Need help picking a 24-70

[Trever1t]

I have the 24-70f2.8 lens. I use it often when I'm distance limited or studio work. I'd not consider it a walk around lens but I suppose there's not much better, I usually use a 50mm prime. My experience with lenses other than Nikkor is that they're capable, cheaper and ALMOST as good.

Is there that much of an improvement in a 50mm 1.4 or 1.8 prime over one of these lenses set at 50mm? I suppose I could get a 50mm prime and then get the 24-70 later if I felt I needed it. It just seems like a waste to get both. I only have one prime lens and it is a special use lens. I don't have any experience with general use primes.

not about improvement, it's about easy and inconspicuous carry. The 50 on my D810 is a nice dressing down and the 50mm on a full frame is what journalists used for almost everything, good enough for me for the walk around. Now I have a full kit and if I have a target in mind I'll choose the appropriate lens.

 

[robbins.photo]

Is there that much of an improvement in a 50mm 1.4 or 1.8 prime over one of these lenses set at 50mm? I suppose I could get a 50mm prime and then get the 24-70 later if I felt I needed it. It just seems like a waste to get both. I only have one prime lens and it is a special use lens. I don't have any experience with general use primes.

Well disregarding the differences in speed, as far as IQ is concerned honestly you probably wouldn't notice much of a difference in the final image unless you did some serious pixel peeping. Even then they'd probably be hard to spot.

This is a bit of an older shot done on my D7100 with a Tamron 17-50 F/2.8

20160317 101 by Todd Robbins, on Flickr

The advantage to the prime, they are just a touch sharper (though in a most cases you probably won't notice much of a difference with pixel peeping), the prime would be a faster lens, so in some situations that might come in handy.

The zoom would give you a bit more flexibility in being able to frame things without moving about quite so much.

 

[Netskimmer]

Is there that much of an improvement in a 50mm 1.4 or 1.8 prime over one of these lenses set at 50mm? I suppose I could get a 50mm prime and then get the 24-70 later if I felt I needed it. It just seems like a waste to get both. I only have one prime lens and it is a special use lens. I don't have any experience with general use primes.

Well disregarding the differences in speed, as far as IQ is concerned honestly you probably wouldn't notice much of a difference in the final image unless you did some serious pixel peeping. Even then they'd probably be hard to spot.

This is a bit of an older shot done on my D7100 with a Tamron 17-50 F/2.8

20160317 101 by Todd Robbins, on Flickr

The advantage to the prime, they are just a touch sharper (though in a most cases you probably won't notice much of a difference with pixel peeping), the prime would be a faster lens, so in some situations that might come in handy.

The zoom would give you a bit more flexibility in being able to frame things without moving about quite so much.

You mentioned earlier that you bought an older model of the Tammy 24-70 because you shoot full frame. Could you elaborate on that for me? Just trying to get a feel for my options.

 

[Braineack]

the IQ on the Tarmon is there--it's just not in question whatsoever.

It's really down whether you like how it renders vs. the Nikon and/or if you enjoy loads of cash remaining in your pocket.

 

[robbins.photo]

You mentioned earlier that you bought an older model of the Tammy 24-70 because you shoot full frame. Could you elaborate on that for me? Just trying to get a feel for my options.

The 17-50 I had was a DX only lens. When I went to FX, the D600 - I replaced it with a Tamron 28-75 2.8 which is an FX lens.

I went with the 28-75 because it was significantly cheaper than the 24-70. I don't really need VR for such a short focal length, the times it might come in handy would be very few and far between for me since I'm normally not shooting anything below 1/120 shutter speed. On those rare occasions where I might I'd be pulling out the tripod anyway.

So with the full frame I decided the difference in focal length on the low end wasn't really anything that would matter to me, and the price difference was pretty significant. Been very happy with the lens, takes fantastic shots and performs like a trooper.

 

[coastalconn]

The Nikkor they are referring to would be comparable to a Canon L lens. I have little experience with Tamron lenses. My impression is that they generally perform quite well optically. The one Tamron I have is not built like a high end Nikkor or Canon L lens. I would describe it as a lightweight amateur lens.

What is this 1 Tamron lens you speak of? Guessing it's an older one?

 

[Netskimmer]

You mentioned earlier that you bought an older model of the Tammy 24-70 because you shoot full frame. Could you elaborate on that for me? Just trying to get a feel for my options.

The 17-50 I had was a DX only lens. When I went to FX, the D600 - I replaced it with a Tamron 28-75 2.8 which is an FX lens.

I went with the 28-75 because it was significantly cheaper than the 24-70. I don't really need VR for such a short focal length, the times it might come in handy would be very few and far between for me since I'm normally not shooting anything below 1/120 shutter speed. On those rare occasions where I might I'd be pulling out the tripod anyway.

So with the full frame I decided the difference in focal length on the low end wasn't really anything that would matter to me, and the price difference was pretty significant. Been very happy with the lens, takes fantastic shots and performs like a trooper.

Ah ok. I will look into that lens as well. At this point, I'll probably go with one of the Tamrons. Given what I like to shoot I spend most of my time at the far end of the focal range so this lens will be more of an auxiliary. My 70-200 and 50-500 are my work horse lenses. I will do some research on the 28-75. thanks again for taking the time to help me with my decision and of coarse, any further input would be welcome. I'll let you guys know what I eventually decide on.

 

[Netskimmer]

It doesn't sound like there was really a bad decision to be made here. I doubt that I would be disappointed with any of them. I decided to go with the Tamron 24-70, the bang:buck ratio seems right for me. I paid for next day air shipping so I should have it in my eager little hands by the end of the week. Just in time for a trip up north this weekend. Once I have some decent shots, I'll let you guys know what I think.

 

[Braineack]

You would have been happy with any; but you certainly won't be disappointed with the Tamron.

 

[johan65ZA]

Absolute love my tamron 24-70.
Enjoy your lense

 

[Netskimmer]

Woot! got the lens today. I haven't had time to take any proper photographs with it yet, just test shots, running the lens through its paces. So far everything is looking great. Can't wait until I have the time to really see what it can do.

 

[Netskimmer]

Here are some shots from Crabtree falls. Nothing spectacular, but it was my first time taking the lens out to really take photos. I'm definitely happy with the results!

 

[shadowlands]

Awesome scenery to test a lens!!!

 

[Netskimmer]

Awesome scenery to test a lens!!!

Yeah, is was a 3 mile hike across the mountain to get to the falls but it was worth it.

 

[shadowlands]

Awesome scenery to test a lens!!!

Yeah, is was a 3 mile hike across the mountain to get to the falls but it was worth it.

Most excellent! I live to hike! I'm a former Colorado resident stuck in Houston, but I always find ways. Heading out, west of Austin this weekend for some hiking, and then in August, Taos New Mexico.
Sorry to be off topic, but where is that place you're at? Looks awesome. Very green. Appalachian like appearance.