Lens suggestions...

Pretty much been a life long die hard Nikon fan; still think they make the best equipment but they are starting to price me out of their market especially with the way third parties are encroaching on Nikon performance at 1/2 the price. I've got my old 80-200 AFS D2.8 scheduled for replacement and just limping along waiting until Sigma ever decides to release it's 70-200 Sport; almost pulled the trigger before Christmas on the Tamron when I learned about Sigma's impending arrival at some point hopefully in my lifetime. I've sent my Nikon back to Nikon service three times in about 8 years. I sent my 28-70 back last summer and as far as I can tell, even though they took my $400, it still has most of the same issues. Compounding the problem, Nikon tends to ignore email requests finally responding to my last email after the lens was returned. I only wanted an assessment of its condition vs investing the repair money toward a new lens.

[End rant} I need suggestions for a replacement for the Nikon 28-70. The thing is I don't use it that often but when I do, I burn through a lot of shots. As an amateur, I burned close to a thousand shots at a recent event I volunteer to photograph; most with the 28-70. I had a lot of missed shots due to inability to focus and loss of armature control. When I caught it, turning the camera off and on usually fixed it for a while. The 80-200 will sometimes not focus and I simply turn the manual focus ring with will usually start it. This is what I sent it in for originally but the thirty minute Nikon Warranty has expired. (OK, apparently I;m still ranting...) The 80-200 is generally my "go to" but in the close quarters of the event (Chinese NYE celebration with lots of colorful dress, lions, dragons, and fast paced Kung Fu action) it is usually too long for the performances. It works great for candids though... you don't know how many times I've fantasized about a Nikon f2.8 AFS 18-200. :)

Any idea what is current and who is planning upgrades soon? This will be mounted on a D800 with its unforgiving 36 meg CCD. Even though I'm doing some googling, I thought I would tap into the brain trust. :)

I bought the Tamron 28-75/2.8 when it first came out. It met my needs for affordability and I've had good luck with Tamron through the years. it has the right focal range for a lot of things and is fast enough at 2.8 for me. AF is quite good and it's been trouble free after 10 years. Good sharp lens. Last year I bought a 24-120 Nikkor G lens to go with a D4. It's not quite as fast but it's built like a tank and image quality has been quite good on anything from my D200's through the D800 and D4. I wouldn't go with something like an 18-200. It's convenient but I still think anything that goes from that wide to that long is giving up something in quality, too many design compromises. Others will disagree.

Rick H.

I looked at the Nikon 24-70 f/2.8 some years ago. Every sample I handled either had a 'graunchy' or sloppy zoom action. Not the feel I was expecting from a pro-quality expensive lens. I then searched online to find numerous complaints about seized zoom action on that lens.

Like Rick, I 'settled' for a 28-75 Tamron, while waiting for Nikon to update their 24-70. Gave up before it came out and bought the Tamron SP VC 24-70 Mki. No regrets.

IQ is completely satisfactory on a D800 and the VC is superb.

Every sample I handled either had a 'graunchy' or sloppy zoom action.

TIL "graunchy" is a word.

The spell checker here doesn't like the word graunchy, but any UK native English speaker will tell you it means - rough, grinding, crunchy, noisy, not smooth, etc. when referring to machinery.

Some unofficial online dictionaries have other meanings attached to it - revolting or even grumpy - they're wrong!

One for irony corner. The spell checker here doesn't even like the concatenation 'spellchecker'.

Does no one here shoot the Sigma 24-70mm F2.8 DG OS HSM A Nikon? Just out in 2017, it;'s getting some good reviews.

I've got to say that I got my mk1 Tamron for a relatively reasonable price, and before the Sigma came out. The G2 Tamron looks like it's actually more expensive than the Sigma, at least at the first place I checked. If I were buying again, I'd certainly be looking at it. (The mk1 24-70 certainly isn't perfect, but I survived many years without a fast mid-range zoom, so it's not at the top of my list for replacement - especially with the mk3 70-200 f/2.8 out there.)

Does no one here shoot the Sigma 24-70mm F2.8 DG OS HSM A Nikon? Just out in 2017, it;'s getting some good reviews.

I just went and tried one yesterday at my local camera shop. I tried it against my Nikon 24-85. It's heavy, seems to focus very fast and quietly, feels really solid. I only got to test it in their parking lot, so it wasn't a real world scenario. The files are clean, and colors good, there's a lot of distortion that LR easily corrected, and I didn't see any CA at all...literally none, I shot up into tree branches, the Nikon is purple all over but the Sigma is clean as a whistle. But as far as sharpness goes, it wasn't a huge improvement over the 24-85. Certain focal lengths it was worse, some were better. One of the Sigma files showed some nice fine details that the Nikon didn't, but overall I didn't feel like it hit it out of the park in terms of sharpness, particularly at 24mm. Right in the middle of the lenses they were pretty much the same. Again, not a completely scientific test. Maybe in the real world it would be a more consistent focuser, or offer more consistent results. I don't think I'm going to go back and buy it, it just wasn't enough better than what I have to justify the expense.

I've rented the current version Nikon 24-70 on a couple of occasions and it seems like it couldn't miss the focus, really consistent. But I didn't pixel peep for sharpness so I can't compare files. But using it offered no challenges, other than weight, it just worked like it was supposed to. I just can't afford that one. And buying that one used gives me pause because I think they're often really well used and then you end up with...ahem...graunchy zoom or focusing. ;)

I might see about renting the Tamron at some point, but I also think I might try some primes in this middle range and see if I'm happy that way. I've gotten spoiled by the ease of the mid-range zoom, but I feel I'm having a hard time getting exactly the consistency and quality from it that I did on my D700.

I feel I'm having a hard time getting exactly the consistency and quality from it that I did on my D700.

Yes, I found the same going to a D800E and now D810 (although I have some hopes for the D850 sensor). The D700's low resolution and strong low-pass filter meant it was extremely forgiving on lenses, which is why I got away with a 28-200 on it for so long. Now it's much harder to nail focus and lens aberrations are much more obvious, because the pixel-level detail is much stronger and there are so many more of them. Nikon did a wonderful job in making us all want to upgrade our glass - if only they'd had a completely solid lens set to upgrade to!

So, yeah... I haven't been all too pleased with Nikon myself, especially in the light of what's been coming out from 3rd-party makers.

One major thing that Tamron lenses have going for them is the direction of the zoom and focus rings, which matches Nikon's. For a manual-focus shooter (not myself), this should matter even more because of the arrows in the viewfinder. But this is just the icing on the cake. Underneath, the picture is not always so pretty (those damn puns)...

I have a Nikon D800, the latest Tamron 70-200 and the 24-70, so I thought I should say here a few things.

If you buy any of the latest Tamron's lenses prepare to also get their Tap-in console and spend a whole lot of time calibrating the focus. And even then I don't think that you will ever reach a point where you'll be completely happy, because the focus is also not very consistent, especially on the 24-70. It's not "way outta wack" but it feels like it could have been made with a little less play. BTW, I think that the D800 is partly to blame for this. Anyway, out of the box, the focus on both those lenses was optimized for infinity. For any close-up work you WILL need to do some calibrating and I seriously doubt that sending in any of those lenses for servicing will do you much good in that department.

I lucked out because I always focus via Live View, at least with those 2 lenses, so it's not an issue for me. With the 70-200 I shoot only stitched panoramas (on a tripod, naturally) and with the 24-70 I mostly shoot street views (handheld). In that kind of scenarios, focusing via LV will always get you more accurate and consistent focus than even the most accurately calibrated viewfinder focus. And trust me, out of the box - it is BAD.

To the other issue, which is the vignetting on the 24-70:

I don't know what those guys at Tamron were smoking but when I looked at the first test shots I had a "WTF" moment. It's seriously bad, man. Vignetting is something that each and every lens has, it's just light fall-off, it's physics. In this case, however, "vignetting" means: obstructed view / obscured corners due to bad design.

The hard data goes like this:

Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 Di VC USD G2:

No filter, some vignetting but passable: 24mm: F5; 35mm: F4; 50mm: F4; 70mm: F5.6

No filter, no obscured corners: 24mm:F8: 35mm; F5.6: 50mm: F5.6; 70mm: F8

Regular (not thin) 82mm filter, some vignetting but passable: 24mm: F8; 35mm: F6.3; 50mm: F4.5; 70mm:F5.6

Same filter, no obscured corners: 24mm: F11; 35mm: F8; 50mm: F5.6, 70mm: F8

I don't shoot at the wide apertures anyway, so to me it's not an issue at all . To anyone who does, it should be a major concern.

The VC, also isn't all-too-fantastic. I've got fairly steady hands but I'm no brain surgeon, with you it may be different but prepare to be shooting at the following lowest shutter speeds with your D800:

Good chance of full resolving power: 24mm: 1/60; 35mm: 1/125; 50mm: 1/125; 70mm: 1/160

Fair chance of full resolving power: 24mm: 1/50; 35mm: 1/60; 50mm: 1/60; 70mm: 1/90

Those are not scientific experiments by any means but rather just practical tests, bearing practical results. It is quite possible, of course, to get very crisp images at shutter speeds that are much lower, but, generally, they would be the exception, not the rule. When pressed for light, I often take a whole bunch of pictures and pick the sharpest one. I can do this because, usually, buildings aren't going anywhere, so for "people" photography, this won't work. The VC on the 70-200 is much better IMO. For example: at the same 70mm, in my tests I was able to always get tack-sharp pictures at 1/60 and have a fair chance at getting the same down to 1/30. So..... go figure. At any rate, there are special settings on the 24-70 for the VC that are only accessible via the USB console. For the 70-200 there are even more "hidden gems".

So, after all that, am I still glad I bought this lens? HELL YEAH! Why?

Because this:

Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 Di VC USD G2 Lens Image Quality

Take a gander at the 24-70 Tamron put up against the newest 24-70 Nikkor. Just hover the mouse above the picture to see the Nikkor and move it away to see the Tamron again. Feel free to change the apertures and focal lengths but trust me, the pictures will tell the same story.

Here's the 24-70 Tamron lined up against the "awesome" Nikkor 50/1.8D prime:

Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 Di VC USD G2 Lens Image Quality

Kinda makes you think, huh?

And as a bonus: here is the 70-200 Tamron compared to the 70-200 Nikkor FL:

Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 Di VC USD G2 Lens Image Quality

There's a whole bunch of other lenses that you can compare on this site and if you haven't heard about it: you're welcome!

Take care.

Does no one here shoot the Sigma 24-70mm F2.8 DG OS HSM A Nikon? Just out in 2017, it;'s getting some good reviews.

Yeah, man, as sharpness goes it's pretty close to the 24-70 Tamron. Take a look for yourself but read my previous post first.

Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 Di VC USD G2 Lens Image Quality

Check them both out at different focal lengths. I would pick the Tamron just for the fact that the zoom and focus rings rotate same as Nikon but you may have other priorities.

Thanks, David. Unfortunately some of the comparisons are a little awkward with the Tamron on a 5DsR and the Nikkor on a D810 - unless the Tamron is much better with lateral CA (and it might be), it looks like they may be showing corrected Canon images but uncorrected Nikon ones. Certainly something doesn't seem right with the 70-200 shots - their image of the Nikkor is visibly soft at the centre at f/2.8 and 200mm, and no review I've heard of has suggested that it should be. Nevertheless, interesting, and no doubt that Tamron are producing good glass. Nobody has really given the Nikkor 24-70s glowing reviews, so they're fairly low-hanging fruit.

Also, thanks for the heads-up with the Tap-in console - I have the Sigma dock, but hadn't realised Tamron had an equivalent (not that either my 90mm macro or 24-70 VC mk1 can use it). I wonder when Nikon will realise that on-camera AF fine tuning at more than a single point might be a good idea. Unfortunately, the Tamron solution seems to have the same problem that the Sigma does: to tell whether the AF tuning has worked, you need to have the lens on a camera - and you need to take the lens off again to adjust it. Fortunately I've only done this with fairly small lenses, but if I was using a tripod collar as well (as with the Sigma 120-300) this would be extremely painful. I really wish the third-party manufacturers had just put a (covered) USB port on the lens itself so you could tune it while it's mounted.

Thanks, David. Unfortunately some of the comparisons are a little awkward with the Tamron on a 5DsR and the Nikkor on a D810 - unless the Tamron is much better with lateral CA (and it might be), it looks like they may be showing corrected Canon images but uncorrected Nikon ones. Certainly something doesn't seem right with the 70-200 shots - their image of the Nikkor is visibly soft at the centre at f/2.8 and 200mm, and no review I've heard of has suggested that it should be. Nevertheless, interesting, and no doubt that Tamron are producing good glass. Nobody has really given the Nikkor 24-70s glowing reviews, so they're fairly low-hanging fruit.

 

Also, thanks for the heads-up with the Tap-in console - I have the Sigma dock, but hadn't realised Tamron had an equivalent (not that either my 90mm macro or 24-70 VC mk1 can use it). I wonder when Nikon will realise that on-camera AF fine tuning at more than a single point might be a good idea. Unfortunately, the Tamron solution seems to have the same problem that the Sigma does: to tell whether the AF tuning has worked, you need to have the lens on a camera - and you need to take the lens off again to adjust it. Fortunately I've only done this with fairly small lenses, but if I was using a tripod collar as well (as with the Sigma 120-300) this would be extremely painful. I really wish the third-party manufacturers had just put a (covered) USB port on the lens itself so you could tune it while it's mounted.

Bryan is all about Canon. All the Sigmas and Tamrons he tests with the Canon bodies For the Nikkors he's just got no choice but to break out a D810 or something along those lines. So, to be fair, comparing Tamrons and Sigmas, for instance, would be more scientifically sound but, at any rate, whatever you compared on there, you should get a pretty good idea of where you're standing with regards to image sharpness.

Brayan's got a detailed process of how he shoots and processes his tests. I remember reading it a long time ago and going: Yep, that's the way I'd do it myself. I doubt any post-corrections are involved. So, the softness you're seeing with the Nikkor 70-200 at F2.8 is due to the fact that it sucks wide-open at 200mm, as does the Tamron. They pretty much, all do. The only ~200mm zooms that do not suck wide-open are the cine, $$$,$$$ kind. I personally don't care about any of that and even if I was given a 200mm lens that was tack-sharp wide-open (for free) I would still stop it down to at least F8. Shooting my panoramas I almost always require the DOF and I just can't have the kind of vignetting that you normally get with wide apertures. I do use custom made flat-fields to deal with it but the less vignetting I have to begin with - the better off I am with regards to stitching.

You want to see something "soft" at wide-open? Well, take a look at this:

Nikon 50mm f/1.8D AF Nikkor Lens Image Quality

I can attest that I got the same sh** when I tested this lens myself, which was a long time ago... Kinda puts the 70-200 Nikkor's "softness" into perspective.

I just had to... Here's the 50/1.8D up against a Zeiss Otus, at F/1.4 too:

Nikon 50mm f/1.8D AF Nikkor Lens Image Quality

Life's not fair....

There's a whole bunch of other lenses that you can compare on this site and if you haven't heard about it: you're welcome!

Thank you for the link.

Thank you for the link.

Enjoy. This site has all already saved me personally $$$$ by keeping me from buying some real sh**.

Wide open, the 50mm f/1.8 AF-D is awful, I agree (it is decent stopped down, if sharpness is what you want). I have one, and used it on my D800E when I was trying to tell whether it had the AF alignment issue. It was so terrible off-centre at wide apertures (which is how you're supposed to test) that I couldn't tell, and immediately bought the 50mm f/1.8 AF-S - which is only fairly awful wide open. I since acquired the Sigma Art 50mm, which is actually usable at these apertures (and exceptional by f/2). Of course, it's huge and costs vastly more than the AF-D f/1.8.

Off-centre, I'd believe some oddities from the 70-200 E lens, but everything I've heard in other reviews suggests that, at least in the centre of the frame, it should be behaving better than the crop suggests, wide open. Which is why I wondered whether there might be a problem with their sample, or if focus wasn't hitting - it seems fine at 135mm. Maybe I'm imagining things; allegedly the mk2 70-200 which I have has problems at 135mm, but the E-lens is supposed to be better throughout the range. I'm less surprised by the colour fringing; sharpness aside, there's a lot more CA on the Nikkor samples, and I'm not particularly aware of it being less there on the third-party lenses I've used on my Nikon. I've not used the specific lenses being compared here, but I know Canon has some CA processing, and wondered whether the Nikon and Canon examples might be going through some different paths. I usually use DxO for raw conversion anyway, which is pretty good at getting rid of lateral CA (though the presence of any will necessarily introduce some softness). No big deal, it just seems odd.

I do have the 200 f/2 (although the previous version, with a bit more flare), so I can at least claim some ways to get decent 200mm performance - although its MTF curve isn't as impressive as the actual results tend to be.

Wide open, the 50mm f/1.8 AF-D is awful, I agree (it is decent stopped down, if sharpness is what you want). I have one, and used it on my D800E when I was trying to tell whether it had the AF alignment issue. It was so terrible off-centre at wide apertures (which is how you're supposed to test) that I couldn't tell, and immediately bought the 50mm f/1.8 AF-S - which is only fairly awful wide open. I since acquired the Sigma Art 50mm, which is actually usable at these apertures (and exceptional by f/2). Of course, it's huge and costs vastly more than the AF-D f/1.8.

 

Off-centre, I'd believe some oddities from the 70-200 E lens, but everything I've heard in other reviews suggests that, at least in the centre of the frame, it should be behaving better than the crop suggests, wide open. Which is why I wondered whether there might be a problem with their sample, or if focus wasn't hitting - it seems fine at 135mm. Maybe I'm imagining things; allegedly the mk2 70-200 which I have has problems at 135mm, but the E-lens is supposed to be better throughout the range. I'm less surprised by the colour fringing; sharpness aside, there's a lot more CA on the Nikkor samples, and I'm not particularly aware of it being less there on the third-party lenses I've used on my Nikon. I've not used the specific lenses being compared here, but I know Canon has some CA processing, and wondered whether the Nikon and Canon examples might be going through some different paths. I usually use DxO for raw conversion anyway, which is pretty good at getting rid of lateral CA (though the presence of any will necessarily introduce some softness). No big deal, it just seems odd.

 

I do have the 200 f/2 (although the previous version, with a bit more flare), so I can at least claim some ways to get decent 200mm performance - although its MTF curve isn't as impressive as the actual results tend to be.

The signal from the Canon lenses may be processed differently from what gets out of the Nikon bodies. That should be of no concern when comparing between similar Sigma and Tamron glass and also when deciding between two Nikkor lenses, for example. There has to be a judgement call on the user's part somewhere but this site has put a lot of stuff into perspective for me. Having said that, image sharpness is where it all begins yet it is only the beginning. Overall picture quality goes far beyond the resolving power of the glass. Also, the properties and function/functionality of the lens are a considerable part of the equation. Throw in the cost and you've got yourself a hell of a decision to make. Even if money is no object, there are only so many lenses that you carry with you. But I'll just go ahead and say it: Nikkor glass is over-rated. It used to be way the hell up there but not anymore, not for a long time. IMO Nikon should stop producing glass altogether and concentrate on the awesome camera bodies. The train has left a long time ago and they got stuck behind at the station with their d***s in their hands. A Nikon shooter of 18+ years I feel betrayed, especially given those price tags... Anyone's entitled to their own, different opinion about which I would not care all that much.

I'd agree with you to an extent, David. While I will check again against the latest Tamron and Sigma competition, Nikon's latest 70-200 has received glowing reviews everywhere else I've seen it, which is why this particular result surprised me (though I'll certainly take it into account). The 105mm f/1.4 also has good reports, although at a high price; I'm waiting to see what the Sigma equivalent can do, although I'm more of an 85mm/135mm pair person. The big supertelephotos have no third-party equivalent (except the 500 f/4 Sigma), and - at least in the latest iteration - have given people little to complain about. I'm looking forward to seeing whether Sigma's 14-24 is any better behaved than my Nikkor.

Nikon have taken a long time to produce modern updates to some of their popular primes (notably the 35mm, 50mm and 85mm lenses), and their 24-70 doesn't seem to have been the step forward that the rest of the market wanted. Nikon have been caught partly by filling out their f/1.8 range (which is welcome) and the wide angles, by for some reason producing yet more variants of the 18-xxx DX zoom, and by earthquake problems. Sigma especially have the advantage that they can sink R&D costs into all the platforms, which gives them the ability to update their line faster. We have to assume that Nikon are also designing some mirrorless lenses and that this has caused some distraction, but there's no doubt that they're not rolling out new lenses at the rate one might feel they need to in order to stay competitive. There are certainly arguments about whether what Sigma produces is really what people want (there have been discussions here about the behaviour in the transition zone around the focal plane, and the mechanical vignetting of the bokeh at the edges of the frame is unfortunate), so there's still a market there. Others are happy enough to buy cheap, used Nikkors and not worry too much about absolute optical quality.

That said, while at least some lens design software seems to be preposterously priced (I've not done enough research to find what freeware is on the market, but it's a tempting toy project), it feels as though lens design ought to be a relatively automatable problem these days. We no longer need somebody to sit down with graph paper and a slide rule. It takes a while to ramp up production, but pushing out several new products per year ought to be a lot easier than it used to be. I still quite like the idea of someone offering a bespoke, possibly manual focus, lens manufacture process - you provide the formula (within their limits) and they'll grind and assemble it for you. There are enough third-party manufacturers now (Thom Hogan has just updated his mirrorless list) that it's really showing up Nikon's production rate.

I find the digital picture com’s tests poorly done, it is obvious the shots with some Nikon lenses are not correctly focused.

With regards to Nikon 24-70 G and E, the former is perhaps sharper in the center at close distances whereas the new version has much flatter field and more even sharpness across the frame, and is better at distance. The new version also has better build quality and smooth zoom action. Other improvements include less out of focus CA, nicer bokeh, better color and contrast, VR etc. I really like it a lot.

Lensrentals seem to like the Nikon 24-70 E, noting its better corner sharpness compared to rivals.

I think the problem is that people don’t understand that lens design is a compromise and you cannot expect improvement in one area not to cause some losses elsewhere. Personally I think people pay too much attention to MTF tests and too little to how the images actually look to the human eye.

I'd agree with you to an extent, David. While I will check again against the latest Tamron and Sigma competition, Nikon's latest 70-200 has received glowing reviews everywhere else I've seen it, which is why this particular result surprised me (though I'll certainly take it into account). The 105mm f/1.4 also has good reports, although at a high price; I'm waiting to see what the Sigma equivalent can do, although I'm more of an 85mm/135mm pair person. The big supertelephotos have no third-party equivalent (except the 500 f/4 Sigma), and - at least in the latest iteration - have given people little to complain about. I'm looking forward to seeing whether Sigma's 14-24 is any better behaved than my Nikkor.

Yep, those 600/4 Nikonians are pretty much stuck with what they've got, so what good would it do to complain? Hmmm.. I wonder who made it so that Canon bodies can accept Nikkor glass (with an adapter) but not the other way around...

Nikon are busy with all those exciting mirrorless projects and I say: Great! Mirrorless is the future, after all... They should free up the resources they've got tied up trying to push out all that new, mediocre glass which nowadays is hardly up to par with the Sigmas, Tamron's and probably others. They've got a loyal following and that is the only thing that they have going for them. They cannot compete with the prices of the lenses from their competitors, and, now, increasingly more often, not even with the image quality. Their vintage glass has some appeal for portraiture or other amateur use but it has no place with the big boys of today. The more simple, low-count element lenses may have great tonal rendition but they fall way short when it comes to image sharpness, especially closer to the corners. Moreover, the old designs do not account for the fact that the image plane is now actually a CMOS sensor which is much more reflective than the emulsion side of film. There are no appropriate coatings in place on the rear elements, which often leads to severe ghosting in certain situation and/or an overall loss of contrast. ANY "vintage" glass may be appealing to the amateurish hipster-wannabes but put it in a tough lighting situation and it's got nothing on the contemporary designs and quality. So, if what you do with your Nikon is taking photos of your kid - get yourself an old, beat-up 80's Nikkor for 20 bucks and go yap about the bokeh on facebook.

But maybe Nikon WILL pick up the slack, so, I might not write them off just yet. However, I'm not holding my breath for their update of the old primes. Plus, I think that zooms are in a much higher demand today, mostly because they've just gotten so good. Mediocre sharpness of the older zooms aside, I remember the times when having a constant f/2.8 aperture was something to brag about. Today it is the norm.

*As a side note: I don't read any reviews until I see the pictures for myself, the kind that can really tell me A LOT about the actual picture quality.