Anyone who is serious about their photography, except for soft-focus and special effects, wants SHARP lenses but HOW SHARP? Perhaps since the advent of digital imaging, folks have become totally preoccupied with microscopic razor sharpness shod I say "surgical instrument" sharpness- sharpness beyond reality- sharper that we actually see things. Some of the photography looks like pasted-up cutouts, especially withy excessive post-processing sharpening. The way some photographers go on, you would think everyone is producing photo murals or viewing the vacation shots on the Jumbotron at their local sports venue or at the nearest i0max theatre. Some obsess over diffraction to the extent that the won't stop down the lens beyond the "sweet spot" and loose sleep over IQ at the expense of actually taking pictures!

Generally speaking, modern zoom lenses are pretty decent throughout their range but that won't necessarily optimally perform at every focal length and aperture settings as high-quality prime lenses of the same manufacturing quality. Zooms, however, have their obvious advantages and conveniences. In certain kinds of work, the should be the tool of choice to facilitate fast and spontaneous shooting situations.

In my own commercial and industrial work, I don't usually shoot sports but I do lots of work in factories, construction sites, and basically dirty environments. I walk around in the mud, there are sawdust, iron filings, welding sparks, airborne particles and the last thing I want to do is change lenses. There are fas moving heavy equipment and I need to focus, compose, and shoot quickly. My 24-105 on a full-frame body, hanginh on my neck, does the job! The shots are used in full-page spreads in corporate annual reports, advertising, and mural-size prints for trade show displays- sharp enough!

I have had (wise-guy) art director tell me they want "pictures so sharp I can see the dust" Really? In the studio, I can pop on a macro lens and shot medium format on my digitized RZ- but I do dust off the products before shooting them! Then the tall my ultra-sharp image and print their brochures on Xerox instead of high-quality offset!

Another gripe- I see shooters, who complain of soft results with their costly zooms and long telephoto glass because the are blurring the images with poor camera support techniques, insufficient shutter speeds, and focusing technique. The make tripods, grips, gunstock mounts, monopods, and all kinds of newfangled gambles for a reason. Some haven't yet mastered all the autofocus option on their menu or really know how to manually focus for extremely precise results.

There is a matter of budget unless of course, you are independently wealthy. How may lenses of different focal lengths can you afford? I do photography commercially and folks say "you can buy all the gear you want and write it off" My answer is write it off against WHAT?! First, you need to show a profit, manage your business wisely, and only spend on gear that will pay for itself in quality, efficiency, and better sales potential. Sometimes we have to improvise, overlap and use what we have. The only GAS we have goes into the tank!

The attaced image is indicative of my glamerous life of a commercial photographer! No majestic mountais or beautiful modls this week! Shot with 24-105. Made into a 80x`100 inch print for a trade show booth.

I have been wanting the versatility of a zoom lens for a long time, but my experience with such lenses in the past is you sacrifice a little on the picture quality in the way of sharpness for the convenience of having a wide range of focal lengths. The bigger range, you achieve less sharpness. But should you pay for the higher end lens, the above should not be an issue.

I love my prime lenses, 50mm and 35mm for the sharpness, but with my Tamron 18-270, I cannot achieve the sharpness I desire; but then again, I didn’t pay much for it compared to the high end lenses that have the better glass and same focal length. I just could not justify the expenditure for just a hobby.
Well, I keep finding my self in volunteer picture taking events… events that have large gathering and small, where I desire consistent sharpness and in a focal range of my primes. As I don’t trust the 18-270 to achieve the results (except outdoors, then even that is touch and go), I’ll swap out my primes throughout the event. In the process of swapping, I’m missing shots and I’m a nervous wreck… you guys have been there!

Well, all the above to say that I finally broke down and purchased for my Nikon D7100, a Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8E ED VR at a hefty cost of $1,899. I was excited about this lens, even the cost didn’t dampen my enthusiasm (I got over my GAS attack), but the size and weight have made me question my decision. So, my question to the UH group… is this something that I have to live with; should you want quality/sharpness in a zoom, you’ll have to understand it will be a bigger lens due the amount of glass needed to achieve this quality?

Comparing the Nikon to the Tamron and the Sigma versions at the local camera shop (where I just bought the Nikon 24-70, and the D7100 several years back), I felt that I wasn’t seeing the sharpness that the Nikon generated… but then again, they were lighter and less costly lenses. And the various reviews that I read said the same thing, the Nikon achieves better sharpness. But at 2 and half pounds (3/4 pound, 9 oz heavier than the Tamron), is it worth it? I have 30 days to return should I desire… am I just having “Buyer’s Remorse”, or is this to be expected should you want to up your game?

I have a Tamron 16-300 and was having focus issues that seemed to get worse. First more noticeable in the 200-300 range but over time it crept down to the 50-100 range too. The lens was two years old and Tamron has a 6-year guarantee. So I sent it off to them, no questions asked except an invoice copy, they repaired it and returned it 8 days after I sent it in. It works beautifully now and I am pleased with the sharpness.

I think Tamron does their product well to have that 6-year guarantee, and that they take repairs seriously.

This image was taken after repair hand held at 100mm. 1/125 @f11 ISO 100

The Nikon 24-70 f2.8 is a professional lens that works best with so called full frame cameras. It is sharp, big and heavy as you have mentioned. In my case I prefer to use DX lenses with APS sensor cameras since those lenses were specifically made to work with the cropped sensor.
If you will be working in low light your choices are to use wide aperture lenses, like the recommended 17-55 f2.8 which is also heavy or to raise the ISO speed and have a good denoise software available for post.

An inexpensive alternative, assuming you want to go that route, is the old 18-70 f3.5-4.5 Nikon kit lens. It will work nicely with your present camera, it is pretty fast for a kit lens and the images are sharp and of excellent quality. It could be bought new but prices are super reasonable in the second hand market. I use this lens often and it keeps amazing me with its excellent sharpness. I also use the 18-200 VR that has more range and is also very good but slower.

I have lenses that according to reviews are not sharp enough. One such lens is the 17 mm f2.8 Zuiko for micro fourth thirds Olympus and Panasonic camera bodies and instead it has been an excellent performer for me. The 18-200 VR Nikon lens also has many poor reviews and it has performed brilliantly for me. It is not that easy to find a bad lens today and just look at the offerings by independent lens makers and see how good their lenses are. Modern, computer design lens technology is available to all manufacturers.

I have not used a lens that failed to give me good and sharp results when I did my part.