Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC or Nikon 24-120 f/4

Hi,

I plan to buy a Nikon D600 with at least a Nikon 85mm 1.8G for portraiture (children) and a Nikon 50mm 1.8G, but I need a standard zoom too for different kind of use (landscape, travels...).

I tried a Nikon 24-70 2.8 but it is expensive and too huge for my use.

I can't decide between the new Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 Di VC USD or the Nikon 24-120 f/4. Of course range and aperture are different but did someone test color and contrast and bokeh from both lens ?

bookmarked. I am deciding between these two as well. I just don't know 100% how much I would miss the 70-120mm range if I choose the Tamron. If Nikon made a 24-120mm f/2.8 VR it would be a no brainer. I just find 70mm to limiting for a travel lens. Maybe if I was stuck with 70mm I would get used to it. I know the 28-300mm is out of the question for sure.

As a generalist lens, the 24-120 is excellent. Last year I took it to Barcelona and really, it was great to have the flexibility. And in a pinch, to crop at the long end would effectively give you a 10.5 mp DX image with an effective focal length of 180mm f/4. Pretty good. People may come and report about disortion this and that, but with 24 mp, you've got a lot of leeway for correcting such things. Especially if it's for personal vs paid work.

I think the D600 has distortion auto correct, so you're not really losing a lot of pixels anyway.

These are all taken with a D3s, downsized a lot for web.





























--
"You're guaranteed to miss 100% of the shots you don't take" - Wayne Gretzky

jpi29 said:

Hi,

I plan to buy a Nikon D600 with at least a Nikon 85mm 1.8G for portraiture (children) and a Nikon 50mm 1.8G, but I need a standard zoom too for different kind of use (landscape, travels...).

I tried a Nikon 24-70 2.8 but it is expensive and too huge for my use.

I can't decide between the new Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 Di VC USD or the Nikon 24-120 f/4. Of course range and aperture are different but did someone test color and contrast and bokeh from both lens ?

Click to expand...

Also considering the same topic--have a 16-35 and 70-200 VRII, so covered on the wide and tele side of things. 50mm 1.8 prime and the 28-300 also in the bag. Figuring I am better served with something in the 24-70 f2.8 spectrum than relying on the 28-300.

Have you considered the Sigma 24-70 f2.8? I know it is large (82mm I believe) so couldn't share 77mm filters with other lenses in this category, but wondering if anyone has had luck with it/opinions? Sorry I can't offer any guidance and am just throwing more questions into the mix.

Nice pictures, viva la sagrada familia !
Thanks for your feedback

I am looking for the answer too. I currently own a 24-120mm f/4.0 and it's been great. I was wondering whether Tamron 24-70 would be a better one to switch to, but didn't find any information other than some Tamron review actually mentiones 24-70 VC being softer at long end.

This photo for instance, was taken using 24-120mm f/4.0 VR. The sharpness can't be see here though due to web compression.

jpi29 said:

Hi,

I plan to buy a Nikon D600 with at least a Nikon 85mm 1.8G for portraiture (children) and a Nikon 50mm 1.8G, but I need a standard zoom too for different kind of use (landscape, travels...).

I tried a Nikon 24-70 2.8 but it is expensive and too huge for my use.

I can't decide between the new Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 Di VC USD or the Nikon 24-120 f/4. Of course range and aperture are different but did someone test color and contrast and bokeh from both lens ?

Click to expand...

nice pics. how do you find the 24-120 f4 in the evening or indoors? That's my only concern. I'm used to 50/1.8 and 105/2.8 (no zoom yet). f4 I guess would just push the ISO up a bit.

Guys,

Doing some research myself. The 24-85 seems to preform well, so might go with this and hope Nikon upgrade to 24-70mm.

Some good info here

--
Cheers

Craig

fta said:

nice pics. how do you find the 24-120 f4 in the evening or indoors?

Click to expand...

Evening....



Indoors.....

fta said:

I'm used to 50/1.8 and 105/2.8 (no zoom yet). f4 I guess would just push the ISO up a bit.

Click to expand...

Shooting at wide apertures might not give you enough DoF so using high ISO is a better option anyway. Modern cameras, especially FX cameras, allow you to do this.

If you said you wanted a wider aperture for narrow DoF you'd have a point, so don't give up the fast primes - use both.

--
http://www.andrewsandersphotography.co.uk

I can vouch for the 24-120/4. It's an great lens for travel and general shooting. I have fast primes for low light and portraits. This works better for me compared to the Nikon 24-70/2.8 which I sold. My 24-120/4 is actually sharper than the 24-70/2.8 wide open on both.

I also considered the Tamron 24-70/2.8 because of the VC but after some research, I've decided to pass. Bokeh on that lens is pretty bad and I'm still worried about the QC.

Good luck with decision.

Best

Shaun

Here are some example on the D800.

I am also just looking for a general purpose lens for my d600 (currently only have the 50 1.8D).

I have just picked up a 70-210 f/4 from ebay, to try that focal length, but am considering the two lenses you mention.

One thing that attracts me to the Tamron, is the weather sealing. I can't see that any of Nikons lenses seem to claim this. Anyone know what the level of weather proofing is with them?

I am assuming that my D600+the Tamron lens, would be fine in a light shower.

Is the Bokeh that bad to throw away the lens?

jsajeba said:

jsajeba wrote:

Is the Bokeh that bad to throw away the lens?

Click to expand...

No, it's not.

The bokeh of the Tamron is actually very very nice, and in my opinion, this is an amazing story how a minor, negligible issue gets blown completely out of proportions.

The only issue with the Tamron 24-70's bokeh is the so-called 'onion rings', concentric discs that may appear in highlights in the out-of-focus area due to the optical design of the lens. The three things I can say about that:

* In the vast majority of pictures that I take, this is nowhere to be found (no qualifying highlights)

* When it did occur - I had to actively look for it. Remember that unlike reviews that blow-out the 100x100 offending pixels for you, in real life, this would be a tiny background element you're unlikely to notice. It's also trivial to be fixed in post, not that I was ever bothered to do that.

* It seems to be an inherent issue with the more modern design of 24-70 f/2.8 lenses that tries to compact them a bit. The new Canon 'suffers' from exactly the same issue (http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/773-canon2470f28mk2ff) - I wouldn't be surprised if the new Nikon version of the lens, when it ever comes out, has the same (non-) issue.

I had the Nikkor 24-70 f/2.8 for a brief period of time, and while AF was a tack faster - VC on the Tamron gave it a clear edge. Bokeh of the two lenses is, IMHO, completely comparable, and fairly nice and creamy.

Thanks Zeev Suraski for the well explained comment and for helping me to further make my decision and buy this lens

mgblack74 said:

mgblack74 wrote:

As a generalist lens, the 24-120 is excellent. Last year I took it to Barcelona and really, it was great to have the flexibility. And in a pinch, to crop at the long end would effectively give you a 10.5 mp DX image with an effective focal length of 180mm f/4. Pretty good. People may come and report about disortion this and that, but with 24 mp, you've got a lot of leeway for correcting such things. Especially if it's for personal vs paid work.

I think the D600 has distortion auto correct, so you're not really losing a lot of pixels anyway.

These are all taken with a D3s, downsized a lot for web.

"You're guaranteed to miss 100% of the shots you don't take" - Wayne Gretzky

Click to expand...

Some lovely photos there

cblueritter said:

cblueritter wrote:

Guys,

Doing some research myself. The 24-85 seems to preform well, so might go with this and hope Nikon upgrade to 24-70mm.

Some good info here
--
Cheers

Craig

Click to expand...

Stay away from the 24-85mm 3.5-4.5 VR ED; I own a D600 with that kit lens. I am in the process of trading it in with a Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC DI USD. Based on the reviews, I was amazed with the image quality, price wise you're getting every dollar out of it.

I really didnt like my 24-85mm that much, you do get soft edges and distortion at smaller apertures.



Jpi29, did you get a 24-70mm Tamron???

I think you just need to decide which is more important - longer focal length or wider aperture. I was heavily deciding between the nikon 24-70 and 24-120. I opted for the 24-70 because i wanted f2.8 more than the extra 50mm of range. The extra would be really really nice, but i wanted the f2.8 a little more for my shooting style and conditions.

The Nikon 24-120 F4 is SLOW GLASS and has the same optical performance of my 24-85vr and the "kit lens" is smaller, lighter, goes to 85mm and even has 1/2 superior VR system. The only real advantage of the 24-120 is the extra reach.

The Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC is fast glass. It's superior optically to the slower lenses and on par or a little better than the Nikon 24-70. Because it has VC some shooters will have a clear preference for the Tamron.

No way I would deck out that kind of coin for a slow F4 lens. Saying it's as sharp wide open as the 24-70 is silly. Stop down the 24-70 to F4 and see what happens. I'd take the Tamron all day long over the 24-120 F4. Add a Tamron 70-300 VC or Nikon 70-300vr and you'll be besting the F4 lens with ease.



But still...all of these lenses are sharp. All can get the job done well. NONE are great in the corners. Buy primes for that.

Robert

Shotcents said:

Shotcents wrote:

The Nikon 24-120 F4 is SLOW GLASS and has the same optical performance of my 24-85vr and the "kit lens" is smaller, lighter, goes to 85mm and even has 1/2 superior VR system. The only real advantage of the 24-120 is the extra reach.

The Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC is fast glass. It's superior optically to the slower lenses and on par or a little better than the Nikon 24-70. Because it has VC some shooters will have a clear preference for the Tamron.

No way I would deck out that kind of coin for a slow F4 lens. Saying it's as sharp wide open as the 24-70 is silly. Stop down the 24-70 to F4 and see what happens. I'd take the Tamron all day long over the 24-120 F4. Add a Tamron 70-300 VC or Nikon 70-300vr and you'll be besting the F4 lens with ease.

But still...all of these lenses are sharp. All can get the job done well. NONE are great in the corners. Buy primes for that.

Robert

Click to expand...

I totally agree with you Robert! I have been waiting for Nikon to update their 24-70 2.8 since Canon/Tamron released their 24-70 in 2012. I've waited waited waited, and up to this day we have not heard anything from Nikon.. C'mon there gotta be something!!

Well I've just decided that I've waited long enough, I'll trade my 24-85 VR ED to a Tamron 24-70 2.8! I need a good mid range lens that I can use as my walk-around lens, I don't want to spend so much with an out-dated Nikon 24-70, it has been 6 years since they've released this. I can trade my Tamron if Nikon will ever release a new one, or I might even keep my Tamron if I'm pleased and satisfied with the performance.

Nikon.... Come on!!!

Cheers

Le Roy

ler444 said:

ler444 wrote:

ler444 said:

Shotcents wrote:

The Nikon 24-120 F4 is SLOW GLASS and has the same optical performance of my 24-85vr and the "kit lens" is smaller, lighter, goes to 85mm and even has 1/2 superior VR system. The only real advantage of the 24-120 is the extra reach.

The Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC is fast glass. It's superior optically to the slower lenses and on par or a little better than the Nikon 24-70. Because it has VC some shooters will have a clear preference for the Tamron.

No way I would deck out that kind of coin for a slow F4 lens. Saying it's as sharp wide open as the 24-70 is silly. Stop down the 24-70 to F4 and see what happens. I'd take the Tamron all day long over the 24-120 F4. Add a Tamron 70-300 VC or Nikon 70-300vr and you'll be besting the F4 lens with ease.

But still...all of these lenses are sharp. All can get the job done well. NONE are great in the corners. Buy primes for that.

Robert

Click to expand...

I totally agree with you Robert! I have been waiting for Nikon to update their 24-70 2.8 since Canon/Tamron released their 24-70 in 2012. I've waited waited waited, and up to this day we have not heard anything from Nikon.. C'mon there gotta be something!!

Well I've just decided that I've waited long enough, I'll trade my 24-85 VR ED to a Tamron 24-70 2.8! I need a good mid range lens that I can use as my walk-around lens, I don't want to spend so much with an out-dated Nikon 24-70, it has been 6 years since they've released this. I can trade my Tamron if Nikon will ever release a new one, or I might even keep my Tamron if I'm pleased and satisfied with the performance.

Nikon.... Come on!!!

Cheers

Le Roy

Click to expand...

I think Nikon will take another year or two before we hear of the 24-70 vr, but it will come. It's funny to read the comments from people saying they don't need VR on a 24-70, but when it comes out the "old" non-vr versions will be selling on every street corner faster than a two year old iphone.

Honestly, I'd like to see them do a 28-90mm VR 2.8 so the mid range could extend a bit better into the portrait range. 70mm is just too short too often. In other words I'd want something closer to the 24-120 F4, but not with the slow glass and average IQ.

Cheers,

Robert