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

FlowtographyBerlin

@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."

You're absolutely right on the impossiblity to know all the combinations. But what I'm bugging you about is not that you don't know the specific comparison, I'm bugging you about the fact that you still make a statement on the comparison although you haven't actually done it. (The comparison is what the OP asked about.)

Why I'm commenting on that at all is that it just worries me that this is often how "myths" get started in forums, and then others just keep repeating those myths, based on nothing but a guess, just like yours.

One can see from input such as that by @PitchBlack, that reality isn't necessarily congruent with the myths (especially if they're started by guesses).

To give some input myself, I've rented the Nikon 24-70 a couple of times now, and I've also borrowed the Tamron from a colleague, but only once. I've never done any thorough comparison of the optics so I don't want to make statements on that, but indeed they were both very sharp and great performers.

One thing I CAN say, however, is that while the Tamron is a bit lighter, it is also less bulky, which can make a big difference. The Nikon is just very long and handles a bit like Nikon's 16-35 compared to the Nikon 17-35 regarding this, it always feels like you're gonna knock something over with it. The Tamron is just more compact in its basic setting, and more pleasing to handle in that regard.

Especially when you're carrying your camera in a bag that doesn't hold 5 teles, this is a great plus in everyday photography life. Maybe some people couldn't care less about this, but maybe others can relate to it.

Golf007sd

To give some input myself, I've rented the Nikon 24-70 a couple of times now, and I've also borrowed the Tamron from a colleague, but only once. I've never done any thorough comparison of the optics so I don't want to make statements on that, but indeed they were both very sharp and great performers.

One thing I CAN say, however, is that while the Tamron is a bit lighter, it is also less bulky, which can make a big difference. The Nikon is just very long and handles a bit like Nikon's 16-35 compared to the Nikon 17-35 regarding this, it always feels like you're gonna knock something over with it. The Tamron is just more compact in its basic setting, and more pleasing to handle in that regard.

Especially when you're carrying your camera in a bag that doesn't hold 5 teles, this is a great plus in everyday photography life. Maybe some people couldn't care less about this, but maybe others can relate to it.

Now this perspective, and it's over all message, has value and one that I can respect.

Your test on the 50mm's was very well done, and should the opportunity provides itself, perhaps in the near future you could do one on these two lenses.

Vipmediastar_JZ

I haven't tried both only the Nikon but I can confirm what @PB_PM said, the focus is snappy compared to my other glass. As for primes I feel that my Nikon 105mm is very very snappy as well compared to my other primes and zooms.

I like the build of the Nikon, it is built like a tank and most important is the glass and the nano crystal coating. On that lens from my experience I like the 50mm to 70mm the most on the wide end it has a bit of distortion but that can be fixed in post.

sevencrossing

<

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?

Some of us for, lots of reasons, prefer to stick exclusively to Nikon cameras and lenses
and in our case, there is no substitute

FlowtographyBerlin

Now this perspective, and it's over all message, has value and one that I can respect.

Maybe you should think about (and value) the critique part, too. It's not a bad thing, reflecting on alledged mistakes, you know.

Your test on the 50mm's was very well done, and should the opportunity provides itself, perhaps in the near future you could do one on these two lenses.

Thanks. Yes, it would be interesting, but to be honest, apart from what it looks like, it's a lot of work, and zooms... I fear testing zooms, you have to test so many more settings and it's not as easy to draw conclusions. In fact, drawing conclusions is already hard when you're testing primes.

Some of us for, lots of reasons, prefer to stick exclusively to Nikon cameras and lenses and in our case, there is no substitute

Well, THAT input then is of absolutely NO value whatsoever for someone who is asking about the differences in a NIkon and another lens. Sorry to put it like that, but it's simply true by (very simple) logic. Again, you can see from experiences like @PitchBlack how much truth there is in blind belief in "there-is-no-substitute-for-Nikon-glass".

I like the build of the Nikon, it is built like a tank

I like that, too. Plus, I really (really) don't like the mere design "language" of the Tamrons. I don't know, it's just too 80s for me. In a bad way. If it were the better lens of two choices, I'd maybe forget about it, though :-) If Sigma releases a nice Art zoom in that range, it will be the first time I'll think about a 24-70, I guess... :-)

sevencrossing

Well, THAT input then is of absolutely NO value whatsoever for someone who is asking about the differences in a NIkon and another lens.

I don't think the OP should be too surprised, to find a pro Nikon bias of a forum of Nikon uses

Yes, I know some people come here to rubbish Nikon
They are convinced, unless Nikon bring out a D400 Nikon will join Kodak in bankruptcy
But some of are indeed nikon fanatics
We have been using Nikons for over 50 years and occasionally still use 50 year old Nikon glass
Anyone using 50 year old Tamron lenses?

spraynpray

To be fair, Tamron and Sigma have come a long way recently, as have Fuji, Olympus, Pentax and Sony to name but a few. The modern world is not one that rewards resting on ones laurels.

FlowtographyBerlin

I don't think the OP should be too surprised, to find a pro Nikon bias of a forum of Nikon uses
Yes, I know some people come here to rubbish Nikon

I heard there are people who buy a NIkon camera, and then look for the best lens to buy with it.

But as before, I've made my point, if you don't want to (or cannot, who knows) understand it, it's fine, I don't want to ruin it for you if you build your knowledge on beliefs.

To be fair, Tamron and Sigma have come a long way recently, as have Fuji, Olympus, Pentax and Sony to name but a few. The modern world is not one that rewards resting on ones laurels.

Exactly. By that logic, nothing that's not old enough can be good. Luckily, it doesn't work that way.

sevencrossing

I don't want to ruin it for you if you build your knowledge on beliefs.

Nothing to do with belief, just having Nikons for 50 years and never had a problem

I am happy to accept the latest Tameron may be sharper than the Nikon equivalent
Would it survive the knocks and bumps my equipment unfortunately gets?
I don't know and I don't expect I ever will

FlowtographyBerlin

Nothing to do with belief […]
I don't know and I don't expect I ever will

As @spraynpray said in another thread: Q.E.D. ;-)

heartyfisher

which ever thread ... I still hate maths ....

FlowtographyBerlin

which ever thread ... I still hate maths ....

:-D