Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 Di VC G2 Lens

While it is true that the 24-120/4VR is soft wide open it is still better at 85-120 than cropping from a 24-70 to equal the same field of view. I consider the normal zoom the biggest compromise (compared to wide angle and tele zooms). I also do not like the 82 mm filter thread, albeit that is not a huge issue. That is why I ended up with the 24-120/4VR rather than its more expensive sibblings. Having said that, I have found myself using the 50 mm more lately, so yes I feel the 24-120/4VR is far from perfect.

The real point I was trying to make in my previous post was that optically, the Tamron G2 is right up there with the Nikkor 24-70E VR on the D810. I do not know if the D850 would reveal any discernible difference, but the 24 Mpix would definitely not.

70mm is certainly a little short (arguably unless you're also carrying a 70-200). My issue with the 24-120 f/4 is that I found it a little soft, and it's not significantly smaller. At some point I should look again at the 24-85VR; for now, I'll take the aperture and accept mild chubbiness.

Even with the 70-200 in the bag - too many lens changes when the main lens is restricted to 70mm. I tried the 16-35 and 70-200 route - but there's too much of a gap in between (that a 50 could fill though) and to me that only works with two cameras. So in the end I went back to a midrange zoom (24-105 in my case).

24-85VR - if you don't like the 24-120 then my suggestion would be to stay away from the 24-85. It is smaller and lighter though - but optically not as good as the 24-120.

There must be lens design reasons for the fact that there aren't 24-80/85 f/2.8 lenses and that the previously 80-200 range was extended to 70-200 to fit with the 24-70 range. I can see that for a pro the 24-70/70-200 works well but am wondering why there aren't f/4 zooms that, for example, were 20-50 and 50-200.

There must be lens design reasons for the fact that there aren't 24-80/85 f/2.8 lenses

Tamron managed a 28-105mm 2.8 AF...I gather it's very heavy....:cool:

gather it's very heavy.

Not really - 880g, 31.4oz. But it's 28mm and not 24. Given that there's nothing like it nowadays, I assume the optical quality wasn't all too convincing.

I suspect that this is out of my price range, but it is interesting to see an expensive, large aperture, lens that has enough vignetting that you don't want to use it wide open.

Today I managed to get out for a short shooting session on my usual daily walk. It was sunshine and 55 F with a few clouds - almost perfect shooting weather.

There is, indeed, vignetting at 24mm f/2.8. I can see it in the blue sky at the corners of the one image I shot at this setting. I do not find it objectionable (but that is me), it would be cropped out of any 8x10 print I would make, but in any case, in Lightroom check Enable Profile Corrections box in Lens Corrections in the Develop module... and poof it's gone. I do not see much, if any, vignetting at other settings, but then I have not run extensive tests, yet.

And I may never do so. I test first to be certain the lens if functioning correctly. Then I test to familiarize myself with lens - to determine what it can and cannot do.

So far so good, I like this lens. I think it will do what I want it to do.

Once again, my thanks to all those who posted here and helped me make the decision to purchase this lens.

Glad to help, bgelfand.

Dieter: I'm not expecting the 24-85 to be optically better than the 24-120, my argument for it is that sometimes I want a small, light lens for snapshots. I could live with the 24-120 if it were a bit cheaper and a lot smaller (the 24-85 is half the price, 2/3 the weight, 4/5 the length). So far not enough for me to jump. The 28-80 is another 15mm shorter and half the weight even of the 24-85, I just wish it didn't suck a bit optically. :-) I should probably give it another workout and see how frustrated I get.

Glad to help, bgelfand.

 

Dieter: I'm not expecting the 24-85 to be optically better than the 24-120, my argument for it is that sometimes I want a small, light lens for snapshots. I could live with the 24-120 if it were a bit cheaper and a lot smaller (the 24-85 is half the price, 2/3 the weight, 4/5 the length). So far not enough for me to jump. The 28-80 is another 15mm shorter and half the weight even of the 24-85, I just wish it didn't suck a bit optically. :) I should probably give it another workout and see how frustrated I get.

Smaller, lighter, cheaper, with good optics? Right out of a dream eh? ;)

I'm not expecting the 24-85 to be optically better than the 24-120

I expected it to be at par at least - but that wasn't to be.

my argument for it is that sometimes I want a small, light lens for snapshots

I've pretty much given up on that argument - too often was I willing to make the compromise only to wish later I had brought the better lens along.