I got the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 G2

[DGMPhotography]

Came in the mail today, and it's a nice looking lens. Feels solid, performs well.

I did some initial tests, and while it works fine... I just thought there'd be more? I was expecting to be amazed and wow'd! For $1300 it should knock my socks off! The resolution definitely seems to be higher than my kit 18-55, and it is definitely better in low light (VC is great). But as far as focus speed and overall image rendering, it doesn't actually seem all that drastically different. I haven't pixel peeped yet, though.

I don't know if my expectations were just too high, or if this is actually how it is with professional lenses.

Has this happened to you?

I need to be consoled!

 

[pixmedic]

all that fussing about how you wouldn't be happy buying a third party lens and wind up feeling like you should have gone OEM, and now you want to be consoled because you bought the tamron?

fuggetaboudit.

send it back and get the nikon version.


the G2 lens is amazeballs, but now that you have said it you will never be satisfied until you get the newest nikon nano-tech ultra lens.
so send the tamron back and order the Nikon.

 

[benhasajeep]

Came in the mail today, and it's a nice looking lens. Feels solid, performs well.

I did some initial tests, and while it works fine... I just thought there'd be more? I was expecting to be amazed and wow'd! For $1300 it should knock my socks off! The resolution definitely seems to be higher than my kit 18-55, and it is definitely better in low light (VC is great). But as far as focus speed and overall image rendering, it doesn't actually seem all that drastically different. I haven't pixel peeped yet, though.

I don't know if my expectations were just too high, or if this is actually how it is with professional lenses.

Has this happened to you?

I need to be consoled!

Just think of one thing. HALF THE COST OF NIKON!!!

Is paying 2x as much (actually little more) worth the extra the Nikon might have??

 

[Derrel]

Maybe a little bit of buyer's remorse?

I dunno...in my opinion, there's often not very much that is "exciting" in the 24 to 70mm range...the pictures look,well...typically rather unremarkable, unless the subject matter is very striking. That focal length range lends itself to 'normative' looks at the world; what I mean is, it's not REALLY exciting to use those focal lengths ON FX.

Plus, you have had the lens like what? Six to twelve hours? Maybe in some time you will come to find some better aspects of it, but it's not a really,really,really "exciting" lens, like a 300/2.8 or a 135/1.8 or something like that.

And as benhasajeep mentioned, it's like half the price of the Nikon lens of similar specification,so...

 

[chuasam]

I know right?
I'm terrible pleased with my Nikon 24-70 f/2.8G but I hear that the VR version is better.
Don't pixel peep either.

 

[DGMPhotography]

all that fussing about how you wouldn't be happy buying a third party lens and wind up feeling like you should have gone OEM, and now you want to be consoled because you bought the tamron?

fuggetaboudit.

send it back and get the nikon version.


the G2 lens is amazeballs, but now that you have said it you will never be satisfied until you get the newest nikon nano-tech ultra lens.
so send the tamron back and order the Nikon.

I wasn't gonna spend the $2800 haha. Still won't.

But I've used the Nikkor VRII and I wasn't impressed by it either. I guess maybe it's the focal length that doesn't impress me.

I've done some pixel peeping and I will say its resolution is miles beyond my 18-55, so it's better than that at least

 

[benhasajeep]

all that fussing about how you wouldn't be happy buying a third party lens and wind up feeling like you should have gone OEM, and now you want to be consoled because you bought the tamron?

fuggetaboudit.

send it back and get the nikon version.


the G2 lens is amazeballs, but now that you have said it you will never be satisfied until you get the newest nikon nano-tech ultra lens.
so send the tamron back and order the Nikon.

I wasn't gonna spend the $2800 haha. Still won't.

But I've used the Nikkor VRII and I wasn't impressed by it either. I guess maybe it's the focal length that doesn't impress me.

I've done some pixel peeping and I will say its resolution is miles beyond my 18-55, so it's better than that at least

The new 24-70 VR is a very good lens! I bought it to replace my 28-70. It is sharper than the 28-70 (sold) or my 35-70 f/2.8 AF-D still have). The question is, is it worth 2x more than the Tamron? I have only seen samples from the Tamron. But it seems to do very well. With everyone else speaking it's praises. It's probably a really good value.

Thinking maybe a little buyers remorse is setting in.

 

[Braineack]

I have the same feeling about my 24-70. It's basically a fast 18-55 for your DX. It's a terribly-useful focal range, but it's not very "exciting". But I find I either shoot it pegged at 24mm, at 35mm, or pegged again at 70mm -- so it's like (3) lenses in one. again, terribly-useful.

 

[jaomul]

I think overall performance may wow you over initial performance. Have you taken a shot for example in lower light where a kit lens would struggle?

You'll probably find this lens will supply constant strong image quality, it's up to you to make the wow shot

 

[Tomasko]

I don't know if my expectations were just too high, or if this is actually how it is with professional lenses.

I think it might be a combination of the two. For instance there's a big difference between constant 2.8 and 3.5-5.6, but if you don't shoot wide open and just use smaller apertures, it's not relevant for you. The difference in image quality is usually most apparent when viewing on large screens or large prints (or pixel peeping). If you shoot mainly for Instagram for example, the difference will never be huge. Also, there are other factors when buying professional lenses - e.g. build quality, weather proofing... If nothing of this is relevant for you, you might be better off with a cheaper gear.

@jaomul , precisely, it's still just a tool

 

[DGMPhotography]

All very good points. I guess the "professional" aspects of the lens, like weather sealing, low light, etc, aren't very apparent at first. I did some outdoor testing just now and will post the results soon.

 

[ronlane]

It's a 24-70 mm lens. It's more for general use and portrait work not sports so even if it is perceived to be slower focusing so what. I would venture that it is sharper than the variable aperture kit lens and if you aren't going to spend the money on the Nikon then that's what it is.

BTW, remember, you get what you pay for. I'm not saying you have to go broke buying equipment. But you do at times have to decide on price and image quality.

 

[DGMPhotography]

Alright, here are some comparison shots. I compared the Tamron 24-70 G2 with the Nikkor 24-70 (non-VR).

Not sure if they're large enough to get the point across, but in general, the Nikkor seemed to be a bit higher resolution, and sharper when zoomed in. The Tamron was brighter and seemed to have better contrast, and less distortion.

Nikkor on the left, Tamron on the right.

 

[benhasajeep]

Keep it. Add it to your signature. And start shooting with it.

 

[Derrel]

Keep it. Add it to your signature. And start shooting with it.

Diz-actly!