Used Nikon 24-70 f/2.8 or Tamron 24-70 f/2.8?

jjb930

Hi all,

I've had the 24-70 f/2.8 on my wish list for quite some time. I don't necessarily have a preference for Nikon or Tamron (as both are excellent lenses) and each has its benefits.

I know a guy selling his gently used 24-70 f/2.8 Nikon (2 years old ) for $1200 CAD. I can also purchase a brand new Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 for about $1100-1150 CAD. What would you recommend?

I am leaning towards the Nikon in this case, but I don't know if I am favoring brand > cost in this instance. I do believe the Nikon would have better resale value, but I don't know if I'd really plan to sell it. I've tested both at our local store and found both to be impressive lenses.

The major positives for the Nikon was the direction of the zoom ring, smaller filter size (I have filters for it already), less vignetting, and slightly beefier build quality. The only major difference I liked with the Tamron is the VC.

Can you guys chime in on what you would do?

Photobug

Suggest the used Nikon 24-70 over the new Tamron. The ability to standardize on the 77mm filters is big for me; my ND, Grad filter, Expodisk, and ring light can be sued on multiple lens.

It's been a while since I looked at the Tamron, is the zoom collar at the back or the front of the lens? I much prefer the zoom collar to be near the rear so when I switch back and forth between the 24-70 and 70-200 I don't have to think where to grab the lens. If the Tamron turns one way and the Nikon the other, that is an issue with me. But that is just my ergonomic back ground kicking in.

heartyfisher

it depends .. :-) how will you be using it. the VC is great for hand held night shots and handheld video.

The other difference is the sharpness . the Nikon is sharper at the longer end 50-70mm and the tamron is sharper at the wider end 24-40mm. which end will you be using it more ? the tamron is actually wider bec of focus breathing ie some say its about 22-60mm which is the reason I got it. I wanted it for being wider and sharper at the wide end. The disadvantage of the tamron is its bokeh can get a bit "buzy" depending on the background.

So if you are getting it for the long end and portraits go nikon. if you are getting it for wide angles and nightscapes and dark interiors of buildings like me go tamron like me :-)

jjb930

Hi Photobug & Hearty,

Thanks for your comments.

Photo - the zoom is near the front. The focus is very small and near the rear.

My main reason for wanting a 24-70 is primarily for photos during events and as a general purpose walk around lens. I don't really use my DSLR for video (even though I probably should).

I have a few weddings in my family this upcoming year and I want something that I can pop on the camera and not have to "zoom with my feet" or switch between my 50 and 85mm 1.8g primes every 20 minutes. I don't know how much motivation I'll have to lug my tripod around during the wedding and reception, so I probably will be doing more handheld shots than stabilized. If it was a job, I'd feel that I need to carry all my gear. When it's family, I just want to take some additional photos for memories sake.

Regarding the width of the Tamron:
I already have a Tokina 16-28mm f/2.8 that I really love, so if I need to go really wide I easily can. I actually use this lens primarily for landscapes so I don't think it will replace the 24-70 unless I want to go wider than 28mm.

spraynpray

Then your choice is clear - based on your needs, get the Tamron. In low light, the VC will really help and the lens is sharper.

heartyfisher

Then your choice is clear - based on your needs, get the Tamron. In low light, the VC will really help and the lens is sharper.

lol i was thinking the opposite :-) LOL

Pistnbroke

Nikon all the way ..compatibility into the future Nikon cannot give you problems with firmware upgrades to make 3rd party lenses less than satisfactory ....look at sigma having to use a USB dock to make the lenses compatible No No Invest in glass Nikon Glass

Golf007sd

I love my Nikon 24-70 2.8....in this focal length, their is no substitute.

Golf007sd

@PitchBlack: I have not, I do hope to do so some day and see what it has to offer. But you are right on the #1, I have some very useful 77mm filters that I use on this lens as well as on 3 others.

Fritz

With the AF capabilities of today's cameras Manual focus would seem to be an after thought for the lens manufacturers- that's really a shame. Having said that I do agree with PitchBlack; the Tamron is a better all-around lens than the Nikon, optically they are very close and in my mind the VC tips the balance towards Tamron. Then too, if you buy the Tamron you have a warrantee, with the used Nikon, you do not.

jjb930

Hi all,

I think I opened up a can of worms with this discussion! It is very interesting to see the different perspectives on the topic. I think we can all agree that both are excellent lenses.

@Fritz brought up a pretty significant point. The Tamron comes with a 6 year warranty brand new. No questions asked. Also, it is my understanding that Tamron doesn't have issues with Nikon at the moment, as they either license or get approval to make lenses on F mounts.... but I'm not exactly sure of the details. I know Sigma blatantly reverse engineers their lenses and Nikon always makes firmware updates to combat them. I feel much more confident with Tamron lenses than Sigma on my Nikon at the moment.

I've read of a few people that purchased used lenses online but got the original sales receipt with it and still managed to get warranty work done by Nikon Canada. I think this might be luck of the draw and not something that I can bank on.

I carefully chatted with the guy and he mentioned Nikon did a warrant replacement for the AF mechanism last year. I'm not sure whether that is necessarily a red flag though. If Nikon fixed it, I doubt it would happen again (or at least you would need to be very lucky).

heartyfisher

Actually there is an issue with tamron lenses. Both the 24-70 and the 70-200 are reported to the camera as exactly the same lense. so the micro adjustments for focus are set the same. no solution from tamron and nikon dont care. all third party lenses reverse engineer the mount. Tokina has a small advantage since their engineers were from nikon in the beginning.

Ryukyu

I've read several reviews that state that the Tamron can search for focus in low light, whereas the Nikon does not, and is quicker.
As I'm also interested in this zoom range, anybody have any input regarding autofocus comparisons?

heartyfisher

I have the tamron. have not taken many shots with it and AF speed is not an issue for me as I dont do sports or chase little ones around. My sons are all grown up :-) and I am not a grandfather yet ;-) so I really have nothing to say besides it does AF ok.

PB_PM

I've read several reviews that state that the Tamron can search for focus in low light, whereas the Nikon does not, and is quicker.
As I'm also interested in this zoom range, anybody have any input regarding autofocus comparisons?

All lenses can hunt in low light, and the Nikon 24-70mm F2.8 is no different. That said, it is one of the best lenses I've used in this regard. The only lenses that I have used that hunt less in low light are F1.4 primes. As for auto focus speed, the Nikon 24-70mm is one of the fastest focusing lenses I've ever used. None of the Nikon primes, other than some of the super telephotos, are even remotely close. The 70-200mm F2.8G VRII is close, but I'd still give the edge to the 24-70. I don't think I'd be exaggerating to say that the 24-70mm f2.8G is the fasting focusing Nikkor ever made.

jjb930

+1 Pitchblack.

I have a Tokina 16-28mm and the Tamron 150-600mm. I'm not paranoid about compatibility, otherwise I wouldn't buy them. Similarly, I would easily consider the Tamron 24-70 over a Nikon 24-70 if paying full retail costs. When a used Nikon comes to the same price, it starts to be a more difficult decision. I think regardless of what I do, I will be happy with either choice, but it is always helpful if someone can "sell" me on one option over the other based on their prior experience.

It's quite interesting that there is about a 50/50 split on the topic so far.

PB_PM

Compatibility isn't a major problem, IMO. I also don't think Nikon goes out of their way to break compatibility either. At the same time Nikon does not go out of it's way to make them work either, and why should they? If Nikon can improve the focusing abilities of their own lenses and that happens to conflict with third party glass that is not their problem. It's not like they have to support third party lens makers. After all the third party lens manufactures are reverse engineering Nikon's patented CPU algorithms, tricking the camera into thinking a Nikkor is attached.

I haven't noticed any major problems with third party glass. That said every third party lens I've owned has some minor focusing issues, and all of the ones I've had are from "pro" lines. None of them bad enough for me to not consider third party glass though. Hunting issues just seem to be more common with the third party glass I've owned. Not by much, but it is noticeable. Focus speed tends to be fine with the high end glass, but they always seem to miss focus more often. I'm not talking about something that could be fixed with AF fine tune either. Most likely a product of the reverse engineering not being perfect.

FlowtographyBerlin

I love my Nikon 24-70 2.8....in this focal length, their is no substitute.

Funny to make a statement like that when you haven't tried the substitute... Don't you think?

michael66

Since no one has suggested it, I will. Why not rent both or the one you do not have. Then you can judge for yourself. ( I am not associated with LensRental in any way, just a VERY happy customer ) As for the notion of buying used and its inherent perils, well, that's always an issue. But if you buy it from KEH they do offer some assurances. For the stuff I've gotten; six months, but I think it depends on the nature of the equipment. ( Also, just a happy customer. No association with them. )

Photobug

Totally agree, the OP should rent both lens for a weekend and divide your time equally between them.

Golf007sd

I love my Nikon 24-70 2.8....in this focal length, their is no substitute.

Funny to make a statement like that when you haven't tried the substitute... Don't you think?

Try to answer the op's question vs. addressing my point of view. I have stated my position on the Nikon lens in question. If you have used either one then say so, otherwise your remarks have no value.

Fritz

I've owned both lenses at the same time. On my D4 in average light there was no discernible difference in Af focus speed and lock on. In low light there was a slight edge to the Tamron.

PB_PM

Most of the high end glass is so close we are talking about fractions of a second difference. It would take some actual scientific tests to get an average acquisition and lock speed comparison. Most likely not worth while, and given the price difference, I don't think it's anything worth worrying about.

When I bought the Nikon 24-70mm F2.8 the only other option was the Sigma, which isn't that great. Then again the Nikkor was also less expensive as well. The price I bought it new for is not much more than the going used price these days.

FlowtographyBerlin

I love my Nikon 24-70 2.8....in this focal length, their is no substitute.

Funny to make a statement like that when you haven't tried the substitute... Don't you think?

Try to answer the op's question vs. addressing my point of view. I have stated my position on the Nikon lens in question. If you have used either one then say so, otherwise your remarks have no value.

It's a forum, meaning people answer to eachother, no need to give me instructions what to write, thank you.

I was just wondering, since you're talking about value of answers, how you can make a statement on how a product compares to others if you've never compared it. But I guess you got the point.

Golf007sd

@FlowtographyBerlin: Their are thousands of photography equipment in the consumer market....it is literally impossible to have an first hand experience with it all. Therefore, your thinking would lead one to conclude: if you have not tried XYZ then ones own point-of-view is in error, moreover, ignorant. Now that to is what I call "a-blind-leading-a-blind."

End of conversation....thank you.

Now lets get back to the topic at hand.....

Msmoto

This discussion is like the comparison of Nikon and Canon.....some prefer the ergonomics of the Canon 1DX when editing in the field, and some think they focus faster for action sports. But the Nikon folks believe the Nikon glass is better. This may all be true, but the differences are in the less than 1% range quite possibly, except the little selection wheel on the Canon is nice.