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

Netskimmer · Feb 9, 2015

I've taken a bit of a hiatus from photography but I'm getting back into it. I've put back a few grand and had intended to get the legendary Nikon 24-70 2.8, I love the Nikkor 70-200 and use it at least 85% of the time, but it can be a bit long at times (in terms of focal length, not size), especially on my D7000. I want something just a bit longer than my Tammy 17-5o for a good "walk around" lens. The 24-70 seems the logical choice.

In doing my research I came across several people saying the newer Tamron is very close in both build quality and IQ and comes with VC which the Nikkor lacks (several reviews mention the lack of Stabilization in the Nikkor specifically).

I have no problem spending the extra $600 if it's worth it, I also don't mind the weight and size of the Nikkor. but I wouldn't mind putting it towards something else either and I couldn't care less about bragging rights.

I realize that the question is very subjective, but is lower price tag and VC feature on the Tamron worth the slower AF and slightly lower IQ?

AKUK · Feb 9, 2015

It's a great lens and the addition of VC is a big bonus. We use it here in Canon mount for video and photographic work on the 5D MKIII. I wouldn't mind it in the Nikon mount either as I shoot with the D800. I think the days of 3rd party lenses being the poor man's alternative are long gone. The likes of Sigma and Tamron and even Tokina, are producing glass now that is kicking Nikon in the butt, big time!

Tamron's 70-200 VC is virtually on a par optically with the VRII and yet it's about £500/$750 cheaper. For another £150 on top, I could get the Sigma 50mm Art with the savings made!

I know a few other photographers with the Tammy 24-70 and they all love it. I doubt you'll be disappointed.

Netskimmer · Feb 10, 2015

Thanks for the reply. I am leaning towards the Tamron at this point, I like my 17-50. It can get some CA in less than favorable conditions but It's pretty damned sharp. My biggest concern with the Nikkor isn't the price, I'm not sure how significant VC will be for me because I will be shooting almost entirely free-hand and often in low light situations where a flash is not an option. Of coarse the Nikkor is supposed to be better at focusing in lower light so... sigh.

goodguy · Feb 10, 2015

I own the Nikon 24-70mm 2.8G which I bought used for less then the price of a new Tamron 24-70mm.
I am telling you that because if I was today in a situation to buy both lenses again I am not sure which one I would buy.
I bought the Nikon from a friend so I knew the lens so it was risk free.
The Tamron is really a good lens, very little different from the Nikon.
Since I bought my beloved Tamron 70-200mm 2.8 VC I gained A LOT of respoect to Tamron and today I am not sure the price differents is worth the big extra tag price.

So logically I dont see a big reason to buy the Nikon over the Tamron but like everything else logic is not always the only reason to buy such a thing, its nice to have original lenses.
Dont get me wrong the Nikon is an awesome lens, I LOVE it but from what I know the Tamron is very good too.
Your call.

BTW the VC is a very nice addition but not that important, I shoot at speeds as low as 1/30 (with good results) if I have too but mostly its 1/50 and up.

Netskimmer · Feb 10, 2015

Thanks for the reply goodguy. I am also a fan of Tamron, I have gotten a good deal of use out of my 17-50. Have you used the Tamron 24-70? I've read that it has focus breathing issues at 70mm and that it doesn't handle flare as well as the Nikon.

Also, how do you like the D750?

goodguy · Feb 10, 2015

Netskimmer said:
Thanks for the reply goodguy. I am also a fan of Tamron, I have gotten a good deal of use out of my 17-50. Have you used the Tamron 24-70? I've read that it has focus breathing issues at 70mm and that it doesn't handle flare as well as the Nikon.

Also, how do you like the D750?

Well if money is not an issue then of course the Nikon is the preffered choice, if money is an issue then the Tamron should be a good choice.
I dont know about focus breathing with the 24-70mm Tamron, maybe someone that used this lens will be able to share his/hers experience with this issue.

How do I like the D750 ?
2 words................I LOVE IT!!
Ooooppsss those were 3 words LOL

Awesome camera,does everything I expected it to do, excellet low light, amazing AF system, much bigger buffer then the D7100 that I had, just a sweet camera

Best general use camera in the market.

Braineack · Feb 10, 2015

ive never had my lens at 70mm and said, oh main I wish i wasn't focusing so close that i get taht extra 2mm of reach back.

watch this:

i think key takeaways are the sharpness at f2.8 and his keeper rate at slow shutter speeds.

goodguy · Feb 10, 2015

Braineack said:
ive never had my lens at 70mm and said, oh main I wish i wasn't focusing so close that i get taht extra 2mm of reach back.

watch this:

i think key takeaways are the sharpness at f2.8 and his keeper rate at slow shutter speeds.

You just really cant go wrong with either of these!
Just amazing, awesome lenses.

Braineack · Feb 10, 2015

you can look at my flickr too; the majority of the shots are with the Tamron 24-70 VC or 70-200 VC.

Netskimmer · Feb 10, 2015

Braineack said:
ive never had my lens at 70mm and said, oh main I wish i wasn't focusing so close that i get taht extra 2mm of reach back.

watch this:

i think key takeaways are the sharpness at f2.8 and his keeper rate at slow shutter speeds.

Yeah, I watched that vid the other day. His "keeper" rate with VC vs without it is what got me thinking about VC in the first place. I initially considered it to be a minor convenience.

Bob Trester / T-Shots · Feb 10, 2015

I own the Tamron 24-70 VC and use it with my D800. The lens is outstanding. I have included a a sample taken with the Tamron paired with the D800.

Link to image

Netskimmer · Feb 10, 2015

I'll look at it when I get home. I'm sure my crappy work monitor won't do it justice. I'm leaning heavily toward the Tamron. Money isn't really an issue. I've set aside enough to get either, but if I can get pretty much the same performance while saving $600, I don't see a reason not to.