Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8G ED: The dethronement of a King?

<p>I bought the tamron for my canon 5dmk3 (I used two systems) and i was quite impressed with the edge sharpness. However I returned the lens for a full refund because the autofocus failed me on the left most AF areas. Center is tack sharp. Right is also tack sharp, but left, it's terribly out of focus. (i dont have have any problems with any other canon lenses). I tried to fine tuning the left areas, but then center and right areas were out of focus. After several trips to authorized service center, they failed to fix it saying this lens is not yet calibrated for the new body like 5dmk3. They even gave me two other copies to be tested but same results.<br>

<br /> I also own and am still using nikon version with my d800e.<br>

<br /> Based on my own user-experience, tamron is much sharper than nikon at edge and at focal length of 40mm and above. Nikon @ focal length of 40mm and above is really weak. Especially at 70mm. Tamron outperforms nikon in every focal length wide open.<br>

<br /> I would definitely go for tamron if they already fix the left-focus issue. and the VC was really useful when I was shooting indoor lowlight. The only downside is tamron filter dia meter is 82 mm so i have to buy another set of filters form landscape work. But it;s only less than 10% of the time I use filters. So tamron is my number 1 choice (If they can resolve the issue).</p>

<p><em>"I'm not really interested in continuing a flame war, and this conversation is starting to become circular, but i think when you put such a sensationalist, inflammatory, and misleading title like that in a post, you're sort of asking for confrontation."</em><br>

Well "Game of Thrones" is one of my favourite TV series and maybe I was influenced about this "sensationalist, inflammatory, misleading" title as you describe it. <br>

Continue a flame war?... Asking for confrontation?...Honestly I don't know what to say... And since you keep ignoring what is been said here by the people who own, and have tried both lenses, as well considering DXO results extremely subjective, I suggest you do a web research yourself to see what other photographers ( in real-world results from actual field users, as you want them to be), who use both lenses, have to say...Here's a link from <a href="http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=430">fredmiranda</a> See how other Nikon and Canon users share their experience and what they have to say about it. <br>

It's not the "title" of the article that bothers you, unless you judge a book by its cover, but the fact that these people who did the test and the photographers who owned and tried both lenses MIGHT be right...That's my honest opinion.<br>

I own 2 Nikon cameras and 5 Nikon lenses, I never was and will be a Nikon fan-boy. I always acknowledge when something good comes from a third party manufacturer such as the Tokina 11-16, the new sigma 35mm, tamron 24-70 and most probably the new sigma 18-35 f/1.8, among others. <br>

My hat off to these people who make my choices better and better by the day. And most of all I will not tolerate any accusations of starting "flaming wars" and hints for "misleading" people.</p>

<p>sorry to bust your bubble panayotis, but look at the number of people who own the nikkor who are going to sell it and buy the tamron because of the DxO article. exactly. it is known.</p>

<p>Yes..the Tamron is 1 doxmark higher, it's lighter, shorter, smaller, has VC, cheaper, tiny tad sharper, but the nikkor looks better, feels better built, faster AF speed and perhaps have more consistent sharpness.<br>

I have never owned the Tamron, but I did played around with it and a couple of other tamron lenses, they dont feel very well built. The thing I like about the nikkor is the almost instant AF, that by itself is a keeper for me.<br>

If nikon is going to release a 24-70 VR some time in the future, my wallet is gonna hurt, that will be very pricy lens.</p>

<p>the thing is, most 24-70 owners are satisfied with the nikon version. it's not that i'm ignoring other's opinions, i just think they're subjective (which they are). as i've pointed out, the DxO mark test is a lab test, not a field test. DxO mark doesnt care about AF speed or sharpness wide open, which is how event photographers will be using this lens. if that's not you, then get the tamron.</p>

<p>but since you insisted, panayotis, i looked at the FM reviews and wasnt convinced that i should sell my copy. sorry. btw, most reviewers compared against the canon 24-70, which isnt very relevant to results vs. nikon. so i'm not sure why you would even reference this since these reviews are also not conclusive in favor of the tamron. no way am i going to order 2 copies of each lens and send back 3. that's obsessive-compulsive resulting on pathological behavior.</p>

<p>anyway, here's some excepts of the reviews panayotis thinks are so important for people to read:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>reviewer 1:<em> f11 is the only aperture that gives tolerable results at all focal lengths on the best Tamron... The Nikon does focus a little faster, especially in low light...</em><br>

reviewer 2: <em>Focusing is a tad slower vs the Nikon</em><br>

reviewer 3: <em> I had high hopes for this lens but my rental copy is not sharp on the right side of the image and it's quite obvious. For one of my test images I had a prominent figure on the right which really pointed out the flaw in this copy. Discounting what is hopefully a QC problem or poor treatment by another renter I would still find it hard to recommend this lens.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>uh, yeah. so anyway, as a current nikon 24-70 owner, the only reason i would consider the tamron is the lighter weight, although VC doesnt hurt (but not super-essential). however, if i was going to do that, i'd have to consider shaving even more weight with an m4/3 body and the panasonic 12-35.</p>

Tamron or nikon the same but

nikon better little bit ,because

of 24-70 mm the best lense ever

.if nikon or tamron

<p>Eric Arnold, I think you are slightly emotional and irrational in your comments!! It's actually quite amusing.</p>

<p>I don't think the title is provocative, it has a question mark at the end. To me that is just encouraging discussion...fair enough.</p>

<p>I got a little confused with your statement quote "however the nikon is sharper wide open at all focal lengths and apertures, as well as sharper at many other settings." What other settings and I don't understand what you mean by sharper wide open at all apertures. The whole sentence is a bit muddled. Also I'm not really sure where you are plucking your information from...the reviews don't seem to back your statement and you have never used the lens to test this yourself.</p>

<p>I have been using the Nikon version now since it was first introduced and really like it. But....I am about to order the Tamron. Why? The reviews are very positive and the vibration reduction is a godsend. From my limited handling of the Tamron, I definitely prefer the feel of the Nikon and it does seem a lot better built....a lot better!! Still after a long day of shooting, the VR function is such a boost when concentration levels are starting to fade.</p>

<p>Both have advantages and disadvantages, neither is perfect. Dethronement of a King? Dunno, but it is a great heading to start a discussion :-)</p>

<p><em>Gavin Lister wrote: I have been using the Nikon version now since it was first introduced and really like it. But....I am about to order the Tamron.</em><br>

Hi Gavin. Would appreciate your feedback on the Tamron since you purchased one. Thanks.</p>