I have been wanting the versatility of a zoom lens for a long time, but my experience with such lenses in the past is you sacrifice a little on the picture quality in the way of sharpness for the convenience of having a wide range of focal lengths. The bigger range, you achieve less sharpness. But should you pay for the higher end lens, the above should not be an issue.

I love my prime lenses, 50mm and 35mm for the sharpness, but with my Tamron 18-270, I cannot achieve the sharpness I desire; but then again, I didn’t pay much for it compared to the high end lenses that have the better glass and same focal length. I just could not justify the expenditure for just a hobby.
Well, I keep finding my self in volunteer picture taking events… events that have large gathering and small, where I desire consistent sharpness and in a focal range of my primes. As I don’t trust the 18-270 to achieve the results (except outdoors, then even that is touch and go), I’ll swap out my primes throughout the event. In the process of swapping, I’m missing shots and I’m a nervous wreck… you guys have been there!

Well, all the above to say that I finally broke down and purchased for my Nikon D7100, a Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8E ED VR at a hefty cost of $1,899. I was excited about this lens, even the cost didn’t dampen my enthusiasm (I got over my GAS attack), but the size and weight have made me question my decision. So, my question to the UH group… is this something that I have to live with; should you want quality/sharpness in a zoom, you’ll have to understand it will be a bigger lens due the amount of glass needed to achieve this quality?

Comparing the Nikon to the Tamron and the Sigma versions at the local camera shop (where I just bought the Nikon 24-70, and the D7100 several years back), I felt that I wasn’t seeing the sharpness that the Nikon generated… but then again, they were lighter and less costly lenses. And the various reviews that I read said the same thing, the Nikon achieves better sharpness. But at 2 and half pounds (3/4 pound, 9 oz heavier than the Tamron), is it worth it? I have 30 days to return should I desire… am I just having “Buyer’s Remorse”, or is this to be expected should you want to up your game?

I have been wanting the versatility of a zoom lens for a long time, but my experience with such lenses in the past is you sacrifice a little on the picture quality in the way of sharpness for the convenience of having a wide range of focal lengths. The bigger range, you achieve less sharpness. But should you pay for the higher end lens, the above should not be an issue.

I have that lens. When I have that lens on my camera the heft of it makes me feel like a real photographer. My advice: just go with it. Embrace the quality!

I love my prime lenses, 50mm and 35mm for the sharpness, but with my Tamron 18-270, I cannot achieve the sharpness I desire; but then again, I didn’t pay much for it compared to the high end lenses that have the better glass and same focal length. I just could not justify the expenditure for just a hobby.
Well, I keep finding my self in volunteer picture taking events… events that have large gathering and small, where I desire consistent sharpness and in a focal range of my primes. As I don’t trust the 18-270 to achieve the results (except outdoors, then even that is touch and go), I’ll swap out my primes throughout the event. In the process of swapping, I’m missing shots and I’m a nervous wreck… you guys have been there!

Well, all the above to say that I finally broke down and purchased for my Nikon D7100, a Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8E ED VR at a hefty cost of $1,899. I was excited about this lens, even the cost didn’t dampen my enthusiasm (I got over my GAS attack), but the size and weight have made me question my decision. So, my question to the UH group… is this something that I have to live with; should you want quality/sharpness in a zoom, you’ll have to understand it will be a bigger lens due the amount of glass needed to achieve this quality?

Comparing the Nikon to the Tamron and the Sigma versions at the local camera shop (where I just bought the Nikon 24-70, and the D7100 several years back), I felt that I wasn’t seeing the sharpness that the Nikon generated… but then again, they were lighter and less costly lenses. And the various reviews that I read said the same thing, the Nikon achieves better sharpness. But at 2 and half pounds (3/4 pound, 9 oz heavier than the Tamron), is it worth it? I have 30 days to return should I desire… am I just having “Buyer’s Remorse”, or is this to be expected should you want to up your game?