Which 24-70 for Nikon
- Thread starter sid-180
- Start date
Associate
- Joined
- 22 Aug 2010
- Posts
- 2,212
- Location
- In My Command Center
the tamron is half the price of the nikon and has VC, i think it comes down to budget and if you need VC?
I have the Nikon 24-70mm and it is the best lens that I own but don't use (much prefer my 16-85mm for more things).
The tamron is a good lens, especially since it comes with VC, but some people don't like the way the VC works on Tamron lenses (slower to engage or something).
I believe the Nikon is marginally sharper at some settings but I don't know if that is enough to warrant the price difference in itself.
The main differences will be the build quality (the Nikon is a tank), and 5the Nikon has mich better auto focus (faster, more reliable, more consistent). It is also weather sealed.
There are also more subtle differences in rendering. I haven't looked at the tamron in detail but I know the sigma 24-70 has very rough Bokeh with a lot of ringing and outlining. This is often seen in 3rd party lenses and is a by product of certain lens constructions designed to optimize sharpness. Because Bokeh cannot be objectively analyzed (by definition it is a subjective measure of quality) 3rd party manufacturers have typically ignored this aspect while canon and Nikon tend to care a fair bit for such lenses (although it looks like sigma might try harder now with lenses like the 35mm f1.4).
Have a look at images (Flickr) of both lenses and try to look at the out of focus rencering, how each lens copes with highlights, micro contrast, etc.
Also the Nikon will hold its value better, but if you buy the Tamron 2nd hand you can get a bargain that way. The otherwayto think of it is if you get a good price on the Nikon and you need to sell it In a few years you won't loose massively. I got a good price on my Nikon (pricing error) and I'm pretty sure I could sell it now for a similar price to which I paid for it.
The tamron is a good lens, especially since it comes with VC, but some people don't like the way the VC works on Tamron lenses (slower to engage or something).
I believe the Nikon is marginally sharper at some settings but I don't know if that is enough to warrant the price difference in itself.
The main differences will be the build quality (the Nikon is a tank), and 5the Nikon has mich better auto focus (faster, more reliable, more consistent). It is also weather sealed.
There are also more subtle differences in rendering. I haven't looked at the tamron in detail but I know the sigma 24-70 has very rough Bokeh with a lot of ringing and outlining. This is often seen in 3rd party lenses and is a by product of certain lens constructions designed to optimize sharpness. Because Bokeh cannot be objectively analyzed (by definition it is a subjective measure of quality) 3rd party manufacturers have typically ignored this aspect while canon and Nikon tend to care a fair bit for such lenses (although it looks like sigma might try harder now with lenses like the 35mm f1.4).
Have a look at images (Flickr) of both lenses and try to look at the out of focus rencering, how each lens copes with highlights, micro contrast, etc.
Also the Nikon will hold its value better, but if you buy the Tamron 2nd hand you can get a bargain that way. The otherwayto think of it is if you get a good price on the Nikon and you need to sell it In a few years you won't loose massively. I got a good price on my Nikon (pricing error) and I'm pretty sure I could sell it now for a similar price to which I paid for it.
