wilfred

I have like so many, been waiting for someone to come out with a 24:70 image stabilized that is as sharp as the Canon non stabilized . So far it hasn't happened. I have been reading reviews of the Tamron and Sigma. At this time the choice must sacrifice one, Sharpness( landscape) or stabilization (sports and weddings).
Because no manufacture has yet put both Stabilization and Sharpness in a lens of this focal length, it evidently is too difficult or too expensive a feat.

philo Loc: philo, ca

you may want to look into a 24-200. this has become my walk around lens and the tamron is light in weight and not too many dollars.

DWU2 Loc: Phoenix Arizona area

I have the Tamron 25-70, and I like and use it a lot. But, it's not my first choice for landscapes - using it on an APS-C sensor effectively makes it a 36mm-105mm. I prefer to use my Sigma 10-20 for landscapes. What I more often use the Tamron for is family get-togethers (great for flashless indoor shots) street photography, and as a good walking-around lens.

Notorious T.O.D. Loc: Harrisburg, North Carolina

I don't see that IS or VR would be needed for shooting most sports. Shooting at lower shutter speeds is not going to stop the players motion. Even at a 1/500 shutter speed you are not going to stop the hand motion of a college VB hitter in my experience. Better to have a camera that has a decent FPS and a useable higher ISO capability. Perhaps that is why it has not been offered...

Best,
Todd Ferguson

SusanFromVermont Loc: Southwest corner of Vermont

SusanFromVermont Loc: Southwest corner of Vermont

I have the Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8 - the older version without VR. Until last fall, I was using it on my D7000. I found it to be wide enough for a lot of fairly close quarters, and long enough for subjects that were a bit farther away. The crop factor effect did not make enough difference to make me wish it were wider. It is a great lens, well built, and takes very sharp images. I found it very useful in many different types of photographic situations.

Now I use it on my D810 and love it even more! It is my go-to lens for just about everything. My longer lens [70-300mm] is primarily for subjects that are far away and I want them larger in the image than the 70mm end of the 24-70 would permit. That one currently is attached to the D7000, now my backup camera, although if I only want to take one camera I will bring it to switch onto the D810.

Not knowing much about the Tamron, I cannot speak for or against. Just know that Nikon lenses are very good quality and are made to work well with Nikon cameras!

jackm1943 Loc: Omaha, Nebraska

I have the Tamron and use it on my full frame Canon. Great lens, well built and very sharp. It's on my camera 75+% of the time (used to be on 95% of the time until I recently upgraded from my 100mm Canon macro to the new Tamron 90mm macro).

Bridges Loc: Memphis, Charleston SC, now Nazareth PA

Hi Marsha,

I was using the Nikon 24-70 2.8 and while that is a top lens, I wanted a bit more reach. I do some event photography and a wedding now and then and wanted a lens that would cover the whole event. I looked at the Nikon 24-120 which seemed the ideal range but found people loving it and others disappointed in it. The Sigma 24-105 f4 Art Lens received almost universal thumbs up so I purchased that instead. Could not be more pleased. It rarely leaves my camera. Usually only to switch between the D750 and D800. The lens is very well made and very sharp. So much for that range, but if you want even more range, the 28-300 is a great lens. If I ever find myself in a position where it is practical to use only a single lens, the 28-300 is my choice. In addition to the large range, with the 7200 it would have a range of 42 to 450 and the lens will close focus to around 9" at all focal lengths. Can you imagine shooting a flower at 450 from a foot away! You don't even need to take a macro lens. Good luck with your choice but before you buy please do check out that Sigma lens --- you will not be sorry.

DaveyDitzer Loc: Western PA

Marsha,

I have a 24-70 Nikkor for sale on this site - classifieds section. Works on both my FF and my Crop - D-5300.

Dave

photoman022 Loc: Manchester CT USA

I have the Tamron f/2.8 of this lens and I'm surprised at its sharpness! It is my go to landscape photography lens.

jackcorbett

I am now using the Nikon D750 full frame camera. I have a Sigma 50 mm 1.4 lens, a Nikon 28-70 2.8 I used for years, a Nikon 17-35 2.8, a Nikon 50 mm 1.8, and my latest and greatest of them all, the Nikon 24-70 2.8.

I used to shoot in U.S. night clubs, as much as 1500 pics in one night, and I used a Nikon D-X with the 28-70 Nikon 2.8. Since that was a DX camera effectively this lens was a 41-105. I was shooting feature entertainers, as many as 19 ladies doing their shows in one evening. This lens was so good, it gave me a decisive edge over every other photographer at these events. I needed a lens that enabled me to get good close up shots, sometimes of a single person or small group and this lens gave me the versatility I needed. And if I needed more reach, I'd just get closer to the action.

But now that I've moved to Thailand I've focused much more on video than still photography. And believe me, I'm struggling with it.

Lately I've been shooting video at the Pattaya Muay Thai Stadium. These fights are broadcast all over the world on the Fight Channel. Here's an example of one of my videos. https://youtu.be/cLrZQ_P7ucA

I'm having to shoot at varying ranges. You will notice that my pal, Big Daddy, becomes very excited when the Double knockout occurs. Luckily my lens is able to automatically focus to this very sudden closeup of Big Daddy. But during these fights I will often focus on people in the crowd, again, at varying ranges. Having longer reach than 70 mm is what I really need, but I just have to adjust to that. And I really do need the 24 mm wide angle of that 24-70 mm lens. Especially when the two fighters are suddenly right on the ropes only 10 feet from my face.

If I could have just one lens, this 24 by 70 mm Nikon would be the one. And even though I already had (and still have) the 28-70, I didn't hesitate a second to spend the big bucks for the 24-70.

I hope this helps.

FiddleMaker Loc: Merrimac, MA

Marsha, check out Tony Northrup's video. here is the link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zu0AawE73C8
In another review, Tony mentions that the build quality of the Tamron 24-70 is horrible. One copy he was testing broke in half. Also, the Tamron 24-70 has a real focus breathing problem. Because of this it is more like a 24-50 rather than 24-70mm.
Wow !! your Flickr photos are really beautiful. ~FiddleMaker

Fotomacher Loc: Toronto

I shy away from 3rd party lenses for my Nikon bodies. I have the first version of the Nikkor 24-70mm which I bought new after selling the used Nikkor 28-70mm for more than I paid for it. Nikkor lenses hold their value. I have used that lens on a D300, D300s, D700 and my current D810. No compatibility issues since the lenses are made by Nikon. Tamron and Sigma have to reverse engineer their lenses to work. JMHO.

FiddleMaker Loc: Merrimac, MA

Good point about the reverse engineering issue. The new Nikon 24-70mm with VR is a real beast. The only reason I would consider the Tamron 24-70 or the Sigma is price and the new Tamron 24-70 does have "VR" (IS) and is much lighter in weight than the Nikon VR version. I know the previous Nikon 24-70mm does not have VR which is why I am shying away from it. At my age and with arthritis, I really need the VR feature.

papa Loc: Rio Dell, CA

I too, own and use one on my Canon 5D Mark III. The IQ is tack sharp corner to corner even wide open and best f/4-f11. No regrets here in not choosing the Canon and won't be going for the G2. FYI, all Tamron (USA version) lenses come with a 6 year warranty. I also have the 70-200VC and 150-600VC and they rock my world. Go girl!