Evaluating Tamron 24-70 2.8 G2

Capt_Spaulding

Folks,

I recently purchased a Tamron SP 24-70 2.8 G2 to use on my D610 and D7200. It is an upgrade from my Nikkor 24-85 3.5-4.5. After receiving the Tamron I ran it through a battery of focus checks and, in general found the AF to be pretty close. On a lens test chart it was a bit better than the Nikkor on the edges and about the same in the center (Tammy at 2.8, Nikkor wide open approx 4.0 at 70mm).

In a real world test, I imaged the trunk of a Live Oak tree in my yard with both lenses and at the same focal length and same aperture (f5.6 to f8) I have a very difficult time telling the two apart. I bring up the unprocessed nefs in LR's side by side comparison window (1:1 crop) and move around the images from center to top and corner and just don't see a noticeable difference.

My question is, should I? I had imagined the Tammy would be head and shoulders better than the Nikkor, but it's doesn't seem to be. I admit that I have not been unhappy with the Nikkor, with a little post processing, the images are really very clean. I was looking for a boost in sharpness, mainly for close portrait work. I really want to like the Tamron, but at present, I'm increasingly leaning toward returning it and sticking with the 24-85. I don't need the duplication and really don't want to stick with a $1200 dollar equivalent to a $500 lens. There are other focal lengths where I have gaps. Any suggestions? Other ways to test the two back to back that would give the Tammy a chance to impress me? Something?

Thanks in advance.

WestEndFoto

Buy the 85 1.8G. Or at least try it.

PB_PM

At F5.6-8 you won't notice much difference between high end and modern consumer glass to be honest. You are paying the big dollars for the wide maximum aperture and build quality. At F2.8 it will be better Nikkor. Why? The Nikkor doesn't go to F2.8.

Sports

Do you take "the usual" steps to get maximum sharpness (tripod, remote trigger, mirror-up, ...)?
If your method allows for, say, no more than 6 MP of resolution, then no lens will improve this.

Capt_Spaulding

Thanks guys. @pb yep, that's one irremediable failing of the Nikkor. Truth is, I don't spend that much time below f4. In the past (on film) I've done some astrophoto work, but I have a 50 1.4 for that and, if I decide to go deeper into that, I think I'd go for a wider f1.8 prime.

@sports, Tripod - yes, mu no, remote no. I'll run this again incorporating the mu and rt before I return the Tammy.

I'm coming to the conclusion that my expectations were unrealistic. The 24-85 gets generally good reviews in the midrange, and mine seems to be a good example. I was just hoping to up the performance a bit. I can't bring myself to pay holy trinity money for a Nikkor 24-70 when I'm something of an apostate.

I had budgeted for a $1300 - 1400 lens. My next move may be to replace my Nikkor 70-300 3.5 - 5.6. To me it IS noticeably soft on the long end, but again, I'm not able (or willing) to pay the going rate for Nikon's 70-200 f2.8. That leaves me the choice of Nikon's 70-200 f4, or a third party 70-200 f2.8. Any ideas as to what I can reasonably expect on that front?

I also don't have any capability beyond 300mm, unless you count the crop factor on the D7200. So, the 200-500 is on my wish list as well. That said, the overwhelming majority of my usage is between 24 and 200. Any recommendations appreciated.

thanks again,

BVS

Capt_Spaulding said:

I had budgeted for a $1300 - 1400 lens. My next move may be to replace my Nikkor 70-300 3.5 - 5.6. To me it IS noticeably soft on the long end, but again, I'm not able (or willing) to pay the going rate for Nikon's 70-200 f2.8. That leaves me the choice of Nikon's 70-200 f4, or a third party 70-200 f2.8. Any ideas as to what I can reasonably expect on that front?

I also don't have any capability beyond 300mm, unless you count the crop factor on the D7200. So, the 200-500 is on my wish list as well. That said, the overwhelming majority of my usage is between 24 and 200. Any recommendations appreciated.

Also, don't forget about the new FX 70-300 AF-P, and the Tamron and Sigma 100-400s if they would suit your needs. All are sharper than the old 70-300, and cheaper and lighter than the 70-200s (except maybe the f/4), if you're okay with the slower apertures.