Tamron 28-75 or 24-70

[Joefbs]

I was looking for some advise on which lens I should get. I know that there is quite a price difference but that does not come into play as I have the budget for it. Is it worth going to the 24-70 because of the VR? Just trying to get a feel.

 

[Braineack]

I love the VC myself... Iirc the 28-70 does macro. But if I was considering that I'd look at other Nikon d lenses.

 

[Rick50]

The Tamron 24-70 is my goto lens. Sharp all the way and 2.8 all the way and VR.

 

[Braineack]

To elaborate: If I didn't require VR, then I might look at the Nikon 24-85 2.8-4 or the Nikon 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5.

But It seems that the constant 2.8 is what you're after, so if VR is not required, then the Tamron 28-75 or the Sigma 24-70 are worth a look.

The Tamron is the only lens is that class with VR, but it's still significantly cheaper than the Nikon counterpart.

If you really want VR, but don't really require a constant f/2.8, then the Nikon 24-85mm VR is also worth a look; you can probably find these at a really good price (I'm talking the low $300 range).

 

[Joefbs]

Thanks, I went with the 24-70. Excited to start using it


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Vince.1551]

I'll say the 24-70 VC is the best in its class!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ironman0528]

24-70vc ! Love it

 

[Mr.Photo]

I love the VC myself... Iirc the 28-70 does macro. But if I was considering that I'd look at other Nikon d lenses.

The "Macro" feature that manufacturers talk about is only a gimmick to get people to buy lenses. All it means is that the lenses "Minimum Focus Distance" is marginally closer than previous designs or maybe other lenses in that range. It is not a true macro lens as it cannot focus to a 1:1 ratio like a dedicated macro lens.

Manufacturers will say anything to sell lenses as the name of the game is profits.