Anyone got the Tamron SP 24-70mm F/2.8 Di VC USD?

[Richdog]

I am not so happy with the Nikon 24-120 that I got with my D750, and am looking to switch it for something of better quality. I have been doing a ton of research on alternatives, and one lens that is consistently given very high marks is the Tamron SP 24-70mm F/2.8 Di VC USD.

Not only is the image quality seemingly approaching and in some cases exceeding the Nikon and Canon 24-70's, but it also has image stabilization which according to every review I have read makes a dramatic difference getting sharp photos handheld in lower light vs the NiCanons. The only real negatives I have seen are common to most zoom lenses, with the exception being the "onion bokeh", which really doesn't seem to be too much of an issue at all in real terms in the vast majority of situations.

Oh yeah, and it's less than half the price... I can get it for £680 where I live, which would almost be completely covered by selling the Nikon 24-120.

So, does anyone here on OCUK got any real-world experience with it and could please offer some feedback?

 

[JBuk]

Must be a bad copy you have , my 24-120 is excellent

The tamron is meant to be decent enough so id definitely take a punt

 

[Richdog]

Must be a bad copy you have , my 24-120 is excellent

The tamron is meant to be decent enough so id definitely take a punt

I'm not sure I have a "bad copy", it's just not super sharp at longer focal lengths... online reviews and tests seem to confirm this. Optical quality is rated as "above average". in most cases.

The Tamron would be a step up in IQ, as it is pretty much in the same league (only marginally weaker in most areas) as the Nikon 34-70 and Canon 24-70 L II, expect with image stabilization.

 

[D.P.]

There wouldn't be a noticible change in IQ going to rbe Tamron 24-70mm. The Nikon 24-12mm f/4.0 is a very sharp lens, don't mix up reviews with the earlier variable aperture f/5.6 version. If you aren't getting good results then send your lens in for sevicing IMO. Also check for back or front focusing.

I would only go for the 24-70 to get the extra stop, not for a noticing change in IQ. If you want noticibly better IQ then you will want a careful selection of primes.


The reason to get the Nikon over the Tamron 24-70mm is primarily the rendering characteristics, build quality, focusing and weather sealing.

 

[Richdog]

There wouldn't be a noticible change in IQ going to rbe Tamron 24-70mm. The Nikon 24-12mm f/4.0 is a very sharp lens, don't mix up reviews with the earlier variable aperture f/5.6 version. If you aren't getting good results then send your lens in for sevicing IMO. Also check for back or front focusing.

I would only go for the 24-70 to get the extra stop, not for a noticing change in IQ. If you want noticibly better IQ then you will want a careful selection of primes.

The reason to get the Nikon over the Tamron 24-70mm is primarily the rendering characteristics, build quality, focusing and weather sealing.

Mixing it up with review of the f5 version? D.P. please do try not to be so flagrantly patronising, it's a habit you seem to be repeating in numerous photography threads.

I also don't believe at all that I would see no increase in IQ switching from the 24-120. The Tamron is consistently stated to be at least in the same league optically as the Nikon and Canon 24-70, which are in turn a clear step up in IQ from the 24-120.

That is based on a LOT of very consistent user feedback (many forums dealing with the same topic) and professional testing and reviews I have read while doing my research in the last couple of weeks. It has seriously impressed a lot of people since it was released.

What I am looking for in this thread is not if the Tamron 24-70 is better optically than the 24-120, because there is all the evidence to suggest it is, I am simply wanting feedback from people who own it. I'm guessing you don't?

 

[Sh4rkie]

Can't speak from first hand experience but the Canon variant is my next purchase as i need a walkabout lens. Watched and read extensively about the lens and unless you get a lemon it's a quality piece of kit. Not quite as sharp as the Canon MKII but close enough to save half the asking price with the bonus of VC. Going to pair it with my 70-200 2.8 VC USD which i rate very highly.

Good luck and if you do end up with one it'd be nice to see some feedback

 

[gary996]

I have one for my Canon 5D mkiii and I rate it. Very sharp, nice bokeh fast af. I have it on my camera the most

 

[Richdog]

Can't speak from first hand experience but the Canon variant is my next purchase as i need a walkabout lens. Watched and read extensively about the lens and unless you get a lemon it's a quality piece of kit. Not quite as sharp as the Canon MKII but close enough to save half the asking price with the bonus of VC. Going to pair it with my 70-200 2.8 VC USD which i rate very highly.

Good luck and if you do end up with one it'd be nice to see some feedback

Hey my good man, I think I am going to buy one on Friday when I get back from my business trip and then test it side by side with the Nikon 24-120.

Considering my favourite lens is my 50mm prime, and I much prefer taking shots of people more up close and personal, I don't think I am going to be missing the extra reach of the 120mm as I really hardly ever go beyond 70mm. I think it's much better to buy a 24-70, and then get an additional 70-200 when I have the cash.

I will be using the 24-70 for nightclubs, events and portraits and I think it will perform admirably.

Some great Youtube reviews and comparisons are: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=tamron+24-70mm+2.8

Fashion shoot with the Tamron 2.8 VC

Matt Granger 24-70 Showdown - Conclusion

Tamron vs Nikon 24-70 f2.8 Pro Lens Shootout

I have one for my Canon 5D mkiii and I rate it. Very sharp, nice bokeh fast af. I have it on my camera the most

Awesome... any sample photos to whet our appetites?

 

[rG-tom]

offtopic but where are you living these days Richdog?

 

[D.P.]

Mixing it up with review of the f5 version? D.P. please do try not to be so flagrantly patronising, it's a habit you seem to be repeating in numerous photography threads.

I also don't believe at all that I would see no increase in IQ switching from the 24-120. The Tamron is consistently stated to be at least in the same league optically as the Nikon and Canon 24-70, which are in turn a clear step up in IQ from the 24-120.

That is based on a LOT of very consistent user feedback (many forums dealing with the same topic) and professional testing and reviews I have read while doing my research in the last couple of weeks. It has seriously impressed a lot of people since it was released.

What I am looking for in this thread is not if the Tamron 24-70 is better optically than the 24-120, because there is all the evidence to suggest it is, I am simply wanting feedback from people who own it. I'm guessing you don't?

\And I gave you feedback - you wont see much difference in IQ - that is not a sufficient reason tp upgrade IMO. The reason to upgrade is the extra stop.

It seems you have already made up your mind and are not willing to listen to advice so i don't see why you made this post. Is the Nikon or 24-70mm Optically better than 24-120, probably but it is not that clear cut. over most of the frame the 24-120 is sharper than the Nikon 24-70 right up to 70mm when comparing both wide open, when comparing the 24-70mm stopped down to f/4.0the 24-120 is of very similar IQ. Not enough difference across the main part of the frame to make a significant visible difference to the images you can produce, certainly not until you are print 20x30 inch blowups or bigger.

There are 2 weakness of the 24-120mm, the edges above 85mm and 85mm itself. 120mm is sharper than 85mm, as is 70mm. This looks bad on test charts but in reality is of little consequence because it is unlikely you will ever use that focus length.


Sure you find people who prefer the Nikon 24-70 but there are also numerous people who have owned both and sold the 24-70mm. In fact, I'm fairly close to selling my Nikon 24-70mm in exchange for the 24-120mm and adding a couple of primes with the change. My reasons are I prefer 120mm vs the extra stop, and the 24-70mm is just such a tank. The 24-120mm is considerably cheaper and that will help fund a Nikon 20mm f/1.8


I also gave you feedback on why people choose the Nikon over the Tamron so you can make an informed decision.

 

[Richdog]

\And I gave you feedback - you wont see much difference in IQ - that is not a sufficient reason tp upgrade IMO. The reason to upgrade is the extra stop.

It seems you have already made up your mind and are not willing to listen to advice so i don't see why you made this post. Is the Nikon or 24-70mm Optically better than 24-120, probably but it is not that clear cut. over most of the frame the 24-120 is sharper than the Nikon 24-70 right up to 70mm when comparing both wide open, when comparing the 24-70mm stopped down to f/4.0the 24-120 is of very similar IQ. Not enough difference across the main part of the frame to make a significant visible difference to the images you can produce, certainly not until you are print 20x30 inch blowups or bigger.

There are 2 weakness of the 24-120mm, the edges above 85mm and 85mm itself. 120mm is sharper than 85mm, as is 70mm. This looks bad on test charts but in reality is of little consequence because it is unlikely you will ever use that focus length.

Sure you find people who prefer the Nikon 24-70 but there are also numerous people who have owned both and sold the 24-70mm. In fact, I'm fairly close to selling my Nikon 24-70mm in exchange for the 24-120mm and adding a couple of primes with the change. My reasons are I prefer 120mm vs the extra stop, and the 24-70mm is just such a tank. The 24-120mm is considerably cheaper and that will help fund a Nikon 20mm f/1.8

I also gave you feedback on why people choose the Nikon over the Tamron so you can make an informed decision.

The problem D.P. is that I unfortunately don't see you as a particularly credible source of photographic information. Nothing personal, it's just an opinion I have formed based on some of your posts in this section that I essentially see as bordering on waffling nonsense. I also don't agree with your advice in this thread regarding not seeing a difference in image quality, when there is a ton of evidence from people more experienced than you or I, who have actually used the lens, to suggest otherwise. Sorry.

Anyway, lets get back to the people who are are interested in buying, or have bought and have real-world experience with the Tamron 24-70...

 

[D.P.]

The problem D.P. is that I unfortunately don't see you as a particularly credible source of photographic information. Nothing personal, it's just an opinion I have formed based on some of your posts in this section that I essentially see as bordering on waffling nonsense. I also don't agree with your advice in this thread regarding not seeing a difference in image quality, when there is a ton of evidence from people more experienced than you or I, who have actually used the lens, to suggest otherwise. Sorry.

Anyway, lets get back to the people who are are interested in buying, or have bought and have real-world experience with the Tamron 24-70...

You are welcome to your own option, your loss if you don't want to trust me.
You know, just before reply to this thread I even double checked some review sites and confirmed what I wrote.

As I said, you seem to have made up your mind and are unwilling to hear anything that goes against your preconceived notions, so why bothe making this thread. Just go out and buy the tamron, you claim have done so much research that proves you are right so what are you waiting for?

Note I never said the tamron wouldn't be sharper, just that you wouldn't notice a difference. You will notice the difference between 70mm and 120mm and f/2.8 vs f/4.0. Thus you have to choose aperture against reach.

Lastly if you really think your 24-120mm is poor then perhaps you could your examples to back up your statements. Plenty of people use the 24-120mm professionally without concern.even Thom Hogan sold his Nikon 24-70mm in exhange for the 24-120mm and several primes. A quick 2 minutes on google clearly shows many people preffering the 24-120mm

 

[Richdog]

You are welcome to your own option, your loss if you don't want to trust me.
You know, just before reply to this thread I even double checked some review sites and confirmed what I wrote.

As I said, you seem to have made up your mind and are unwilling to hear anything that goes against your preconceived notions, so why bothe making this thread. Just go out and buy the tamron, you claim have done so much research that proves you are right so what are you waiting for?

Note I never said the tamron wouldn't be sharper, just that you wouldn't notice a difference. You will notice the difference between 70mm and 120mm and f/2.8 vs f/4.0. Thus you have to choose aperture against reach.

Lastly if you really think your 24-120mm is poor then perhaps you could your examples to back up your statements. Plenty of people use the 24-120mm professionally without concern.even Thom Hogan sold his Nikon 24-70mm in exhange for the 24-120mm and several primes. A quick 2 minutes on google clearly shows many people preffering the 24-120mm

Unfortunately D.P this is the common problem when people on the interwebs with mildly elevated opinions of themselves feel like they aren't being taken seriously... they throw a bit of an online paddy.

A quick 2 minutes on Google shows also people very happy with the Tamron 24-70, it has tons of awesome reviews (overwhelmingly so, in fact), with people overall, including working professionals, considering it in the league as the Nikon and Canon 24-70. If you don't notice the difference in IQ between the Nikon 24-120 and the Nikon and Canon 24-70 then fine, that's your opinion.

You presuming that "I am not going to notice the difference" is the aforementioned arrogance I was talking about. You thinking that I am not interested in hearing opinions is also the aforementioned arrogance I was talking about. Did you notice that in the OP I wasn't asking for opinions on the Nikon 24-120 at all? That's because I am going to change it, decision final, it was never in doubt. I was asking for feedback on the Tamron 24-70 from owners or people with real-world experience (to which one replied above, and I replied to him), so unless you do have one, or the aforementioned real-word experience with it, please just politely and gracefully exit the thread and stop being such a tedious pain in the rear. Cheers.

 

[JBuk]

Seems not many people here have any real world experience with the tamron , it's a lens I have considered before but decided I would prefer the extra reach of my 24-120 especially as the iq on my copy was very good.

No idea if you've ever read this site http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/430/sort/7/cat/43/page/1 but I find it useful for gauging how people are getting on with lenses and what some of the pros and cons are in real world usage

 

[Richdog]

Seems not many people here have any real world experience with the tamron , it's a lens I have considered before but decided I would prefer the extra reach of my 24-120 especially as the iq on my copy was very good.

No idea if you've ever read this site http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/430/sort/7/cat/43/page/1 but I find it useful for gauging how people are getting on with lenses and what some of the pros and cons are in real world usage

Cheers mate.

For me the reach isn't an issue, and I I will buy a 70-200 for that (maybe also the Tamron 2.8). I've seen the site you linked before and I also think it's useful. These reviews about the Tamron sum up the hours of research I have done:

Ok the backward zoom is a bit awkward in the beginning, but this lens is :

-Almost equally sharp as the 24-70 2.8L II
-Is the only f2.8 lens that has VC, the 24-70 2.8LII has not!
-Half the price of the 24-70 2.8L II
-Way sharper wide open than the 24-70 2.8L MK I

This lens is absolutely wonderful. It is sharper than Canon's 24-70 2.8L V1, but not quite as sharp as Canon's 24-70 2.8L V2. Having said that, I have never felt my Tamron lens this lens lacking in sharpness in real world situations. This lens takes great photos. The zoom ring take a little getting used to, but it is worth it. This lens is near HALF the cost of Canon's latest, AND has VC.

The point is I am not satisfied with my 24-120, and I only bought it as a temporary kit lens in the first place, as I got it for around £510 with my D750. I have zero attachment to the lens, and will lose nothing by upgrading it to something I am happy with. Thje Tamron 24-70 also costs the equivalent of £653 in my local camera shop. Win win.

I think it is rather telling that there is not even an entry on this site for the Nikon 24-120 F4... http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showcat.php?cat=28&stype=1&si=&perpage=80&sort=7&cat=28&ppuser=

 

[JBuk]

I noticed there was no entry for the 24-120 , possibly just an oversight

buying one and seeing for yourself is the only real way to determine if it's the right lens for you, something I have done over and over until I've settled on my core kit and you can always sell it on if you aren't happy.

I'd still like a try with one just out of curiosity but i'll probably be selling all my gear soon as I'm using it less and less and need to fund other things.

 

[Richdog]

I noticed there was no entry for the 24-120 , possibly just an oversight

buying one and seeing for yourself is the only real way to determine if it's the right lens for you, something I have done over and over until I've settled on my core kit and you can always sell it on if you aren't happy.

I'd still like a try with one just out of curiosity but i'll probably be selling all my gear soon as I'm using it less and less and need to fund other things.

I agree. My plan is to buy the Tamron 24-70 on Friday and go out and about in the real world and test it side by side with the 24-120 on Saturday. I will test them both on a tripod at 24mm, 35mm, 50mm, 70mm and 120mm in increments from f2.8 to f22 (depending on individual lens capabilities obviously). Will be interesting to see the results.

Regarding the 24-120 not being on that site it's unlikely an oversight... if there was demand or requests for it then it would have been raised already in the years since it was released.

 

[D.P.]

Cheers mate.

For me the reach isn't an issue, and I I will buy a 70-200 for that (maybe also the Tamron 2.8). I've seen the site you linked before and I also think it's useful. These reviews about the Tamron sum up the hours of research I have done:





The point is I am not satisfied with my 24-120, and I only bought it as a temporary kit lens in the first place, as I got it for around £510 with my D750. I have zero attachment to the lens, and will lose nothing by upgrading it to something I am happy with. Thje Tamron 24-70 also costs the equivalent of £653 in my local camera shop. Win win.

I think it is rather telling that there is not even an entry on this site for the Nikon 24-120 F4... http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showcat.php?cat=28&stype=1&si=&perpage=80&sort=7&cat=28&ppuser=

Lol, you are seriously basing your decision on a lack of Fred Miranda reviews, for a Nikon lens no less?
You know what else is missing, reviews for the 70-20mm f/2.8 VR2, I guess that is also a terrible lens?

I can guarantee you that unless you print very big and stare at the edges you won't see a visible difference but you will not an extra stop and a much shorter 70mm. If you do then your 24-120 is faulty or backfocusing. The extra stop may be important to you and with that I fully agree but IQ isn't a good reason because the difference just isn't going to be visible unless you pixel peep the edges. The reviews make that very clear. Another point of view, the canon 24-105mm f/4.0 is very popular and the Nikon 24-120mm is optically very similar.

Personally, I see that there are 2 good sensible choices to make on FF:
1) 24-70mm f/2.8. This works nicely with the 14-24mm and 70-200mm f/2.8
2) 24-120mm f/4.0 AND several primes (Some set of Nikon 20mm f/1.8, 24mm f/1.4 , 35mm f1.8FX or sigma 35mm f/1.4, 50mm, 85mm, 135mm f/2.0). At th wide and long end the same f/2.8 lenses or th f/4.0 versions.

Now obviously nothing stops you combine 1 and 2, getting the primes and the f/2.8 zooms but in my opinion the attraction of f/2.8 zooms is that you can forgo other primes because f/2.8 is good enough and the idea of the f/4.0 lenses is to keep the size and weigh down.

I was originally a big fan of choice 1), just a simple set of 3 fast pro zooms, the holy trinity. But I think option 2 is actually more attractive and will be selling my 24-70mm and potentially 70-200mm f/2.8 to move in that direction. For me the extra reach of 120mm and a small lighter package is very attractive when combined with the ability to go to f/1.8 or f/1.4 when need be. When I want ultimate IQ, DoF control and light gathering I could use a set of primes, if I want convenience in a walkabout zoom lens then the f/4.0 zooms work out.

The f/2.8 lenses I see more and more as a compromise between IQ and a
Aperture vs size/weight, convenience, reach. As I said several times, plenty of people online have sold their Nikon 24-70mm for the 24-120mm f/4.0 because they didn't see a difference in IQ but appreciated the extra reach. And others appreciated the extra stop of the f/2.8 over the reach. I rarely see people complaining at the 24-120mm IQ, at least no more so than people complain at the Nikon 24-70mm IQ.


I'm not trying to persuade you not to buy the tamron, I'm just trying to warn you that there is a tradeoff to be made and IQ shouldn't be the deciding factor. Don't buy a lens thinking you will gain something you won't. The Tamron is a good lens and has benefits and drawbacks over the 24-120mm. Sounds like you are very excited about the tamron, so go ahead and buy it.

 

[Deific]

I own both the 24-70 and 70-200, and couldn't be happier. Fantastic lenses. However, the 70-200 is more like a 70-150.

 

[Richdog]

Lol, you are seriously basing your decision on a lack of Fred Miranda reviews, for a Nikon lens no less?

Yes D.P., I am "basing my decision" on something which I didn't even know until after I checked for that lens on the website. Sigh.

You know what else is missing, reviews for the 70-20mm f/2.8 VR2, I guess that is also a terrible lens?

I can guarantee you that unless you print very big and stare at the edges you won't see a visible difference but you will not an extra stop and a much shorter 70mm. If you do then your 24-120 is faulty or backfocusing. The extra stop may be important to you and with that I fully agree but IQ isn't a good reason because the difference just isn't going to be visible unless you pixel peep the edges. The reviews make that very clear. Another point of view, the canon 24-105mm f/4.0 is very popular and the Nikon 24-120mm is optically very similar.

Personally, I see that there are 2 good sensible choices to make on FF:
1) 24-70mm f/2.8. This works nicely with the 14-24mm and 70-200mm f/2.8
2) 24-120mm f/4.0 AND several primes (Some set of Nikon 20mm f/1.8, 24mm f/1.4 , 35mm f1.8FX or sigma 35mm f/1.4, 50mm, 85mm, 135mm f/2.0). At th wide and long end the same f/2.8 lenses or th f/4.0 versions.

Now obviously nothing stops you combine 1 and 2, getting the primes and the f/2.8 zooms but in my opinion the attraction of f/2.8 zooms is that you can forgo other primes because f/2.8 is good enough and the idea of the f/4.0 lenses is to keep the size and weigh down.

I was originally a big fan of choice 1), just a simple set of 3 fast pro zooms, the holy trinity. But I think option 2 is actually more attractive and will be selling my 24-70mm and potentially 70-200mm f/2.8 to move in that direction. For me the extra reach of 120mm and a small lighter package is very attractive when combined with the ability to go to f/1.8 or f/1.4 when need be. When I want ultimate IQ, DoF control and light gathering I could use a set of primes, if I want convenience in a walkabout zoom lens then the f/4.0 zooms work out.

The f/2.8 lenses I see more and more as a compromise between IQ and a
Aperture vs size/weight, convenience, reach. As I said several times, plenty of people online have sold their Nikon 24-70mm for the 24-120mm f/4.0 because they didn't see a difference in IQ but appreciated the extra reach. And others appreciated the extra stop of the f/2.8 over the reach. I rarely see people complaining at the 24-120mm IQ, at least no more so than people complain at the Nikon 24-70mm IQ.


I'm not trying to persuade you not to buy the tamron, I'm just trying to warn you that there is a tradeoff to be made and IQ shouldn't be the deciding factor. Don't buy a lens thinking you will gain something you won't. The Tamron is a good lens and has benefits and drawbacks over the 24-120mm. Sounds like you are very excited about the tamron, so go ahead and buy it.

I'm sure there were a couple of nuggets of non-waffle in there, but I genuinely couldn't bring myself to read it, after digesting your opening sentence. Forgive me if I don't respond from this point.

I own both the 24-70 and 70-200, and couldn't be happier. Fantastic lenses. However, the 70-200 is more like a 70-150.

Hi mate that's good to hear as I am interested in both of these lenses. Can you give me a summary of your thoughts on the 24-70, and what you use it for and its strengths and weaknesses? Cheers.