Need help picking lens for a Nikon system

[sovietdoc]

Hi guys, I am switching from my Canon gear over to Nikon after over 10 years of shooting with Canon and the recent disappointment with their camera products.

I need help picking 24-70 2.8 lens for the Nikon and 70-200 2.8. My primary concern is the absolute best IQ I can get. Secondly comes in an IQ to price ratio. I am trying to figure out both sets, one for the best IQ price no object, and another where price is a factor, and then compare the two, to see how much money I could spend and what I'd get in return.

Based on the information I am finding online, if price is no object, the 70-200 f2.8E FL from Nikon seems to be one of if not the best 70-200 lens on the market. On the 24-70 front, it would appear from the reviews, the win is not that clear for Nikon. Some people are really bashing Nikon's versions of their 24-70 lenses, some even claiming that the older one is better than the new one.

Also, I hear that the G2 lenses from Tamron, 24-70 and 70-200 are truly amazing and should no longer be considered "second class" after the lens from Nikon themselves.

Could someone who perhaps shoots with this kind of glass chime in and help me decide. I do want to have the best IQ possible, but for example, if Tamron's 70-200 G2 is 99% as good as Nikon's, that 1% isn't worth an extra $1300 for me.

And on the 24-70 front I am a bit at a loss...

Thank you very much!

 

[Destin]

The 24-70 question is easy. Stick with Nikon brand glass here. Both lenses are very good and very close in IQ. The decision here is whether the VR version is worth the extra $500 and the extra size, or if you could live without VR to save money and have a somewhat smaller lens.

70-200 is a little more complicated. The Tamron G2 lens is incredible for the price. It's made well and has great image quality. But then for a few hundred more dollars you could get the Nikon VRII (last generation). The image quality isn't much or any better than the Tamron.. but the build quality of the Nikon branded 70-200s is leaps and bounds ahead of the third party lenses still, in my opinion.

I have the old Tamron 70-200 VC right now and I'm planning to upgrade it to a Nikon 70-200 VRII in the future when I find a good deal on a used one.

 

[fmw]

If the best image quality is the goal, then zoom lenses aren't the answer.

 

[Braineack]

I chose the Tamron 24-70 and 70-200 after weighing all the pro's and con's. No regrets.

Nikon's offerings in these lenses, imho, are inferior to Tamron's

 

[benhasajeep]

As for the 24-70-

According to DXO testing. Using D800E as test body.
The Tokina AT-X 24-70 F2.8 PRO FX Nikon tops all 24-70 lenses in terms of performance, but does not have VR. But it's sharpness rating was much higher than next best. Next was Tamron SP 24-70mm F2.8 Di VC USD Nikon. Then Nikon 24-70 f/2.8 non-vr, and finally Nikon 24-70 f/2.8 VR. The Tokina was better than all except distortion and Chromatic Aberation. Tokina was .4% distortion and Tamron was .3% distortion. Tamron is better with chromatic aberation as well. 13 for Tokina, 6 for Tamron, Nikons at 30!

If you don't need VR. Tokina is the one. If you want VR Tamron is the winner.

As for the 70-200.

The Tamron SP 70-200mm F/2.8 Di VC USD Nikon, just beats out the Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 VR II. Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 VR next, followed by Sigma. But if you look at the charts. The Tamron has the advantage of having a smaller max aperture. Giving it better scores at f/22 (nikons smallest aperture). All across the measurements the Tamron is as good or better than the Nikon. VR quality is not tested though.

 

[JoeW]

Good comments from folks. I suggest you directly reach out to Derrel on this issue and seek his input.

 

[sovietdoc]

Thank you everyone for the reply.

70-200 is a little more complicated. The Tamron G2 lens is incredible for the price. It's made well and has great image quality. But then for a few hundred more dollars you could get the Nikon VRII (last generation). The image quality isn't much or any better than the Tamron.. but the build quality of the Nikon branded 70-200s is leaps and bounds ahead of the third party lenses still, in my opinion.

From what I can see, the new FL's IQ is slightly better than VRII, so in my case the decision would between FL and Tamron G2.

If the best image quality is the goal, then zoom lenses aren't the answer.

Haha yes, true indeed.

Good comments from folks. I suggest you directly reach out to Derrel on this issue and seek his input.

Alright, let me reach out to him, thank you for the suggestion.

 

[Destin]

Thank you everyone for the reply.

70-200 is a little more complicated. The Tamron G2 lens is incredible for the price. It's made well and has great image quality. But then for a few hundred more dollars you could get the Nikon VRII (last generation). The image quality isn't much or any better than the Tamron.. but the build quality of the Nikon branded 70-200s is leaps and bounds ahead of the third party lenses still, in my opinion.

From what I can see, the new FL's IQ is slightly better than VRII, so in my case the decision would between FL and Tamron G2.

If the best image quality is the goal, then zoom lenses aren't the answer.

Haha yes, true indeed.

Good comments from folks. I suggest you directly reach out to Derrel on this issue and seek his input.

Alright, let me reach out to him, thank you for the suggestion.

The only reason I reccomended the VRII over the FL is that the VRII can be had for $1400 used.. the FL is double the price at $2800 but definitely not double the image quality.

 

[sovietdoc]

The only reason I reccomended the VRII over the FL is that the VRII can be had for $1400 used.. the FL is double the price at $2800 but definitely not double the image quality.

Oh yes, definitely makes sense.

 

[Braineack]

As for the 24-70-

According to DXO testing. Using D800E as test body.
The Tokina AT-X 24-70 F2.8 PRO FX Nikon tops all 24-70 lenses in terms of performance, but does not have VR. But it's sharpness rating was much higher than next best. Next was Tamron SP 24-70mm F2.8 Di VC USD Nikon. Then Nikon 24-70 f/2.8 non-vr, and finally Nikon 24-70 f/2.8 VR. The Tokina was better than all except distortion and Chromatic Aberation. Tokina was .4% distortion and Tamron was .3% distortion. Tamron is better with chromatic aberation as well. 13 for Tokina, 6 for Tamron, Nikons at 30!

If you don't need VR. Tokina is the one. If you want VR Tamron is the winner.

As for the 70-200.

The Tamron SP 70-200mm F/2.8 Di VC USD Nikon, just beats out the Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 VR II. Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 VR next, followed by Sigma. But if you look at the charts. The Tamron has the advantage of having a smaller max aperture. Giving it better scores at f/22 (nikons smallest aperture). All across the measurements the Tamron is as good or better than the Nikon. VR quality is not tested though.

and that's all before G2. the Tamron's are extremely sharp and never disappoint. However, the rendering of the Nikon units could be a touch more pleasing subjectively. However, however, I think they missed the mark with the VR 24-70 unit. Tamron all the way.

 

[goodguy]

I chose the Tamron 24-70 and 70-200 after weighing all the pro's and con's. No regrets.

Nikon's offerings in these lenses, imho, are inferior to Tamron's

I own the Nikon 24-70mm 2.8G and Tamron 70-200mm 2.8 VC
My buddy has the Tamron 24-70mm 2.8 VC and I think his Tamron 24-70mm 2.8 VC is ever so slightly sharper over my Nikon version.
My Tamron 70-200mm 2.8 VC is very sharp and now the G2 (new model) is even better.

 

[sovietdoc]

Great, thanks everyone!