BackdoorArts
Senior Member
That's the one. It seems to be the only lens included in any FX "kits" coming straight from Nikon. Dealers will match up just about any lens in a kit pricing scheme.
lens advice for D610
- Thread starter Travanian
- Start date
Re: Advice pls
Hey! I own a Tamron 24-70mm f2.8 and I also posted my observations to its thread. I decided to buy the tamron over the nikon is mainly the price and the VR.... Nikon is twice more expensive and has no Vibration reduction...
The tamron delivers great immage especially ocmbined with the Nikon D610. However, the tamron has drawback as well, thus your needs has to be envestigated before we can tell you what to do.
Advantages:
-Crispy immage on f2.8
-Vibration Reduction!!!!
-Price!!!!
-5 Year warranty
Disadvantages:
-Slightly softer in the corners than the Nikon, but still reasonably better then then sigma equivalent.
-82mm filter size which is bigger and more expensive then the 77mm pro size. High quality CP filter costs around 100-150 pounds
-Heavy, it is about 900 gramm and you will not be happy to carry it around in your neck
You may need to buy a comfortable camera strap in the future; the body and the tamron is very heavy together... Nikon is heavy as well.
-AF assist light does not work very well since the tamron is a big fat 82mm lens. I like to put the sun protector on the fron of the lens just to protect the front element, but in that case the AF assist light does does not help in the middle of the frame to catch focus pounts.
- Onion bokeh experienced in some focal lengths. Do not worry, if you do not want to sell the pictures nobody will point it out. Not visible at all just if you pixelpeep it and just on some focal lenghts...
To summary: I advise the Tamron 24-70 f2.8 lens for everyday people. If you want to make money and do your best with the best gear available go for the Nikon equivalent. For event photography people are moving so you will not use long shutter speed, VR will not help you out.
Personally I use the lens for everyday use. The VR is a superbig plus for me, it allows me to shot 0.5 sec on 70mm in dim light... Delivers a great sharp picture and the price is just a Nikon killer for my application Even if I put some drawbacks for the Tamron, I would buy it again.
I hope it helps to decide!
-
Hey! I own a Tamron 24-70mm f2.8 and I also posted my observations to its thread. I decided to buy the tamron over the nikon is mainly the price and the VR.... Nikon is twice more expensive and has no Vibration reduction...
The tamron delivers great immage especially ocmbined with the Nikon D610. However, the tamron has drawback as well, thus your needs has to be envestigated before we can tell you what to do.
Advantages:
-Crispy immage on f2.8
-Vibration Reduction!!!!
-Price!!!!
-5 Year warranty
Disadvantages:
-Slightly softer in the corners than the Nikon, but still reasonably better then then sigma equivalent.
-82mm filter size which is bigger and more expensive then the 77mm pro size. High quality CP filter costs around 100-150 pounds
-Heavy, it is about 900 gramm and you will not be happy to carry it around in your neck
You may need to buy a comfortable camera strap in the future; the body and the tamron is very heavy together... Nikon is heavy as well.-AF assist light does not work very well since the tamron is a big fat 82mm lens. I like to put the sun protector on the fron of the lens just to protect the front element, but in that case the AF assist light does does not help in the middle of the frame to catch focus pounts.
- Onion bokeh experienced in some focal lengths. Do not worry, if you do not want to sell the pictures nobody will point it out. Not visible at all just if you pixelpeep it and just on some focal lenghts...
To summary: I advise the Tamron 24-70 f2.8 lens for everyday people. If you want to make money and do your best with the best gear available go for the Nikon equivalent. For event photography people are moving so you will not use long shutter speed, VR will not help you out.
Personally I use the lens for everyday use. The VR is a superbig plus for me, it allows me to shot 0.5 sec on 70mm in dim light... Delivers a great sharp picture and the price is just a Nikon killer for my application
Even if I put some drawbacks for the Tamron, I would buy it again.I hope it helps to decide!
-
Re: Advice pls
Thx very much for taking the time to write. Thats just the advice i needed. Iv looked at both the Sigma and the Nikon 24-70's. Sigma is approx £600 and the Nikon is approx £1100. I have to ask myself...What am i getting for the extra £500 spent on the Nikon ? I may be selling images on at some point but the people ill be selling them on to i dont think are Pixel Peepers. So i may give the Sigma a try. Any other suggestions or comments are very welcome.
Thx again
Stephen
Hey! I own a Tamron 24-70mm f2.8 and I also posted my observations to its thread. I decided to buy the tamron over the nikon is mainly the price and the VR.... Nikon is twice more expensive and has no Vibration reduction...
The tamron delivers great immage especially ocmbined with the Nikon D610. However, the tamron has drawback as well, thus your needs has to be envestigated before we can tell you what to do.
Advantages:
-Crispy immage on f2.8
-Vibration Reduction!!!!
-Price!!!!
-5 Year warranty
Disadvantages:
-Slightly softer in the corners than the Nikon, but still reasonably better then then sigma equivalent.
-82mm filter size which is bigger and more expensive then the 77mm pro size. High quality CP filter costs around 100-150 pounds
-Heavy, it is about 900 gramm and you will not be happy to carry it around in your neck
-AF assist light does not work very well since the tamron is a big fat 82mm lens. I like to put the sun protector on the fron of the lens just to protect the front element, but in that case the AF assist light does does not help in the middle of the frame to catch focus pounts.
- Onion bokeh experienced in some focal lengths. Do not worry, if you do not want to sell the pictures nobody will point it out. Not visible at all just if you pixelpeep it and just on some focal lenghts...
To summary: I advise the Tamron 24-70 f2.8 lens for everyday people. If you want to make money and do your best with the best gear available go for the Nikon equivalent. For event photography people are moving so you will not use long shutter speed, VR will not help you out.
Personally I use the lens for everyday use. The VR is a superbig plus for me, it allows me to shot 0.5 sec on 70mm in dim light... Delivers a great sharp picture and the price is just a Nikon killer for my application
I hope it helps to decide!
-
Thx very much for taking the time to write. Thats just the advice i needed. Iv looked at both the Sigma and the Nikon 24-70's. Sigma is approx £600 and the Nikon is approx £1100. I have to ask myself...What am i getting for the extra £500 spent on the Nikon ? I may be selling images on at some point but the people ill be selling them on to i dont think are Pixel Peepers. So i may give the Sigma a try. Any other suggestions or comments are very welcome.
Thx again
Stephen
Re: Advice pls
I have the Sigma. It's a great lens, but it does have its drawbacks. In comparison to my Nikon 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6, the Nikon is MUCH better overall. I can definitely see a big difference in image quality when comparing photos from both lenses. Granted, it isn't a fair comparison because both lenses are different focal lengths, but I notice the difference when compared with other Nikon lenses, too.
That said...it IS a constant f/2.8 lens, it does work nicely in low light situations, and it's an excellent value for the price! You need to decide what will work best for your situation.
This lens does have the onion bokeh. Here is a 100% crop shot at f/4 which will give you an idea of its background. It reminds me of Monet's style of painting.
In the following photo, I used the Gaussian Blur tool to smooth some of it out--and at least with photo editing, you can adjust the bokeh somewhat:
And here is one without having its bokeh edited:
I have the Sigma. It's a great lens, but it does have its drawbacks. In comparison to my Nikon 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6, the Nikon is MUCH better overall. I can definitely see a big difference in image quality when comparing photos from both lenses. Granted, it isn't a fair comparison because both lenses are different focal lengths, but I notice the difference when compared with other Nikon lenses, too.
That said...it IS a constant f/2.8 lens, it does work nicely in low light situations, and it's an excellent value for the price!
You need to decide what will work best for your situation. This lens does have the onion bokeh.
Here is a 100% crop shot at f/4 which will give you an idea of its background. It reminds me of Monet's style of painting. In the following photo, I used the Gaussian Blur tool to smooth some of it out--and at least with photo editing, you can adjust the bokeh somewhat:
And here is one without having its bokeh edited:
Re: Advice pls
If you think about the Sigma 24-70 f2.8 and want to compare it to nikon or tamron, I would suggest you to look for some comparison youtube movies. Sigma performs a way worse then tamron or nikon. Tamron and nikon are much sharper and has faster AF...
If you think about the Sigma 24-70 f2.8 and want to compare it to nikon or tamron, I would suggest you to look for some comparison youtube movies. Sigma performs a way worse then tamron or nikon. Tamron and nikon are much sharper and has faster AF...