Soldato
That's less than I just paid for a grey 80-400
..... Plus the possible expenses of adding a 1.4TC to match the reach.
New Nikon lenses: 24-70 f/2.8 VR, 24mm f/1.8G and 200-500mm F/5.6
- Thread starter D.P.
- Start date
That's less than I just paid for a grey 80-400
..... Plus the possible expenses of adding a 1.4TC to match the reach.
Good one. £600+ each vs. Nikon releasing a ~£130 DX version like with the 35mm?
Good one. £600+ each vs. Nikon releasing a ~£130 DX version like with the 35mm?
It wouldn't be £130, more like £400+. 24mm is a much more complex lens than 35mm on a DX a sensor.
The Tamron 24-70 VC is a proven performer and is available for around £600... the new Nikon 24-70 will undoubtedly have faster AF, perhapy marginally better IQ, and yet is longer and heavier and around £1000 more expensive. No thanks.
I suppose I hadn't properly considered the complexity of a wider lens. But I don't think it would sell at £400, not when you see the quality of the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 which is around £500 grey/£600 UK. Perhaps I should just aim for one of those...
Here is an interesting video of the design philosophy of the new 24-70mm VR.
http://nikonrumors.com/2015/08/04/n...the-24-70mm-f2-8e-ed-vr-lens.aspx/#more-96068
Helps explain why the original did no have VR and liekly why Canon's newer version also doesn't. The fact that they first decided on the diameter of the lens and worked backwards form their just highlights why Nikon (and Canon) always do so well with ergonomics compared to the 3rd party lenses.
http://nikonrumors.com/2015/08/04/n...the-24-70mm-f2-8e-ed-vr-lens.aspx/#more-96068
Helps explain why the original did no have VR and liekly why Canon's newer version also doesn't. The fact that they first decided on the diameter of the lens and worked backwards form their just highlights why Nikon (and Canon) always do so well with ergonomics compared to the 3rd party lenses.
The 2 lenses are in a totally different class though. Build quality, image quality, autofocus speed and accuracy.
Its a workhorse lens for professionals where cost is much less important than reliability and being able to take knocks and bangs while out in the field.
The IQ will be better for sure but it is not like the current version is lacking.
The Tamron is considered to have professional optics and build quality, and is used by many professionals, I'm not sure "completely different class" is accurate in real terms, especially given the monumental price difference.
Considered by who, Tamron marketing?
The build quality of the current Nikon 24-70mm is in an entirely different class to the Tamron. That is justa fact.
The price difference is irrelevant really. Of course the Tamron is cheaper, 3rd party lenses are always cheaper. Nikon and Canon never consider the price of 3rd party options for their professional lenses because professionals don't care that much about the cost but about performance, reliability and being part of NPS/CPS. A pro wedding tog in the US might pull $100k gross a year, the price difference between the Tamron and Nikon, which is tax deductible to them, it meaningless compared to the ability to get extra keepers due to improved AF or the reduced chances of failure when knocked and banged in use.
For consumers, sure, you have to consider the pros and cons against the costs and make your own choices. No one forces you to buy every new Nikon lens.
Personally I would ever consider buying the new VR version, my old version works plenty well enough for me. But I don't make a living out of photography.
Many of the review sites that reviewed it.
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/09/tamron-24-70-f2-8-vc-issue
Looks pretty ropey and typical of 3rd party lenses to me.
Looks pretty ropey and typical of 3rd party lenses to me.
Hmm, the price of this lens is very high imo... 30% more than the 70-200 VRII where I live! At least it's cheaper than the UK price, coming in at £1450 as opposed to £1850.
Still, it will be interesting to see how much it drops over the next few months.
it will be interesting to see what Sigma will respond with, as the rumoured 24-70 OS Art has been in development for a while now.
Still, it will be interesting to see how much it drops over the next few months.
it will be interesting to see what Sigma will respond with, as the rumoured 24-70 OS Art has been in development for a while now.
Soldato
Not sure that's true Canon do a £100 24mm pancake f2.8 for crop cameras so there is clearly no need for a similar Nikon lens even if it was a bit faster say f2 to be dramatically more complex and expensive
1 stop will typically increase the price of a lens 3-4X.
Nikon 85mm f/1.8 is £339, the 1.4 on 2/3 stop faster is £1129
Nikon 35mm f/1.8 FX is £369, the 1.4 is £1289.
Nikon 300mm f4.0 is £848, f/2.8 £3489
At the telephoto end the difference will grow as seen by the 300mm comparison, at the wide end the difference might be 2-3X.
A lot will also depend on the optical quality, glass elements, construction etc.
the Nikon 24mm F/1.8 G is £579 street now, I would expect a DX version to cost around £250 maybe, just going by the prices of the 35mm f/1.8 DX to FX.
Associate
Personally I'd go for it, it's a good lens
For that money absolutely,it is a great workhorse lens, lovely Bokeh and lightning AF.