Used Nikon 24-70 or the new Tamron 24-70

[Jptex]

I know I am beating a dead horse, but I can't decide between the two lenses. I am shooting a d7100 and I am wanting a faster lens that will be good in portraits and some sporting events (ie. cheerleading in football). I have tried the Sigma 17-50 and was not impress with the bokeh or the focal range. I am wanting something a little longer. My normal walk around lens is the 16-85 and 70-300, so the basic focal ranges are covered in good lighting. I am wanting to get a 24-70 f2.8. My question is should I shop for a used Nikon 24-70 or jump on the Tamron 24-70 with the $100 rebate going on? I am getting tired of reading reviews and forums, it seems the conversation keeps circling around. I know this one could lead to the same problem. It is kind of like asking what is better a ford or chevy. Thanks for any real life answer and not any from a lab.

 

[tevo]

I would ALWAYS opt for Nikon glass over 3rd party, as well as buying used; Lenses retain their value well, and I have never seen a reason to buy new when I can get a great condition used lens for several hundred (or thousand) dollars less.

 

[Jptex]

It seems the used Nikon runs about the same price as a new Tamron. This is the argument in my head, $1300 for a great used lens or $1200 for a new lens with good reviews and 6 year warranty.

 

[hamlet]

There are pros and cons to this, many variables that could change your decision one way or the other. The popular choice on this forum is of course the Tamron that comes equiped with vibration reduction, this is something the nikon doesn't have and this is a big plus for Tamron.


Even DXO favors the Tamron lens over the Nikon:




But of course there is always a catch to things that sound too good to be true:

Nikon changes something they not only don't communicate it to others, they don't care if things break.

So when you invest in a third party lens, you run the risk that it will not work later on when Nikon decides to end the fun.

So as i said, there are many variables that you need to consider. And again: people here prefer the Tamron over the Nikon.

 

[Patrice]

… people here prefer the Tamron over the Nikon.

Where did you get the data to support that statement? Not saying it's not true, just curious about the data.

OP, there are also other options if you decide to go second hand, for example the Nikkor 28-70 f/2.8 D is a solid performer as is the Tokina 28-70 ATX Pro f/2.8 (early model with screw on lens hood is well regarded).

 

[jaomul]

I would say that vc or vr is not to important for sports. The Nikon lens will always work on a Nikon body. Sometimes as bodies are upgraded the backwards engineered third party lenses have issues. I also believe the Nikon focuses faster. This sounds like I am putting down the tamron wwhich I am not. I'm sure it's great but if they are the same money I think the Nikon is a safer bet.

 

[Mike_E]

It's up to you in the last analysis, is the VC worth the durability you'd get with the Nikon lens?

A warranty isn't worth a flip if you have to use it and miss jobs because you don't have the lens. I guess you can tell I'm one of those who has a big stick to set my rig on and carries a tank (Tokina in this case-great build quality but they don't make them any more).

 

[hamlet]

… people here prefer the Tamron over the Nikon.

Where did you get the data to support that statement? Not saying it's not true, just curious about the data.

This is just one sample i took from a thread some time ago. If i ever were to buy a 24-70, it would deffinitly be a Nikon. The reason i don't own a 24-70 is because it is heavy and i cannot go to an aperture of 1.4 or 1.8. (though granted that a 24-70 with an aperture of 1.4 would be monstrously heavy :lmao:, so i just rather have a little prime lens)

 

[goodguy]

Few months ago I was in your shoes, I was debating what lens to get.
The reason I was not too happy about getting the Tamron 24-70m 2.8 VC was because of QC issues I was hearing it have or had.
Might be just in the begining and since then they fixed these issues but I really didnt want to get stuck with a sick lens.
At the end of the day I bought the Nikon 24-70mm 2.8G and I must say I LOVE this lens.
I understand IQ of the Nikon is better then the Tamron but the VC is a nice bonus to have even though its not a huge deal.
As a minimum shutter speed I use 1/50 and I find this is more then enough to keep my ISO nice and low on my D7100
I do 90% and more of my photogrpahy with it and its a jewel of a lens.
My vote is for the Nikon but if you get a good example of the Tamron I understand they are very good lenses too.

 

[Derrel]

Go to PixelPeeper.com and look at 10 pages of samples of the Tamron VC...you'll start to see its onion bokeh rendering on bright, out of focus point sources of light, due to the aspherical element design; bright point light sources rendered with "onion-like rings", as well as kind of harsh foregound bokeh rendering. But, YES, the Tamron is slightly sharper than the Nikkor, according to DxO Mark's lab tests. But look closely...on some types of images the Tamron has a harshness that's not all that pleasing. I recently waded through 10 pages of large samples on PixelPeeper.com

A forum member asked me about the Tamron last week, and here's what I saw: Full-size sample photos from Tamron 24-70mm F/2.8

Here are the Tamron's weaknesses: https://www.flickr.com/photos/46712303@N07/12264876394(bad OOF foreground rendering on arm and arm of chair)https://www.flickr.com/photos/69347974@N07/8409255042https://www.flickr.com/photos/67050363@N05/9012232681https://www.flickr.com/photos/93064749@N06/10075183043https://www.flickr.com/photos/71365876@N04/10825418866>>>>>>>>>>ONION RINGS---BAD>>>>>https://www.flickr.com/photos/78691710@N07/8306485905https://www.flickr.com/photos/35387097@N00/8326100694ugly fore- and backgrounds






​

 

[djacobox372]

When buying pro grade, always buy used... pro lenses are built to withstand outerspace and warzones, so its highly unlikely the original owner has abused it in a way that would have any noticeable impact.

 

[manaheim]

I've never used the Tamron. I own one Sigma lens. All the rest of the lenses I have are Nikkor. As a general rule (though I'll always do research first), I happily buy Nikkor lenses, am a little wary when choosing a Sigma, and will not buy a Tamron.

I would go with the Nikkor.

 

[Braineack]

When buying pro grade, always buy used... pro lenses are built to withstand outerspace and warzones, so its highly unlikely the original owner has abused it in a way that would have any noticeable impact.

yeah, I'd be comparing the price of a used Tamron vs a Used Nikon... it's very significant in that regard--$900-1100 vs. $1400-1600.

The onion rings of the 24-70 is really the biggest downside, but really only shows up when you're shooting at distant spots of light at 2.8:



I was trying to go through my shots to see if I noticed the harsh OOF areas like Derrel shows, but I tend to favor my 70-200 much more and don't have too many samples with my 24-70. The best I have to share is this:



shot at f/4 @ 70mm. I think the OOF is still very smooth/pleasing, and the areas in focus are hella sharp.

 

[Jptex]

I am strongly leaning to the Nikon. I really like the build quality of the lens. As for buying a used 3rd party lens, I couldn't do that. I would want the warranty that comes with a new lens.

 

[KooKoo102]

I as well was in your shoes back in feb. I was debating on the same 2 lenses as well. I ended up going with the Nikon 24-70.. and I love it. Its used about 95% of the time, unless I need some reach. You will not be dissapointed at what you get with it. Also... dont worry about not having VC / VR. I am fine without it.
GL