Nikon AF-S 24-120 f4 VR vs Tamron 35-150 f2.8-4 VC ?

Started 3 months ago | Questions
Peter in Canberra Senior Member • Posts: 1,118
Nikon AF-S 24-120 f4 VR vs Tamron 35-150 f2.8-4 VC ?

Anybody used both of these lenses?

Nikon AF-S 24-120 f4 VR and Tamron 35-150 f2.8-4 VC?

I have used the Tamron and it is nice enough and sharp. It is released more recently and a bit chunkier.

The Nikon is an older release but is smaller.

I would be shooting on DX and the use scenario is indoors to cover either side of the 50-70mm focal length (I have a Sigma 17-50 f2.8 and Tamron 70-200 f2.8 (G1) and that overlap is often where I want to be shooting).  Mainly for shooting religious services but I have had a go with the Tamron for indoor sports and it performed better than I expected.

I hadn't paid attention to the Nikon as I had been looking at the Tamron for a long time.
The Nikon has the advantage of a bit wider.
How do they compare for AF speed and accuracy, and sharpness? VR vs VC? (though for indoor sports that is kind of irrelevant as already I'm trying to have high shutter speeds to freeze motion).
thanks in advance

ANSWER:
This question has not been answered yet.
bluzman
bluzman Senior Member • Posts: 1,206
Re: Nikon AF-S 24-120 f4 VR vs Tamron 35-150 f2.8-4 VC ?

I have both lenses. The Nikon AF-S FX 24-120mm f/4G ED VR came as a kit lens with my D750. The images I've taken with it are great...sharp, good color. A close friend who also has a D750 and the 24-120mm that he got 5/6 years ago, produces excellent images with the combo. That's certainly a testimony to their reliability.

What I wanted, however, was a walking around lens with a bit more reach. Because of that, I acquired the Tamron AF 35-150mm F/2.8-4 Di VC OSD. It doesn't go quite as wide (35mm vs 24mm) but at its widest, it's faster than the Nikon (2.8 vs 4.0). It, too, takes great images.

I don't think that the image stabilization (VR/VC) is different between the two lenses. I do think the Tamron's AF is a bit quicker.

It's a tough decision but for my requirements, at least, the Tamron was right choice.

BTW, I also wanted to be able to go wider with the D750 so I got the Tamron AF 17-35mm F/2.8-4 Di OSD lens to take care of that.

 bluzman's gear list:bluzman's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DC-FZ1000 II Nikon D7500 Nikon Z50 Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ300 Nikon D500 +16 more
Michael Benveniste
Michael Benveniste Veteran Member • Posts: 5,756
Re: Nikon AF-S 24-120 f4 VR vs Tamron 35-150 f2.8-4 VC ?

Peter in Canberra wrote:

I would be shooting on DX and the use scenario is indoors to cover either side of the 50-70mm focal length (I have a Sigma 17-50 f2.8 and Tamron 70-200 f2.8 (G1) and that overlap is often where I want to be shooting). Mainly for shooting religious services but I have had a go with the Tamron for indoor sports and it performed better than I expected.

I haven't used the 35-150mm, but I agree with bluzman that you should choose the lens that best fits your needs.  For religious services, I would want to minimize the number of lens changes.  If the 17-50mm/35-150mm pairing will do that for you, great, but I would personally look at swapping the 17-50mm for a 16-80mm instead.

I've had my 24-120mm f/4 since 2010 and use it extensively for less planned outings, but for a planned shoot where I'm using f/2.8 zooms it stays at home.  If I feel the need to "fill the gap," I'll do so either with a prime or a 24-70mm f/2.8.

-- hide signature --

Light travels at 2.13085531 × 10^14 smoots per fortnight. Catch some today!

 Michael Benveniste's gear list:Michael Benveniste's gear list
Nikon Coolpix 995 Nikon D800 Nikon 1 V2 Nikon D7200 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX85 +43 more
OP Peter in Canberra Senior Member • Posts: 1,118
Re: Nikon AF-S 24-120 f4 VR vs Tamron 35-150 f2.8-4 VC ?

bluzman wrote:

I have both lenses. The Nikon AF-S FX 24-120mm f/4G ED VR came as a kit lens with my D750. The images I've taken with it are great...sharp, good color. A close friend who also has a D750 and the 24-120mm that he got 5/6 years ago, produces excellent images with the combo. That's certainly a testimony to their reliability.

What I wanted, however, was a walking around lens with a bit more reach. Because of that, I acquired the Tamron AF 35-150mm F/2.8-4 Di VC OSD. It doesn't go quite as wide (35mm vs 24mm) but at its widest, it's faster than the Nikon (2.8 vs 4.0). It, too, takes great images.

I don't think that the image stabilization (VR/VC) is different between the two lenses. I do think the Tamron's AF is a bit quicker.

It's a tough decision but for my requirements, at least, the Tamron was right choice.

BTW, I also wanted to be able to go wider with the D750 so I got the Tamron AF 17-35mm F/2.8-4 Di OSD lens to take care of that.

thanks bluzman. so it's pretty even in terms of performance characteristics.

I often can get away with just 35-150 it seems but a little wider might be more useful than a little longer,. I should look more closely at the focal lengths of shots already taken (mostly the same venues)

OP Peter in Canberra Senior Member • Posts: 1,118
Re: Nikon AF-S 24-120 f4 VR vs Tamron 35-150 f2.8-4 VC ?

Michael Benveniste wrote:

Peter in Canberra wrote:

I would be shooting on DX and the use scenario is indoors to cover either side of the 50-70mm focal length (I have a Sigma 17-50 f2.8 and Tamron 70-200 f2.8 (G1) and that overlap is often where I want to be shooting). Mainly for shooting religious services but I have had a go with the Tamron for indoor sports and it performed better than I expected.

I haven't used the 35-150mm, but I agree with bluzman that you should choose the lens that best fits your needs. For religious services, I would want to minimize the number of lens changes. If the 17-50mm/35-150mm pairing will do that for you, great, but I would personally look at swapping the 17-50mm for a 16-80mm instead.

I've had my 24-120mm f/4 since 2010 and use it extensively for less planned outings, but for a planned shoot where I'm using f/2.8 zooms it stays at home. If I feel the need to "fill the gap," I'll do so either with a prime or a 24-70mm f/2.8.

thanks Michael

yes, I was trying to reduce lens changes. 35-150 achieves that mostly. it is going wider that I find I need most.
As I'm often trying to get some depth of field - to capture details in front and behind, not portrait type isolation, I am often not using f2.8 and relying on cranking up the ISO a bit more to get suitable shutter speed.

something to GAS about in the future ...

I've thought about the 16-80 but baulked at the cost (at least here in Oz). And that thing has a radar dish for a lens hood! (which I guess is not such an issue indoors as it can be left at home).

almost all of my lens stable is acquired used ... mostly good outcomes. (a Tamron 17-50 where focus was kaput, forget if I sold for next to nothing noting its flaw or gave it away)

Jocksa
Jocksa Senior Member • Posts: 1,151
Sigma 50-100 f/1.8?

Have you considered the Sigma 50-100 f/1.8? Fabulous fast aperture for indoor shots and optically superior to your suggestions.

Peter in Canberra wrote:

I've thought about the 16-80 but baulked at the cost (at least here in Oz). And that thing has a radar dish for a lens hood! (which I guess is not such an issue indoors as it can be left at home).

The hood from the 24-85 (HB63?) fits and works well on the 16-80 if you want a normal sized hood, albeit it presumably offers less protection.

-- hide signature --

“Stand in front of something more interesting.”

 Jocksa's gear list:Jocksa's gear list
Nikon D850 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 16-35mm F4G ED VR Nikon AF-S Micro-Nikkor 105mm F2.8G IF-ED VR Nikon AF-S Teleconverter TC-17E II Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm F4G ED VR +3 more
OP Peter in Canberra Senior Member • Posts: 1,118
Re: Sigma 50-100 f/1.8?

Jocksa wrote:

Have you considered the Sigma 50-100 f/1.8? Fabulous fast aperture for indoor shots and optically superior to your suggestions.

Peter in Canberra wrote:

I've thought about the 16-80 but baulked at the cost (at least here in Oz). And that thing has a radar dish for a lens hood! (which I guess is not such an issue indoors as it can be left at home).

The hood from the 24-85 (HB63?) fits and works well on the 16-80 if you want a normal sized hood, albeit it presumably offers less protection.

thanks, I know the hood from the 18-200 also fits.

it was really just an observation. though if the 16-80 is billed as 'an ultimate' walk around lens then having such a big hood makes it a PITA to stow in a normal sized walk around camera bag ...

chulster
chulster Contributing Member • Posts: 983
Re: Nikon AF-S 24-120 f4 VR vs Tamron 35-150 f2.8-4 VC ?

I have both lenses. The Tamron is sharper over a larger portion of its range than the Nikon is over its. My copy of the 35-150mm, wide open, is wonderfully sharp from 50mm all the way to 150mm, and decently sharp below 50mm. My copy of the 24-120mm, wide open, is sharp from 24mm to about 85mm, and soft above that. Its sharpness at the long end isn't acceptable until f/5.6.

My main complaint with the 24-120mm is that it does not focus accurately at very close range. Near the MFD, it needs up to -20 AFFT correction. I don't know if this issue is peculiar to my copy. The Tamron has no such issue.

Both lenses are comparable (very good) in contrast and lack of aberrations, aside from distortion. The Nikon distorts fiercely; its images need correction either in camera or in post-processing. The Tamron doesn't distort nearly so much, and I usually don't bother correcting its images in post-processing. (As with all third-party lenses, Nikon cameras do not correct its distortion in SOOC JPEGs.)

OP Peter in Canberra Senior Member • Posts: 1,118
Re: Nikon AF-S 24-120 f4 VR vs Tamron 35-150 f2.8-4 VC ?

chulster wrote:

I have both lenses. The Tamron is sharper over a larger portion of its range than the Nikon is over its. My copy of the 35-150mm, wide open, is wonderfully sharp from 50mm all the way to 150mm, and decently sharp below 50mm. My copy of the 24-120mm, wide open, is sharp from 24mm to about 85mm, and soft above that. Its sharpness at the long end isn't acceptable until f/5.6.

My main complaint with the 24-120mm is that it does not focus accurately at very close range. Near the MFD, it needs up to -20 AFFT correction. I don't know if this issue is peculiar to my copy. The Tamron has no such issue.

Both lenses are comparable (very good) in contrast and lack of aberrations, aside from distortion. The Nikon distorts fiercely; its images need correction either in camera or in post-processing. The Tamron doesn't distort nearly so much, and I usually don't bother correcting its images in post-processing. (As with all third-party lenses, Nikon cameras do not correct its distortion in SOOC JPEGs.)

thanks for this - very helpful. good marks for the Tamron

OP Peter in Canberra Senior Member • Posts: 1,118
Re: Sigma 50-100 f/1.8?

Jocksa wrote:

Have you considered the Sigma 50-100 f/1.8? Fabulous fast aperture for indoor shots and optically superior to your suggestions.

just came back to this and had a look at the 50-100 - I wasn't really aware of it.

From Thom Hogan's review it looks like (unlike other f1.8 lenses*) it might actually be fast enough in AF terms for indoor sports
https://www.dslrbodies.com/lenses/nikon-lens-reviews/third-party-lens-reviews/sigma-50-100mm-f18.html
It looks pretty well lit at that rink though compared to the pretty poorly lit (even abysmally lit for ice hockey) indoor venues in Australia.

a bit pricey for me at the moment, and a heavy piece of kit, but a very nice looking lens. For my indoor church shots probably not wide enough but an intriguing option for indoor sports (if my son sticks at floorball)
*I first bought a Nikon AF-S 50 mm f1.8 to try shooting floorball. It didn't work out that well and some of that I put down to AF speed.

another photographically irritating aspect of indoor venues in Australia (probably elsewhere too) is there is no 'working space' adjacent to courts - a thin sliver of space for spectators. This is of course the reality of the economics - $ to get the playing space is generally as far as anything stretches for amateur stuff.

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads