Nikon or Tamron 24-70 2.8
Dec 10, 2014 09:52:38 #
I'm interested in purchasing a 24-70 2.8 for photographing my twin grand girls and as a good low light for anything else I might want to shoot. I've read reviews, but wonder what your opinions are. Is the Nikon glass worth the extra cash?
Dec 10, 2014 10:04:02 #
coj
Loc: NJ, USA
Yes. Tamron makes very good glass, but Nikon makes GREAT glass. Let the debate begin!
Dec 10, 2014 10:04:16 #
gmccaleb wrote:
I'm interested in purchasing a 24-70 2.8 for photographing my twin grand girls and as a good low light for anything else I might want to shoot. I've read reviews, but wonder what your opinions are. Is the Nikon glass worth the extra cash?
I also concur that tamron is a good lens
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FGEzt_nnX_0
Dec 10, 2014 10:05:57 #
It all depends on your skill level. Keep in mind that everyone seems to use the Nikon lenses as a bench mark. I started with some third party lenses, but have with time moved to strictly Nikon. However some of the new Sigmas and Tamrons make me wonder if they are now at my skill level.
Dec 10, 2014 10:05:59 #
Bear2
Loc: Southeast,, MI
YES, the Nikkor is worth it.
Duane
uote=gmccaleb]I'm interested in purchasing a 24-70 2.8 for photographing my twin grand girls and as a good low light for anything else I might want to shoot. I've read reviews, but wonder what your opinions are. Is the Nikon glass worth the extra cash?[/quote]
Duane
uote=gmccaleb]I'm interested in purchasing a 24-70 2.8 for photographing my twin grand girls and as a good low light for anything else I might want to shoot. I've read reviews, but wonder what your opinions are. Is the Nikon glass worth the extra cash?[/quote]
Dec 10, 2014 10:11:12 #
The Nikon 24-70mm is my favorite lens but it hasn't been updated in several years. The Tamron is newer and has slightly higher DxO scores in sharpness and chromatic aberration (ca). I haven't noticed much ca with the Nikon. Since the Tamron is a few hundred $ cheaper, newer, and supposedly sharper, I'd take a look at it.
Dec 10, 2014 10:21:17 #
fetzer60
Loc: Nampa, Idaho
Don't waist your money on the Tamron it's a piece of junk compared to the Nikon. I personally own both lenses and wish I could sell the Tamron.
Dec 10, 2014 10:21:28 #
gmccaleb wrote:
I'm interested in purchasing a 24-70 2.8 for photographing my twin grand girls and as a good low light for anything else I might want to shoot. I've read reviews, but wonder what your opinions are. Is the Nikon glass worth the extra cash?
Are you shooting a crop sensor?
If so, I might make another suggestion, take a look at the Sigma 18-35mm F1.8 DC, it would be an amazing lens for what you are wanting to shoot.
If you are shooting full frame, the Tamron is a fairly close competitor to the Nikon optically, and it is the only 24-70mm F2.8 option that offers stabilization.
Dec 10, 2014 10:21:52 #
Unless you are a working pro who needs the additional ruggedness and durability of the Nikkor, the Tamron should meet your needs.
When I was at Herff Jones Photography Division about a decade ago, we bought over 400 of Tamron's 28-75mm f/2.8 zooms for school portraiture. I had two in my training studio one on a Canon and one on a Nikon. (I supported both platforms.)
They were great lenses, and we made tens of millions of portraits with them! At about a third the cost of equivalent OEM glass, we couldn't see a good reason not to use them. I'm pretty sure the 24-70, a much newer lens, is even better.
That said, if you can, try the Tamron at a camera store, to be sure it handles the way you want it to. They focus/zoom backwards from some camera brands' native lenses, and that can drive people nuts if they're in manual mode.
We found the Tamrons to be very durable. Tamron's warranty is very generous, and the very few we sent back for warranty service were replaced, pronto.
When I was at Herff Jones Photography Division about a decade ago, we bought over 400 of Tamron's 28-75mm f/2.8 zooms for school portraiture. I had two in my training studio one on a Canon and one on a Nikon. (I supported both platforms.)
They were great lenses, and we made tens of millions of portraits with them! At about a third the cost of equivalent OEM glass, we couldn't see a good reason not to use them. I'm pretty sure the 24-70, a much newer lens, is even better.
That said, if you can, try the Tamron at a camera store, to be sure it handles the way you want it to. They focus/zoom backwards from some camera brands' native lenses, and that can drive people nuts if they're in manual mode.
We found the Tamrons to be very durable. Tamron's warranty is very generous, and the very few we sent back for warranty service were replaced, pronto.
Dec 10, 2014 10:23:20 #
ecobin wrote:
The Nikon 24-70mm is my favorite lens but it hasn't been updated in several years. The Tamron is newer and has slightly higher DxO scores in sharpness and chromatic aberration (ca). I haven't noticed much ca with the Nikon. Since the Tamron is a few hundred $ cheaper, newer, and supposedly sharper, I'd take a look at it.
Thanks for your input. I'm renting it now. I'm not sure if my skill level is at the point of needing to spend more, but I don't want to spend this much and be dissatisfied.
Dec 10, 2014 10:45:49 #
One more note about lenses. All of them have a sweet spot aperture, where coma, astigmatism, and chromatic aberrations are well corrected, and diffraction limitation of sharpness has not yet started to soften the image.
On an f/2.8 lens, you will most likely find that aperture to be somewhere between f/5.6 and f/8. On the portrait cameras we used at HJ, we usually worked at f/8.
My own personal favorite aperture on the 28-75 was f/5.6, but I often worked that lens wide open. It was a little soft in the corners at f/2.8, but that was an effect I used to my advantage.
If your sensor has more than 16 MP, wider apertures in that f/5.6 to f/8 range will be sweetest, due to diffraction limitations setting in at progressively wider apertures as sensor pixel density increases.
In fact, at f/32, diffraction can be as effective at softening an image as a #2 soft focus filter attachment. I've seen many a photographer blame a "cheap Tamron lens" for an "out of focus" group picture made at very small apertures. I once made a similar (test) group photo with a photographer's exact lens, using a series of wider apertures, to prove this point. Their thinking was that they needed "more depth of field" to get all rows of their groups in focus. In reality, they had more than enough depth of field at f/8, in that instance (40 people in five rows)...
On an f/2.8 lens, you will most likely find that aperture to be somewhere between f/5.6 and f/8. On the portrait cameras we used at HJ, we usually worked at f/8.
My own personal favorite aperture on the 28-75 was f/5.6, but I often worked that lens wide open. It was a little soft in the corners at f/2.8, but that was an effect I used to my advantage.
If your sensor has more than 16 MP, wider apertures in that f/5.6 to f/8 range will be sweetest, due to diffraction limitations setting in at progressively wider apertures as sensor pixel density increases.
In fact, at f/32, diffraction can be as effective at softening an image as a #2 soft focus filter attachment. I've seen many a photographer blame a "cheap Tamron lens" for an "out of focus" group picture made at very small apertures. I once made a similar (test) group photo with a photographer's exact lens, using a series of wider apertures, to prove this point. Their thinking was that they needed "more depth of field" to get all rows of their groups in focus. In reality, they had more than enough depth of field at f/8, in that instance (40 people in five rows)...
Dec 10, 2014 10:58:16 #
Bear2
Loc: Southeast,, MI
You could send the Tamron to me, if you have both.
ote=fetzer60]Don't waist your money on the Tamron it's a piece of junk compared to the Nikon. I personally own both lenses and wish I could sell the Tamron.[/quote]
ote=fetzer60]Don't waist your money on the Tamron it's a piece of junk compared to the Nikon. I personally own both lenses and wish I could sell the Tamron.[/quote]
Dec 10, 2014 11:08:36 #
MT Shooter wrote:
Are you shooting a crop sensor?
If so, I might make another suggestion, take a look at the Sigma 18-35mm F1.8 DC, it would be an amazing lens for what you are wanting to shoot.
If you are shooting full frame, the Tamron is a fairly close competitor to the Nikon optically, and it is the only 24-70mm F2.8 option that offers stabilization.
If so, I might make another suggestion, take a look at the Sigma 18-35mm F1.8 DC, it would be an amazing lens for what you are wanting to shoot.
If you are shooting full frame, the Tamron is a fairly close competitor to the Nikon optically, and it is the only 24-70mm F2.8 option that offers stabilization.
So sorry, MT Shooter! I forgot to post the most important information. d7100 body and am a hobby photographer. I love shooting nature, sunsets, beach scenes and of course my grands. I would also like to do some night photography, full moon and such. Soooo many choices!
Dec 10, 2014 11:13:33 #
burkphoto wrote:
Unless you are a working pro who needs the additio... (show quote)
Thanks for all your info. No, I don't ever expect to make money with my work, just have a drive to learn and be the best I can be. If I thought the Nikkor was much better, I could find a gently used one for about the same price. That would be without the generous warranty of course, but nevertheless, an option.
Dec 10, 2014 11:20:19 #
gmccaleb wrote:
Thanks for all your info. No, I don't ever expect to make money with my work, just have a drive to learn and be the best I can be. If I thought the Nikkor was much better, I could find a gently used one for about the same price. That would be without the generous warranty of course, but nevertheless, an option.
At the margins, I've found information, training, and experience to be far more valuable assets than the brand on a lens. Spend what seems reasonable on a new Tamron or a used Nikkor and enjoy using it! I don't think you'll be disappointed either way, unless you just have to have the Nikon logo on your gear.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.