Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8E VR

Started 3 months ago | Discussions thread
ormdig
ormdig Senior Member • Posts: 2,495
Re: Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8E VR
1

larrywilson wrote:

briantilley wrote:

threw the lens wrote:

CAT Productions wrote:

larrywilson wrote:

mbecke wrote:

larrywilson wrote:

I suppose the Nikon 24-70 f2.8 vr lens is a good lens, but I opted for the Tamron 24-70 f2.8 vc lens from the standpoint of saving $900. The Tamron a good stabilization, is much shorter in lens length and less weight. The Tamron has less vignetting and is sharper at the longer focal lengths. The Tamron is also built well and is moisture resistant. With the dock I can adjust the Tamron a various focal lengths for fine tuning.

I have found for myself that the Tamron SP and G2 lenses compete very well with Nikon and much more reasonable prices. I can not afford the professional Nikon lenses.

Larry

Interesting post. I, too, have had very good results with my two recently purchased Tamron lenses. The newest Tamron 85mm f1.8 prime is really sharp. My Tamron 17-35 f2.8-f4 lens really bailed me out during last years trip to Portugal and Spain, since my older Nikon 28-200 just did not perform well. I think that certain lens makers produce good lenses during certain periods of time. My recently purchased Sigma prime lenses are generally sharp and quite good. My recently purchased Sigma zooms are just fair, at best. My recently purchased Nikon lenses, mostly primes, have been rather underwhelming. (However, I do not own the newest Nikon 70-200; or the Nikon 105mm f1.4, which are supposed to be quite good.) As they say, keep betting on the horse that runs fastest. Right now, I think that Tamron may be producing the best overall product at the lowest cost.

It just seems like the Nikon lenses have gotten darn expensive and may or may not be as good as the Tamron g2 and sp lenses. I also have the Tamron 85mm f1.8 sp lens and its better than my now sold Nikon 85mm f1.4g lens.

Larry

In some cases, yes, but the Nikon 70-200 FL smokes all the 3rd party 70-200 offerings (including the Tamron G2 70-200).

Not true, the Sigma Sport has some advantages. You can educate yourself about what the image quality looks like here . You can play with it and see how the Tamron looks if you like. That also looks better than the Nikkor.

For a meaningful comparison, the lenses would need to be tested on the same camera. The comparison you linked to does not allow that - they tested the Sigma and Tamron 70-200mm lenses Canon cameras only.

I never really used standard zooms from Tamron though after the way they autofocused compared to Canon, but at least the image quality is very good.

I as an avid long time non professional photographer and I am not interested in paying over $2,000 for a 70-200 lens that may or may not be a touch better than the Tamron. I would have to be a professional as a full time job to afford the Nikon. In most cases the print comparison between the two lenses would be minor and not seen on a print.

Larry

What you all seem to be missing here is that these lenses are made for sports and action shooting. I think all of the 3rd party makers have come a long ways in image quality to the point there isn't a lot of difference in most situations. Where Nikon and Canon smoke the 3rd party lenses is in focus speed and accuracy, especially where the subject is moving toward or away from the camera. There hasn't been a 3rd party lens yet that can compare,

-- hide signature --

Pete

 ormdig's gear list:ormdig's gear list
Nikon D7000 Nikon D800 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II Nikon AF-S 105mm F1.4E ED +7 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow