Belgrey Loc: Nashua, NH

Any suggestions on which lens is better? I have been using a tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 and have not problems getting sharp picture. Guess my most pressing question is, is the Nikon worth the extra $1000 that it cost over the Tamron lens. Any thoughts?

Thanks
Belgrey

Pepper Loc: Planet Earth Country USA

I can only tell you that I have the Nikon version and it is truly a fine piece of glass. Maybe someone who has experience with both will chime in.

Johanna Loc: Albuquerque, NM

Not in my book ! ! !

I have both the Tamron 70-200 & 24-70mm lenses. Bought as a result studying the specs & tests then my pocket book. Both are para-focal so that when I am videographing the subject stays in focus as I zoom the lens.

The atached picture is my latest toy. It has a wireless hand controler that can adjust either the focus or zoom ring of a lens. Less than $500 also!

This is a wire-less remote control device.

(Download)

traveler90712 Loc: Lake Worth, Fl.

Tell us more about your remote? Perhaps, in another thread.

traveler90712 Loc: Lake Worth, Fl.

I studied the specs, studied the pictures taken with both lens and went with the Tamron. Not regretted it at all.

authorizeduser Loc: Monroe, Michigan

It has been my experience that most of the time staying with Nikon is answer. While the results may look good on a third party lens, there is a reason Nikon cost more and it is not just the name. I have a 35 year old Nikon 50mm 1.4 AIS lens in great condition and it works perfectly. I recently picked up a Nikon 80-200 2.8 MK I, the original in the line. 18 years old, all metal and glass and weights just under 3 lbs. Sharp as a tack! There are exceptions to every rule but for the most part, you get what you pay for. Nikon seems to last for the long haul. Just my opinion, other will vary I am sure. :thumbup:

twna Loc: Western Colorado

I have the Tamron 70-200 2.8 and absolutely love it. It's my favorite lens.

Edmund Dworakowski

I too was caught in the same cycle of thought, and decided on purchasing the Nikon for my D800 and D300s bodies. I too read the reviews and watched all of the videos and chose the Nikon because for now, the money is not an issue. That being said, I really think that the Tamron is one hell of a great lens and would be a good choice if the extra $1000 is an issue. I also am fortunate enough to own the Nikon 24-70 f2.8,BUT I will be purchasing Taamron's new 15-30 f2.8 instead of Nikons super wide because of the image stabilization, which the Nikon does not offer, and save myself the $1000 to boot !
BTW, I just purchased a Sigma 50mm f1.4 Art lens instead of Nikon's model, even thought it's quite a bit more expensive... We must learn to trust our own judgment instead of just buying all of the nonsense others write about 3rd party equipment. I think both are excellent lenses and either will make you happy.

ptcanon3ti Loc: NJ

you will have people on both sides of the fence. The "Nikon only" people will say:
1. build quality/longevity
2. resale value
3. focus speed
The people who use 3rd party lenses will say:
1. Tamron has been tested to be better than the Nikon as far as IQ is concerned.
2. worth saving $1k
3. Focus speed is certainly fine.

The only thing that matters is: what's important to YOU?

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

:thumbup: :thumbup:

LennyP4868 Loc: NJ

All I can say is that the Nikon is not $1500 better

Belgrey Loc: Nashua, NH

Thank you everyone for the information and your thoughts. I do have to agree the Nikon lenses are far superior to Tamron lenses. With the onset of Nikon's mirrorless cameras, the decision becomes a little more difficult. For the time, I'll be sticking with Tamron and wait and see what happens with the new mirrorless and Nikon's new lenses for the Z6 and Z7.