Keep in mind that no matter what gear we are discussing, we all tend to love what we own. The Nikon is a fantastic lens, as is the Tamron. I've shot with both. Look to your application to determine what is best for you. The Nikon has better distortion characteristics at the wide end, while the Tamron's VC is a significant advantage over the Nikon.
Nikon 24-70 question
- Thread starter Anco
- Start date
Keep in mind that no matter what gear we are discussing, we all tend to love what we own. The Nikon is a fantastic lens, as is the Tamron. I've shot with both. Look to your application to determine what is best for you. The Nikon has better distortion characteristics at the wide end, while the Tamron's VC is a significant advantage over the Nikon.
I'd love to help you out, but my logic (which is usually questionable) says if they were close to releasing a new version of this lens, surely they would have pushed to have it at photokina. A new 24-70 with a D750 would be a bad ass package. Can't see it coming in the short term.By all means... please buy the Nikon 24-70... because I've been waiting a long time for the updated version and would like to see it sooner rather than later.
I have to agree, but I think here the most significant issue is price. It's really hard to look past that kind of price difference. If the nikon is that much better, I'll pay it, but so far in not hearing a lot of people singing praise for it.
Came in late on this thread but I have been having the same thoughts about which to go for. The only thing holding me back from taking the plunge and going for the Tamron is that Nikon could decide to tweak their in camera firmware and leave the Tamron not working properly, apparently they have a been known to do this in the past although I have not seen any hard evidence. I know Tamron would probably fix it but it still does concern me. There are a lot of very happy Tamron users on here though so thats a + for going Tamron.
Also the Nikon is getting a bit old now and could do with an update to use latest technology VR and lens coatings but you could be waiting years for that.
Also the Nikon is getting a bit old now and could do with an update to use latest technology VR and lens coatings but you could be waiting years for that.
I've heard rumors of that, but I don't think Nikon is that stupid. If Nikon did this (and Canon didn't) they would lose tons of market share. If they colluded and did so at the same time, who knows. Perhaps Tamron would enter the body market (sigma already is). I think folks would hold onto older bodies and that would kill future sales for a while. I don't think this will happen anytime soon, or ever possibly.
i rented the Tamron 24-70 and was very pleased; however, there were a couple of shots where the dreaded onion spots appeared. But that was a couple out of a hundred exposures, so i was ok with that. The only issue I would consider is if you like the nikon colors better than the tamron. After using the Tamron, i wondered whether the nikon renders more pleasing colors - at least to my eye. I still wonder. If i were to buy one today, i would go with the Tamron because for the money, it is quite a lens.
Phillydog1958
Senior Member
My 24-70 took a 4 ft drop, while attached to my D600 . . . Not even a scratch. It's tough, robust lens. I wish I could say the same for my D600. Sending in for repairs . . .
Sending in for repairs . . .My 24-70 took a 4 ft drop, while attached to my D600 . . . Not even a scratch. It's tough, robust lens. I wish I could say the same for my D600.
Ouch, just makes me cringe hearing tragic stories like that. Good luck with the camera, hope its not too serious. Thanks for the info though, the shock proof feature wasn't something I had really considered, but its definitely a plus. Now if someone out there would be kind enough to drop the Tamron from 4 ft, then we can compare the two
Phillydog1958
Senior Member
Ouch, just makes me cringe hearing tragic stories like that. Good luck with the camera, hope its not too serious. Thanks for the info though, the shock proof feature wasn't something I had really considered, but its definitely a plus. Now if someone out there would be kind enough to drop the Tamron from 4 ft, then we can compare the two
Ha! Go ahead, Rick! Let 'er drop.
singlerosa_RIP
Senior Member
I've had my Nikon 24-70 for 18 months. It replaced the 17-55 when I went FX and is my most used lens (out of 7). With the high ISO capabilities of today's cameras, I have no issues with non-VR lenses (I only have 2). I can count on one hand the number of times I use VR on my 70-200. If Nikon came out with a 24-70 VR tomorrow, I would not be in a hurry to buy it unless the optics were far superior to the current lens, while maintaining equal or better build quality (metal).
Thanks Jim, do you have any CA issues with this lens? As for the VR, I'm at the opposite end of the scale. I came from Pentax where the image stabilization is built into the camera body, so I've never been without it.
Ruidoso Bill
Senior Member
I have the Nikon trilogy, out of the three lenses the 24-70 gets the most use hands down and I wouldn't trade it for anything. If you are leaning for the Tamron go for it and enjoy it but the wisest thing to do is rent them both, I really doubt you will notice that much difference between the two to make much difference but you will get the comfort of making an informed decision. The difference between the two cost wise isn't that great when comparing glass. Build quality and use in less than ideal conditions is really important to me and because of that I chose Nikon, I've trusted Nikon for a very long time and never been disappointed.
singlerosa_RIP
Senior Member
The only issues I have are with distortion at the wide end. Easily solved in post or by popping on my 14-24.
Blade Canyon
Senior Member
For anyone reading this in the Raleigh/Durham area, there is a Nikon 24-70 2.8 on Craigslist right now for $1,500. (Not mine.) Had I not already bought the older 28-70 2.8, I would buy this.
RussellHons
Senior Member
Ouch, just makes me cringe hearing tragic stories like that. Good luck with the camera, hope its not too serious. Thanks for the info though, the shock proof feature wasn't something I had really considered, but its definitely a plus. Now if someone out there would be kind enough to drop the Tamron from 4 ft, then we can compare the two
I might sound like a clutz, but these are the only 2 incidents I have had and both in the last 6 mo. My Tamron 70-200 2.8 rolled off a bar stool onto the hardwood store while I was quickly changing lenses. I have used it probably 1000 times since then, and there was no damage. (other than the dent in the floor).
The second incident happened last week when I was out shooting photos of the northern lights in the middle of the night. I stopped on a gravel road, set up my tripod and snapped my D5200 and Sigma 17-50 2.8 onto it. I turned around to grab something from my car and heard the crash! Turned on the flashlight and there was my camera/lens face down on the gravel road. I had failed to make sure the ground was level
Anyway, I gingerly lifted everything up and set it back up. noticed gravel and sand smashed into and around the lens cap and hood. I checked the connections between lens and camera, then took of the lens cap. Everything was perfect! I shot the whole evening with after that, and have had no issues. So.. To me, these lenses have been built to take a bump or two, which hasn't always been the case.