24-70 2.8, yeah...but which one?

[Ntinaras]

What i have now

D600, D5100, 18-55 VR, 35mm AF-S DX 1.8G, AF-S 50mm 1.8G, Yongnuo 35mm F2, YN685 Flash

I want to get a 24-70 2.8, and probably at the same time slowly get rid of my DX system.

the question is which should i get?
Nikons are very expensive, so unless i find someone selling it very cheap i can't afford it

so my options are :
Tokina, which has the best image quality
Sigma, which is the cheapest and i could find it with less than 300 euro used!
Tamron , which has the second best image quality, and has VC which could be useful because i shoot video sometimes.

On paper they all look great.
but i haven't used any of them, but only the Non VR Nikon, which was good, but very heavy

I would like to hear some opinions regarding them, about image and build quality, auto-focus speed and accuracy, and anything else.

Thank you in advance

 

[Daz]

I have used a friends Nikon version and in all honesty, I couldn't tell much of a difference between it and my Sigma

 

[Horoscope Fish]

I want to get a 24-70 2.8, and probably at the same time slowly get rid of my DX system.

the question is which should i get?

I had opportunity to borrow and shoot with the Nikon, the Tamron and the Sigma 24-70mm's before making my decision and I wound up buying the Tamron Di VC USD. It's a real workhorse of a lens on my D750, the perfect compliment to my Tamron 70-300mm f/2.8 and its optical stabilization is very effective and a really nice feature to have in general in my opinion.

I'm sure there's no shortage of example shots taken with the Tamron 24-70mm but here are few of mine from when I... uh... finessed my way into an abandoned zoo if you want to have a look: Into a Dark Place

....

 

[Marcel]

What i have now

I want to get a 24-70 2.8, and probably at the same time slowly get rid of my DX system.
On paper they all look great.
but i haven't used any of them, but only the Non VR Nikon, which was good, but very heavy

There might be little differences between them, but my guess is that the weight should be very similar. If the weight is a factor, you could look at the 24-120 which has a longer reach, is less heavy and has VR. It's quite a remarquable lens that gets very close to the Nikon 24-70 as far as sharpness is concerned.

 

[Ntinaras]

There might be little differences between them, but my guess is that the weight should be very similar. If the weight is a factor, you could look at the 24-120 which has a longer reach, is less heavy and has VR. It's quite a remarquable lens that gets very close to the Nikon 24-70 as far as sharpness is concerned.

dxomark disagrees :/

 

[Marcel]

dxomark disagrees :/

I understand it's not as sharp, I have both. What I'm wrote is that if you have a problem with weight... all 24-70 2.8 are heavy, and that the 24-120 has longer reach.

I remember going to the store and trying both lenses on my D700, came back home and looked at the files and then got back and bought the 24-120. Later I found a used 24-70 and got it. But when I go out for a walk, the 24-120 is the one I take with me.

 

[Ntinaras]

Yeah, i was also considering the 24-120 f4, for weight and reach issues
but i need the 2.8, and the better image quality
the reach would be useful, but i cant compromise 2(important) things for 1 (not that much)

 

[Marcel]

With the price difference between the 24-70 and the 24-120, you could buy a 50 1.8 and an 85 1.8. IMHO the 50 + 85 combo would give you a better image than the 24-70. Did I write IMHO?

 

[Ntinaras]

i already have a 50 1.8
but i need the 24-70 because in places where i work it's impossible to change lenses

 

[RocketCowboy]

I have the Tamron 24-70/2.8 VC. Love it.

If I were buying a Nikon model, I would probably steer towards the non-VR version. Not because I don't think VR can be helpful in that range, it just sounds like that is the better IQ model. The VR model uses a front lens element of similar size to the Tamron (82mm IIRC), adds weight over the non-VR model, and lost some sharpness. I don't see adding VR and losing IQ to be worth the price increase on the Nikon model.

 

[NVSteve]

I have the Nikon 24-120 and the 24-70 non-VR. I prefer the 24-120 because of the extra reach and the VR, and I must be lucky in that the photos produced using it have been great. I simply don't see much of a difference between the two. If I were buying now, I'm pretty sure I'd go with the Tamron 24-70VC. In fact, I'm seriously contemplating selling the Nikon 24-70 and replacing it with the Tamron-VR/VC does have some benefits. Then again, I've heard good things about the Tokina as well, if you don't need the speediest AF.

 

[Camera Fun]

I have the Tamron 24-70 VC on my D7000. I'm not in a position to rent different lenses and then make my decision so I spent a lot of time researching reviews and opinions. The result was I went with the Tamron and have been very happy with it. I did have to fine tune the focus on the D7000 and I do some sharpening in View NX2 on the raw images.
Now, would I like a little more range (such as a 24-120)? Of course I would, but I decided the 2.8 was more of a priority.
As for the weight, that's not a problem for me. I actually find the weight and larger size of the lens helps me hold/stabilize the camera.
Next on my list is the Tamron 70-200 2.8 VC.

 

[Ad B]

Hi,

I sold my 24-120 f4 and bought the Tammy 24-70 f2.8. Great lens!
The Nikon version was much to expensive, Nikons VR version much, much to expensive.
I compared my Tammy with a Nikon non VR from a friend, my Tammy is just as sharp or even better...
The AF speed of the Nikon is a bit faster, yeah, but that isn´t a issue for me.
For holidays, weekends and so, I use a Tamron 28-300 PZD version as my walk around lens.
Don't shoot me, that super zoom isn't bad at all! It's light and delivers good pics.

My 24-70 f2.8, my Tamron, it's a good choice, very good build quality, very good picture quality, it has VR, fair price.

Ad B

 

[rocketman122]

I have the nikon 28-70 AFS. if I need to replace that lens, without hesitation itll be the tamron 24-70 VC. I never shoot my zooms at anything less than 3.5 and from f/4, sharpness has significantly increased and vignetting is minute. vc is a huge plus and the price cant be beat. people might complain about the build but my nikon isnt so great if it fell to the floor. and this is from experience. nikon lenses arent built like tanks. my friends 14-24 fell to the floor and came apart. even matt graingers 14-24 fell as well and took some heavy damage. and you will pay dearly for repair.

its on sale atm for $1100 after rebate.