If you want facial close-ups of court sport players, the 70-200 helps.

When it comes to landscapes, real estate, and the like, the 36mm full frame perspective isn't usually considered wide enough. Nikon has a 14-24mm (21-36mm FF FOV on the D7200). A 10-20 or 10-22 would be even more useful.

My "holy trinity" (and that of many other professionals) varies with the sensor size:

WIDE ZOOM (normalized for about the same field of view range):

7-14mm or 8-18mm on Micro 4/3
10-20mm on APS-C/DX
14-24 or 16-35 on Full Frame/FX

"RUBBER NORMAL" ZOOM (normalized for about the same field of view range):

12-35mm or 12-40mm or 12-60mm on Micro 4/3
17-55mm or 18-55mm on APS-C/DX
24-70mm on Full Frame/FX

MEDIUM TELE ZOOM (normalized for about the same field of view range):

35-100mm or 40-150mm on Micro 4/3
50-150mm or 55-200mm on APS-C/DX
70-200mm on Full Frame/DX

LONG ZOOM (normalized for about the same field of view range):

100-300mm or 100-400mm on Micro 4/3
150-600mm on APS-C/DX and Full Frame

(I don't use anything longer than those. Your situation may vary. The D7200 has an APS-C/DX class sensor.)

I'm using Micro 4/3 now. My most-used lenses:

12-35mm f/2.8 Lumix pro zoom (at least half, maybe 2/3 of my work is done with this lens, and yes, I'd use it for sideline court sports work.)
35-100mm f/2.8 Lumix pro zoom (portraits and most of the rest of my work, other than copy work, slide/negative duplication, and product photos)
30mm f/2.8 Lumix macro (copying old slides and negatives, copy stand work, eBay photography, close-up process documentation...)

That covers the full frame equivalent range of 24mm to 200mm. When I need something wider or longer, I rent it. The favorite wide zoom rental has been the Olympus 7-14mm f/2.8 (for real estate interiors), while the favorite long zoom is the Panasonic Leica 100-400mm f/4-f/6.3 (wildlife).

I plan to add 15mm f/1.7, 42.5mm f/1.7, and 75mm f/1.8 prime lenses for film-like videography in low light. I don't like to use lenses with a smaller maximum aperture than f/2.8 on any format unless I'm working in decent outdoor daylight. Because I'm using Micro 4/3, I almost never use apertures smaller than f/8, and I try to keep it under f/5.6. All my lenses perform best at f/4. That Tamron 24-70 probably works best at around f/5.6.

Pixelpixie88 Loc: Northern Minnesota

Good deal for you...must be a Nikon 24-70?