RonM12 Loc: Washington State

I’m know there are a couple variations of Nikon’s 24-120 lens. I have the latest generation for use on my D850. I’m considering switching to the Tamron 24-70 G2 for a couple reasons, the extra f stops, but most importantly, image quality. Has anyone switched from Nikons 24-120 to the Tamron 24-70,and if so was it a good move? I’m less concerned about the lower focal length associated with the Tamron. Thanks!

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Back when I was a Nikon user, I had a 24-120 f/4. I was not impressed with that lens. I AM impressed with results from Tamron's 24-70mm f/2.8, used on a Canon 5D III. It's half the cost of the Nikon 24-70mm, with slightly better VC than the Nikon's VR, and is very sharp.

I would pick just about any f/2.8 zoom over an f/4 zoom, any day of the week, because the extra stop at that point in the aperture range can be crucial. Here is Jared Polin's review of the lens on YouTube:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DsMV7p5Q4TU

Notice his point about the 24-70 AND 70-200 Tamron zooms. Those are two of the classic "holy trinity" of professional zoom focal lengths. The third is 14-24mm or 16-35mm.

Shutterbug57

I have the Tamron 24-70 2.8 G2 for Nikon and love the results. It works great on my D500 and F100. It is a pro grade lens at half the price of Nikon’s version. Take your camera to the store and shoot some shots with the lens. Then you can make the call.

GoofyNewfie Loc: Kansas City

Thanks, Bill
Tamron's stabilized 24-70 looks smaller than the Nikon 24-70 with VR. That thing is a beast!
Comparing Nikon's 24-120 to a Tamron (or Sigma) 24-70 is a lot like comparing apples to oranges, but I'm not sure any 3rd party makes a 24-120. No, it's not one of the 'Trinity' but I find the range more useful for most of what I shoot. (The previous versions were bad!) When in dim venues where I need the extra stop, the 24-70 goes on.
I found THIS review of Nikon, Sigma and Tamron's stabilized 24-70's interesting.
I would have thought the Sigma would be a better choice.
Tamron looks like they made a great lens!

And as Jared Polin points out, for about the price of the Nikon 24-70 vr, one could get the Tamron 24-70 2.8 AND a Tamron 70-200 2.8.

Rich1939 Loc: Pike County Penna.

Question; Was your 24-120 the latest version? I know there have been several releases of that lens and from what I've read the latest is very good. I know of several who use it on a D850 and are happy with the results.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

No, it was purchased in 2003.

I was happy enough with the results when I had enough light to stop down to f/5.6. It was soft and had visible coma and vignetting at f/4, and a bit too much distortion over the range of the zoom. I always liked the reach, always hated the lack of speed. Also, it was heavy, which was an issue when working all day on a project.

I would much rather carry a 24-70mm and a 70-200mm (both fixed aperture f/2.8 zooms). There's more total weight in the bag or backpack, but better versatility and speed. (Now that I'm using Micro 4/3, I don't have to worry about the weight. Lenses are 1/4 to 1/3 the weight of full frame equivalents — and half the focal length.)

By comparison, the $800 Micro 4/3 Panasonic Leica 12-60mm f/2.8 to f/4 is faster, sharper, looks way better wide open (great Leica bokeh), and weighs about 1/3 that of the Nikkor 24-120 I had. If I were going to own an equivalent to the Nikon 24-120, today, that would be it.

I should mention that my former employer, a vertically integrated and horizontally integrated school portrait company, was a Tamron dealer. We had hundreds of 28-75mm f/2.8 Tamrons in the hands of our Canon users. I had both a Canon and a Nikon copy of it. After working with that lens and several other Tamrons, I have to admire what they're doing. It's hard to beat that six year warranty.

Rich1939 Loc: Pike County Penna.

Thank you. I've liked the 24-120 since using one a couple of years ago.
However while waiting for your response I took the Google Express to DxO. They didn't have both lenses on a D850 but they did have them on a D810 and it looks like, according to their tests, that the Tamron would be a better choice.
So,RonM12 check DxO and then maybe rent the Tamron just to be sure

RonM12 Loc: Washington State

Thanks for your feedback. It wouldn’t hurt to rent the Tamron like you mentioned. I have some time as B&H photo will have the $100.00 discount on the Tamron until 1/5/19

wetreed

Nikon has historically made really good lenses. I think that now we can all agree that Tamron is leader in lens manufacturers at this time. Tamron’s Quality and innovations are unsurpassed in the industry.

Rich1939 Loc: Pike County Penna.

I wouldn't go that far.

Spirit Vision Photography Loc: Behind a Camera.

The first two versions of the Nikon 24-120 were crap. I hear that the latest version is better. But not really good. Go for the Tamron.

Rich1939 Loc: Pike County Penna.

I would be interested in what you find at the end of your "quest"

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

There is another video on YouTube this morning that echoes nearly everything that Jared Palin said in the video I linked above, but provides visual evidence.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BYkJ0HVmz4

GoofyNewfie Loc: Kansas City

Same link I posted above, Bill.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

I own the latest version of the Nikon 24-120 f4. I have been extremely happy with the image quality of this lens. An f4 lens on today's Nikon camera's (especially the D850) is no longer an issue. An f4 lens can be shot at a higher ISO on your D850 with NO problems. As a result of today's camera's to handle higher ISO's, f2.8 lens does not have the advantage over a f4's as it once did because Nikon camera bodies do a much better job at higher ISO's than they used to.
I love this site and love when folks downgrade a Nikon lens over a Tamron. It tells me they know little about photography. The quality that a lens delivers is largely due to the experience and level of professionalism displayed by the photographer, not the lens, especially if we are talking about a gold ring lens like the Nikon 24-120. Anyone who says they are not pleased with that lens simply does not know how to shoot. End of story.
My advice, save your money for a nice new Nikon 70-200 2.8 or, even better, the older version of the Nikon 24-70 2.8 G. There is a reason many wedding photographers use this as a go to lens for most of their shots.
Look at this Nikon 24-70 g lens, mint in the box off ebay, what a deal, and best of all, it is a Nikon and it won't let you down.
https://www.ebay.com/itm/Nikon-Nikkor-AF-S-24-70mm-f2-8-G-ED-USA-model-Excellent-condition/163404332354?epid=101740680&hash=item260ba83d42:g:jJcAAOSwCPZb~5BK:rk:2:pf:1&frcectupt=true