Tamron SP 24-70MM F/2.8 Di VC vs Nikkor 24-70 2.8

jaomul · Feb 20, 2015

I'm surprised this review didn't compare the bokeh from both. The tamron looks great but I believe this is an area that some pros don't rate this lens as highly as the nikon

Bob Trester / T-Shots · Feb 20, 2015

For me in real world terms there are two areas I use this lens the most. I use it primarily for landscapes so bokeh is really a non issue. The second area is in night clubs shooting bands; as long as the subject is in focus and the background is out to obtain the separation needed then we're good. I haven't used the Nikon in this regard but as one can see here the Tamron does a sufficient job.

Derrel · Feb 20, 2015

I happened to be reading Thom Hogan's pages last night, and he mentioned a few negative factors about it in his explanation of the lens' value proposition in light of its current February,2015 $200 rebate.
February 2015 Nikon Lens Rebates byThom Thom Hogan

"24-70mm f/2.8G US$200 rebate — Let’s start with this: I sold my 24-70mm f/2.8. I just don’t think it lives well in the modern world. Yes, it’s optically decent, but there are plenty of lenses that beat it on the D810 in this focal range, so it’s showing age in the optics. No it doesn’t have VR, while most of its competitors, even from Nikon, do. It’s big, heavy, and the lens has been prone to a number of issues over the years (e.g. light leaks around the focus distance scale). While the rebate is a decent 10%+, it just seems like a lot of money to pay for a lens we’re all expecting to be replaced soon."

Bob Trester / T-Shots · Feb 20, 2015

Nice point Darrel. I use mine with the D800 and I agree with Thom Hogan's assessment.

Derrel · Feb 20, 2015

He mentioned in the article that 2015 is a pro body replacement year, and he implied that we might see replacement designs for some lenses. Another lens he suggests NEEDS a redesign is the 70-200 f/2.8 VR-II, which has a pretty severe focus breathing issue, and which most expert lens testers have found is optically not as good as Canon's relatively new 70-200 L IS USM Mark II. Tokina has only recently announced its upcoming 24-70mm f/2.8 lens.

The only bad thing I see with the Tamron 24-70 VC is the strong onion bokeh it can exhibit on strong, out of focus point light sources...I find onion bokeh very distracting, and if I were going to use the lens in places where there were a lot of OOF highlights as background elements, then the Tamron 24-70 would immediately be shelved and I would use another lens. As a sort of "fashiony" or "fine arts" lens, I don't think the Tamron's bokeh characteristics are very pleasing in some situations. Not all, but in some situations, it does not look good. Go to PixelPeepers yourself, and look through 100 frames or more. On multiple lenses. You'll see what I mean.

A friend asked me to compare the Canon 24-70/2.8 with the Tamron 24-70 VC, a few months ago. I went to PixelPeepers.com, and looked thru about 100 samples from each lens; there are a few types of situations in which the Tamron's aspherical element design, and its high sharpness seem to lead to kind of harsh, hashy background defocused areas; the Canon tends to looks smoother, softer, more "rounded" in its OOF background areas. I'm not really a fan of big, heavy 28-70 or 24-70 f/2.8 lenses for the focal lengths they have, but a LOT of people do use a 24-70/2.8 as a sort of "all-day lens" for weddings and events, as well as for portraiture, landscapes, travel, scenic photos, so the way the lens draws its images can be a big, big deal to many people.

The one thing a lot of people fixate on in the d-slr era is sharpness. Sharpness is VERY easy to test in a laboratory, and the numbers are cut and dried. But the way a lens draws, its so-called lens drawing style, is something that is impossible to quantify; being able to evaluate the way a lens draws, the way it renders scenes, is something that takes experience and judgement and knowledge to be able to recognize. The newer lens designs that focus on realllllly cutting-edge sharpness often have very hard, hashy, or "nervous" background defocus areas. A good example is the new Sigma 35mm f/1.4 ART lens; one of **the* absolute sharpest lenses under $4,000, and yet the way it renders out of focus natural world backgrounds is unappealing. Hard, nervous, jittery. Same with the Zeiss 50mm f/1.4 Planar design....OMG, what an awful lens for the way it renders the out of focus areas.

There are people who value a lens with more-gentle background defocus rendering, and this is, I think the one weaker area the aspherical element design of the VC lens shows up on some subjects, on some scenes. If I were a wedding shooter, I would not want the Tamron VC, but the Canon or Nikon lenses, just for the way they record OOF point light sources in a smoother, better way. If I were a fashion shooter, I would favor the lenses with the smoother background over ultimate sharpness. This becomes an issue because a 24-70 often becomes the de facto "only lens used that day" for a lot of people, so how it actually performs puts a visual impression on the entire shoot.

Keep in mind, not all scenes are going to show onion bokeh, or hashy or nervous bokeh. Scenes with lots of point light sources, like sunlight coming through background trees, highlights on surfaces of water like lakes or the ocean, etc, those produce hundreds of bright, point source OOF highlights many times. High-frequency foliage backdrops (shrubs, trees,grasses,plants) can at times, create very distracting, jarring, flat-out ugly backgrounds that are nervous or jittery. Some very sharp lenses have UGLY background rendering on the above kinds of scenes--scenes which are the bread and butter in a lot of types of people photography. This is why looking at sharpness statistics is not the same as looking at how a lens actually images in certain types of situations. There's a spectrum, from the original Lensbaby to the Sigma 35/1.4 ART, where drawing style is the big deal, and where biting, ultimate sharpness is the almost sole criteria. Today, the trend is to favor the numbers, the sharpness, so that a lens "tests out well". That is kind of the Internet Thing To Talk About.

ruifo · Feb 20, 2015

There is a rumor on a Sigma 24-70mm f/2 lens...
Maybe at this moment (if the Sigma rumor becomes true) Nikon will update its 24-70mm f/2.8 lens as well (who knows...).

Given all the excellent 1.8G/D, 1.4G/D/AI-S, and 1.2 AI-S lenses in the mid range field (~24-85mm range), I never felt the need for a 24-70mm zoom range. I'm always more tempted for the primes in that range.

Braineack · Feb 20, 2015

I've read whisperings of a Sigma 24-70 2.8 ART lens.

awww too slow.

Bob Trester / T-Shots · Feb 20, 2015

I haven't really gotten into Sigma much but the ART series does impress me for the real life applications and results I have seen to date. If Sigma can produce a 24-70 2.8 ART with stabilization I think it would give Tamron a run for the money. It would certainly force Nikon to do better.

JTPhotography · Feb 20, 2015

As a mostly landscape shooter, the 24-70 range is what I use least, so paying that much for the Nikon is pointless, I wouldn't use it enough to justify the cost. If I did portraits and/or weddings I would own it for sure. I have the 24-85vr and it is a very nice lens.

Netskimmer · Feb 20, 2015

I decided on a D750 instead. I have a thread somewhere that gives the reasons I went with a body rather than a lens. If it ever gets here, I'll get to know it while I save up more money for a 24-70 (assuming I still want one) Maybe by then Sigma will have confirmed the rumors if they are in fact true, and I can go from there.

Edit:

Link to thread I mentioned.
Decisions decisions... Photography Forum

Derrel · Feb 20, 2015

Braineack · Feb 21, 2015

a few you picked I thought were okay for a 35mm--but they might have had held in post. Like the lost on a trip to the darkside.

Derrel · Feb 21, 2015

I think this one is a good example of bad bokeh. This is what I call "hashy". This link is to the 1,024-pixel wide shot. The woman's face in in good sharp focus, but the background looks very distracting. The thing is, a 35mm lens on full frame is a good length for environmental portraiture, and when one is outdoors, there's a chance that the background will be foliage, or plants, stuff like that. This photo is an example of the bad background rending the 35/1.4 ART has on natural world materials. It almost looks like a diffraction grating. Instead of smooth, nice blur circles, there is a sort of hint of doubled circles, a sort of "Wow, I'm seeing double! I'm really f***ed up on vodka!" kind of look.: All sizes Test Canon 6D Sigma 35 f1.4 DG HSM Flickr - Photo Sharing