tscali

I'm in the process of upgrading my lenses for my Nikon D7000. I'm looking at two options that cost approximately the same. (1) Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC + Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 VC + Tamron 160-600 f/5.XX-6.XX or (2) Nikon 24-70 f/2.8 VR + Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 VRII. I am not a professional; but I do want sharp and crisp pictures and the ability to shoot in low light. I realize that he Tamron 160-600 is not good in low light. My interests include wildlife, nature, landscape and family. I shoot about 5-10K pictures a year. So I am not a newbee. Clearly Nikon lenses are better; but are they that much better. I can get the Tamron 160-600 in addition to f/2.8 lenses. I'm leaning toward Tamron but I'm not sure? $5,000.00 dollars is a lot of money to invest in lenses and I don't want to be sorry.

JimH123 Loc: Morgan Hill, CA

I have the Tamron 24-70mm f2.8, the Tamron 70-200 f2.8 and the Tamron 150-600mm. I can't find fault with them. With the 24-70, I have been shooting stars at night and am getting pin point stars. (The 70-200 is also just as good for stars) This takes a good lens to do this as most lenses tend to show coma distartion and/or chromatic aberrations. Tamron has really raised the bar in recent years.

oldtigger Loc: Roanoke Virginia-USA

My tamron 24-70/2.8 does a fine job.

Jim Bob

As far as 24-70, Tokina is sharper than Nikon or Tamron but does not have image stabilization.

Kmgw9v Loc: Miami, Florida

Invest in the Nikon lenses, and you will never look back.

MT Shooter Loc: Montana

I use the 24-70 F2.8 and 70-200 F2.8 Tamrons and have no complaints at all, they are great. For the 150-600mm I prefer the Sigma Sport solely for its weather sealing.

avemal Loc: BALTIMORE

Bought the Tarmon 24-70mm from 6TH Avenue Express for $ 819.00 delivered. I shoot with Nikon d7100. Great lens On Ebay

lone ranger Loc: Port Saint Lucie, Florida

The Nikon lens will, and will always be worth considerably more that 3rd party lenses

picsman Loc: Scotland

I used the tamron 24-70 for sports stuff, it is too slow to focus for what I need. Now I have a nikon 24-120 f4 which is better.

Second hand values will be lower for the tamron glass.

EddieC Loc: CT

I stick with the Nikon lenses. I currently have the new 24-70mm on order and it will be released on Oct. 24 from what I've heard. Same thing with printer inks. I have a Canon printer and even though you can buy cheaper inks, I'd rather spend the extra bucks and get the manufacturer's ink. I agree that Tamron et al have advanced a lot and are cheaper, but you can't go wrong with great glass made by the camera's manufacturer.

Wanderer2 Loc: Colorado Rocky Mountains

I would suggest you do an internet search for comparison tests of the lenses you are considering. Although they are not liked by everyone I've found DXOmarks' objective tests and ratings useful. I tried to copy and paste the link for their comparison test of Tamron, Nikon, and Sigma 24-70 f2.8 lenses and got what's below, not sure if it will work but going to their website and doing a search should get to the review if the link doesn't. Yes, it's a lot of money and I suggest researching thoroughly first.

http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Tamron-SP-24-70mm-f-2.8-Di-VC-USD-Nikon-review-An-affordable-fast-standard-zoom-that-comes-out-on-top/Tamron-SP-24-70mm-f-2.8-Di-VC-USD-versus-competition

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

I would look for used and refurbished. Also, as always, I would recommend reading everything you can about them. People who review and test lenses have the experience to find the strong points and weak points.

http://www.dpreview.com/products/compare/lenses
http://lenshero.com/lens-comparison
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx
http://www.lenstip.com/lenses.html
http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare

ValliPride Loc: Lost in Florida

Go for the Nikon, great glass

Mark7829 Loc: Calfornia

There are significant differences. However most in here do not know how to tell the difference. Most of the replies that you will receive in these forums are, "It works for me, I have no problems". But what are these members using for comparison? How many print to 20 x 30, 48 or 60 inches where just about every artifact is a large as your hand. Many don't even print at all.

How can you tell an image is sharp if it appears like a 4x6 on a low resolution LCD. You can't unless you are zooming about 500% plus and looking at every inch of you image like with a microscope..

Nikon professional series of lenses and I would include Canon and a few others, are in part hand made. The glass is superior. Nikon grades its glass from 1 to 10 with 1-3 used in their professional lenses while lesser glass are used in everything else. Materials are usually metal and not plastic. There is less aberration, distortion, special coatings to reduce flares, 9 rounded diaphragm blades for superior bokeh. More glass elements and groups. Higher transmission speed for light for faster auto focus, metal mounts, weather sealing, internal zoom as opposed to external. Great internal focusing motor, VR /IS (3-4 stops), no lens creep, smooth focus and extension, manual focus over ride.

Nikon's will just hold there value over time.

I will say that Tamron and Sigma have unproved but differences remain. I own the complete trinity of Nikon's professional lenses and a 500 /f4 and a 200-400 f/4 and many others. I do not own a Tamron or Sigma. I never regretted my Nikon's. Am I biased - of course but with reason.

Revet Loc: Fairview Park, Ohio

I feel your pain. I just went through this ordeal trying to decide whether to stay with my Tamron 18-270 mm or buy a brand new Nikon 18-200 vr ii at a reduced cost from my brother. I borrowed the Nikon lens and shot with both. The nikon lens gave sharper pictures across the zoom range. It was barely noticeable in a normal frame but very noticeable at 1:1. The build quality is night and day with Nikon winning. I decided to buy the Nikon.