Nikon or Tamron 24-70 2.8
Dec 11, 2014 11:39:52 #
Dec 11, 2014 11:49:47 #
silver
Loc: Santa Monica Ca.
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?
Get the Nikon, no comparison.
Dec 11, 2014 11:50:37 #
DavidPine
Loc: Fredericksburg, TX
I know nothing about a Tamron. The Nikon 24-70 f/2.8 is hardly ever off my D810. Tack sharp and has become my favorite lens.
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?
Dec 11, 2014 12:09:41 #
lrm
Loc: Sarasota, FL
I can't attest to the Nikon since I never had one, BUT I have been using a Tamron 24-70 on my D3200 for the past 10 days and have not been happy. I don't know if I got a lemon or what. Myriad tests against my 35 F1.8 AND against my Nikon 18-55 GII (cheapie) the Tamron is nowhere as sharp as either Nikon. Took over 100 photos both hand-held and on tripod at various objects and distances (from 100 yds to 1/3 mile). I know this goes against the reviews and DXO Mark results so maybe I got a bad lens??? Anyway, returning the lens today for credit.
Dec 11, 2014 12:20:42 #
lrm wrote:
I can't attest to the Nikon since I never had one,... (show quote)
Is your Vibration Control turned off when it is on a tripod? Turnd on when handheld?
Dec 11, 2014 12:48:44 #
tjh
Loc: OR Coast
I have used the Tamron 24-70 2.8 on my D300 & D7000 for almost a year now. I find it very sharp and am quite satisfied with it.
The only thing that I notice is when shooting indoor basketball and switch between my Nikon 70-200 and the Tamron, the White Balance is better with the Nikon.
The only thing that I notice is when shooting indoor basketball and switch between my Nikon 70-200 and the Tamron, the White Balance is better with the Nikon.
Dec 11, 2014 13:50:57 #
burkphoto wrote:
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.
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.
Just a plea that you do not go to a local camera store to try out a lens--and then purchase it on-line. The local store is a service to you. If it costs a few bucks more, consider it payment for that service.
Dec 11, 2014 14:03:14 #
Reinaldokool wrote:
Just a plea that you do not go to a local camera store to try out a lens--and then purchase it on-line. The local store is a service to you. If it costs a few bucks more, consider it payment for that service.
:thumbup:
Dec 11, 2014 14:41:30 #
Reinaldokool wrote:
Just a plea that you do not go to a local camera store to try out a lens--and then purchase it on-line. The local store is a service to you. If it costs a few bucks more, consider it payment for that service.
Yeah, it's often worth the extra cost for the opportunity to interact.
If you want to pay a B&H or Adorama low price, AND get across-the-counter interaction, drive to NYC and visit B&H or Adorama. Or deal with any company that accepts returns. (15% restocking fees are not uncommon.)
Dec 11, 2014 15:05:15 #
Matt Grainger (that Nikon Guy) did a shootout study w/video comparing the Nikon, Canon and Tamron on his YouTube site. He goes into great detail on every aspect. I used it to make my decision for choosing a lens for my D800. He found the TAmron to be an eXcellect lens in every category,especially valube. I'd view his 4 part video before deciding. I personally chose the Nikon, But sometimes wonder if the Tamron w/ NOISE REDUCTION would have been a better choice. I will certainly take a harder look at Tamron's 70-200 when the time comes.
Dec 11, 2014 15:28:30 #
It occurs to me that people tend to spend inordinate amounts of time agonizing over purchases such as this. Here are a few reality checks:
In the long run, we're all dead. If you die with a brand name on your shirt, or no logo on your shirt, does it matter? You're still dead! Oh, it might matter to some sick puppy at your wake, but that's on them!
On the other hand, if you necessarily might beat the crap out of your equipment because of how you work, or your working environment, definitely get the Nikon, because it's built to be very rugged.
The difference between these two lenses is probably not going to affect the appearance of your photographs enough to matter. Remember that most imaging is shared on the Internet these days. Unless you print very large prints (30x20 or larger), It is unlikely you will see a life-changing difference in performance, even when comparing test images, made side by side, of the same subject, using these two lenses.
One or the other of them will be sharper at certain apertures and zoom settings, or on one body format or the other (DX or FX).
Truthfully, any lens can be "on" spec or "off" spec just enough that it is unsharp on a particular body, relative to that body, and create an unfavorable result. I've actually switched lenses from body to body and created GOOD matches by doing so. If focus micro-adjustment is available on your lens/body combination, it helps.
Finally, your own personal skill in camera handling and execution of scene capture will probably matter more than the differences in quality of these two very fine lenses.
This is observational wisdom from someone who worked in a lab and saw professional images from every conceivable camera, lens, and type of photographer out there.
Remember: Real people don't buy, sell, or look at photos of test charts. They're useful guides, but price, ergonomics, and real-world experience with the gear matter at least as much.
In the long run, we're all dead. If you die with a brand name on your shirt, or no logo on your shirt, does it matter? You're still dead! Oh, it might matter to some sick puppy at your wake, but that's on them!
On the other hand, if you necessarily might beat the crap out of your equipment because of how you work, or your working environment, definitely get the Nikon, because it's built to be very rugged.
The difference between these two lenses is probably not going to affect the appearance of your photographs enough to matter. Remember that most imaging is shared on the Internet these days. Unless you print very large prints (30x20 or larger), It is unlikely you will see a life-changing difference in performance, even when comparing test images, made side by side, of the same subject, using these two lenses.
One or the other of them will be sharper at certain apertures and zoom settings, or on one body format or the other (DX or FX).
Truthfully, any lens can be "on" spec or "off" spec just enough that it is unsharp on a particular body, relative to that body, and create an unfavorable result. I've actually switched lenses from body to body and created GOOD matches by doing so. If focus micro-adjustment is available on your lens/body combination, it helps.
Finally, your own personal skill in camera handling and execution of scene capture will probably matter more than the differences in quality of these two very fine lenses.
This is observational wisdom from someone who worked in a lab and saw professional images from every conceivable camera, lens, and type of photographer out there.
Remember: Real people don't buy, sell, or look at photos of test charts. They're useful guides, but price, ergonomics, and real-world experience with the gear matter at least as much.
Dec 11, 2014 16:00:51 #
Optically they are VERY close - and you are not a pro trying to impress some one - The VC should be of considerable value to you and you save at least $600....
Dec 11, 2014 16:04:48 #
I use the 28-75 f2.8 alot shooting high school basketball flashless. The proximity to the court and players makes it perfect for me.
Dec 11, 2014 16:54:47 #
I don't shoot Nikon, so I'm not versed on the Nikon lens. But, on my Canons the Tamron SP 24-70mm f2.8 VC is a perfect fit on both the 7D Mark II and the 6D. It is a rather large lens with 82mm filter size, and it does weigh a bit. The Tamron is easy to operate, and the switches can be found without looking. Plus, you get the advantage of Tamrons 6 year warranty.
B
B
Dec 11, 2014 18:47:37 #
fetzer60 wrote:
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.
Please let me know how much you would want for it. You can sell it to me if it is in great condition and the model is a later one.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.