24-70 2.8 for Nikon - advice needed

Spleen Sauce

Spleen Sauce

Spleen Sauce

Associate
Joined
16 Jan 2005
Posts
2,418
Location
South Wales
OK, so I'm currently using a Nikon D750 and have the 'Nikon 24-120mm f/4 VR G' as my general use/walkaround lens. While I actually think it's a pretty good lens and sharp (esp. in the center) I do find that I crave something quicker.

I'm happy to lose a bit of range for quicker glass, so the obvious choice is a 24-70 2.8 - great, but which one?

As far as I can see, there's three choices:

Nikon 24-70mm f2.8 G AF-S ED (non VR) - approx £1300 new
Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8E ED VR - approx £1800 new
Tamron 24-70 mm F2.8 VC USD - approx £630 new

Now, the original Nikon 24-70 is regarded as one of the greats but lacks VR which I think is a bit of a bonus. The new 24-70 has a very mixed bag of reviews, some say its spectacular and others not so much. Its also hella expensive. The Tamron seems to tick every box really, with good reviews, VR (well, VC) and seems to be in the right sort of price bracket.

I'd like some opinions on what you guys have used and would recommend.

Cheers.
 
I'd get the Tamron. In fact I'm getting the 70-200mm f/2.8 Di VC USD over the Nikon one because it seems just as sharp and no one I know that actually has one has any issues with it being slow at focusing (as some reviews have said) compared to the Nikon... and it's about half the price.
The only reason for me getting the Nikon would be to use a TC/extender with it, which is unreliable at best with the Tamron (or just doesn't work at all, period). But I'm not going to be doing that.

The VC on Tamrons is amazing. I've had it on a 70-300 and a 150-600.
It may not be QUITE as sharp if you are a pixel peeper or whatever they're called in lab conditions, but from what I've seen on 100% crops from both lenses on identical cameras is my eyes can't tell any difference whatsoever. Both are tack sharp.

I had a play with the 24-70 Tamron in a shop, but like you I went for the 24-120 f/4. (as it was a bundle thing)... was very impressed with the images I took with it (but of boring stuff in the shop/out the window). I don't think you'd be disappointed.

Also I wouldn't bother with a non-VR version... no way. Not unless it's something that was just going to live on a tripod, and in any case you can always turn it off.
 
I had a play with the Nikon (non-VR) and Tamron at a show a couple of years ago and took loads of sample shots. The Nikon is better all round (build quality, sharpness, focus speed etc) BUT that's not to say that the Tamron isn't a great lens.

If it's for pro work then the Nikon is a no-brainer but if it's for your own use I'd save your money and go with the Tamron.
 
I'd have thought for pro work (wedding photography, etc) you'd definitely benefit from the VC - considering tricky lighting conditions and all and the lack of a tripod? Could be wrong though.
 
I have a D750, and recently picked up the Tamron 24-70 2.8.

I couldn't justify the price of the Nikon, but if I was getting paid to take shots, I would be tempted.

I'm really pleased with the combination, and 5yr warranty is a bonus.
 
Another vote for the Tamron. Sure the nikon is marginally better, but for 99.9% of users, it means nothing.
 
Spleen Sauce said:
I'd have thought for pro work (wedding photography, etc) you'd definitely benefit from the VC - considering tricky lighting conditions and all and the lack of a tripod? Could be wrong though.
Click to expand...

Other things come in to it though - if the AF misses or is too slow then having VC won't save the shot. Plus if you're wide open at f2.8 and it's still not enough then no amount of VR will help in a wedding - you might be able to slow the shutter down but then you've got motion blur to contend with and I'd rather have something grainy with high ISO than motion blur!

If it takes a knock will it still work? Even if it does break Nikons Pro support is excellent - when I had to send something off to Tamron it took a bit longer than I would have liked to repair it. Not usually an issue for personal use but if you've got a wedding that you need it for...
 
Spleen Sauce said:
I'd have thought for pro work (wedding photography, etc) you'd definitely benefit from the VC - considering tricky lighting conditions and all and the lack of a tripod? Could be wrong though.
Click to expand...

VR/VC is just not that useful in these situation because you are dealing with subject movement so need a fast shutter speed and will be using a flash. VR/VC is actually most useful for casual use really. For most uses a pro will use a tripod, when a tripod is not possible e.g.g for weddings then it is highly liekly subject motion is critical so VR/VC doesn't help. VRVC can also make backgrounds more distracting and disturb the Bokeh.

I have the Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8 non-VR, absolutely no desire to upgrade and VR would be the least important reason to upgrade. I really like the way the nikon renders images, smooth Bokeh and neutral colours.


Rather than VR I would prefer more reach, a 24-85mm f/2.8 would be sweet.
 
Last edited:
Cyanide said:
Other things come in to it though - if the AF misses or is too slow then having VC won't save the shot. Plus if you're wide open at f2.8 and it's still not enough then no amount of VR will help in a wedding - you might be able to slow the shutter down but then you've got motion blur to contend with and I'd rather have something grainy with high ISO than motion blur!

If it takes a knock will it still work? Even if it does break Nikons Pro support is excellent - when I had to send something off to Tamron it took a bit longer than I would have liked to repair it. Not usually an issue for personal use but if you've got a wedding that you need it for...
Click to expand...

Yeah I definitely see your point. To be fair, my D750 shooting with higher ISO using the 24-120 f4 actually does a really good job. Kind of makes me wonder whether I should stick with it, especially considering the extra range it gives.
 
Whilst I have IS on four of my seven lenses, I've not once missed it on the 24-70. I just don't think it's that big a benefit at these focal lengths unless you're often shooting static subjects in very low light.

With regards to weddings, not only is it not that useful as subjects are usually in motion (and for static portraits you're better off with a fast prime anyway) but I'd consider it slightly dangerous as the IS could lull you into a false sense of security and end up shooting with too slow a shutter speed. Last thing you want is to get home and find all your interior shots ruined by motion blur.
 
Spleen Sauce said:
Yeah I definitely see your point. To be fair, my D750 shooting with higher ISO using the 24-120 f4 actually does a really good job. Kind of makes me wonder whether I should stick with it, especially considering the extra range it gives.
Click to expand...

I'm actually more tempted to sell my 24-70 for the 24-120mm and get some fast primes on top. I love the 24-70mm but find 70mm limiting. f/4.0 on FF is already pretty damn shallow, most of the time I have thew opposite problem at events getting everyone in focus, i'm much more likely to be shooting at f/5.6 than f/2.8.
 
I do love my 24-120 f/4.
Here's a question... for people that know about Nikons and 3rd party lenses.
Can it tell which lens is which if you have to micro adjust the focus on any lenses, or do you have to tell it which lens it is?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom