Nikon 24-120mm vs. Tamron 24-135mm

Hello,

I'm debating which of these two lenses to purchase. I've heard

mixed reactions to the Nikkor and good to average reviews from

the Tamron. I'd like to hear your opinions on both of them. If you

know of a website that has pitted the two against one another, that

link would be great too.

Thanks in advance,

 

AM

Alan-

 

Having sold, handled and shot all three lenses you are describing, I would rank them as follows with 1. being best:

 

1. New Nikon 24-120mm GEDIFAFSVRASPH lens- love the VR, ED glass, S focusing, cool lens hood

 

2. Tamron 24-135mm lens- good value, LD glass, cool lens hood

 

2. Old Nikon 24-120mm AFD lens- no ED glass, slow focusing and a lens hood like a pie plate

 

Regards,

Both are very good.

 

I actually think that this is one of 2 lenses Tamron does better, the other being the 90/2.8-

 

If you can get them both in your hands, you may see why I don't mind the Tamron- extend the nikkor and tamron side by side and tap the lens tube- Tamrons clinks of metal, the nikkor is more space-age-plastic. Under heavy use I have seen examples of the nikkor get sticky(zoom + focus) in operation.

 

Optically both are good, but have different "character". Mixing Nikkors and Tamrons may give different renditions- esp. in reproducing the more subtle colors. May not matter in B/W, may not matter to one anyway! May mean everything.

 

The Nikkor is good- you about get what one expects of this lens.

The Tamron is good- It's shocking how well it compares, optically and construction-wise.

 

This isn't my kind of lens. Given the choice, Tamron for me.

Hi Alan,

 

I guess my first question would be what quality expectations you have for a zoom in

this range?

 

I had the Tamron 24-135 for about one year. It was a great "all" purpose lens, and I

bought it after reading good reviews of it, and the photog I was working with had

one. Shortly there after I started to notice flaws that bugged me. First, the focus ring

in my sample became increasing looser month by month (the other sample I tried had

the same problem). After a while manual focusing was extremely loose and

annoying.

 

Also, this lens is pretty soft with fall off at 24mm and soft 135. Acceptable at f5.6 at

24mm, and decent at f8 135mm. The hood is a cool design, but make sure you turn

it all the way on or prepare for vignettes! It's all in the eye of the beholder I guess.

 

I ended up selling the tamron and bought a nikkor's: 35-70 2.8D & 20-35 2.8D in it's

place. If you are shooting digital, the crop factor will elimate the soft corners of the

Tamron. ( I used it mainly on the wide end.)

 

I used the 24-120 VR a bit, and while it's not a zoom that I need, it definitely

outperforms the Tamron. After bad experiences with quality control of third party

lenses, I now stick to Nikkors only. The last thing I want to worry about is my

equipment. just a thought.

Thanks all, for the recomendations so far. I was leaning towards the Tamron and that seems to be confirmed here too. One other lens I just learned of is the Sigma 24-135mm (It takes 77mm filters, same as all my others). I think it's too new to have any reviews of just yet, I might wait a month to see.

I have tamron. I like the colors it produces and contrast it maintains even at wide apertures. The only issue- auto focus on n80 is terribly slow and noisy on indoor/low light conditions. I can tell you that, this kind of all lenses are going to be almost same as far as resolution goes (bit here and there) the only difference I would look for is other features like auto focus speed, build quality, VR or no VR, price/performance ratio etc. I did not have the choice of new Nikon VR lens when I got mine. I would probably go for Nikon now if I have that kind of money.

 

Good luck.

There is a brief discussion of the Sigma 24-135mm lens here (scroll down):

 

http://www.marcof.net/index.php?paged=2

 

Also, 77mm has pretty much become the "pro size" filter. I buy all my filters in 77mm and step to smaller thread size lenses as necessary.

I owned the Nikon 24-120mm (not the AF-S) for about a year and a half and used it mainly as a travel lense through asia. I was using it on an F801 and an FM-2 manual focussed. I have a bunch of primes, and most often would carry this lense together with a 50/1.8 or 85/1.4 as a two lense kit. The 50/1.8 is an ideal partner to it and lets you take advantage of low light situations.

 

I bought this lense mainly for its wide end, as there are *many* lenses competeing in the 28~xxx range that are quite good, and even more in the 35~xxx range. I have a nikon 20/2.8 which is probably one of my favourite lenses, and obviously the 24~120 is no comparison. if your thinking of it in those terms its definitely not the lense for you.

 

then what is it? its a reasonable lense. at both the short and the long end lenses like this are never that great. they suffer from slight (or if you're a perfectionist 'extreme, unbearable') barrel or pincushion distortion and in some cases a bit of falloff. Your friends wont notice. any friends that do are anal retentive and you should stop talking to them. This lense was not that good wide open (as to be expected) but got decent by f8 and excellent at f11. I loaded with 800 most often and ocassionally 400. The prints were more than acceptable. forget 100 speed films and slide.

 

it handled ok for what it cost which isnt much second hand. the focus throw was too short for accurate manual focus, but a bonus for AF users. the lense was too dark in most situations for split screen users too. the build quality was ordinary and plasticky and I hear a lot of stories of sample variation. mine was great for its intended purpose; horses for courses. throw it together with a 50/1.8 (can be had *new* for $90) and your set for everything.

 

I've tried the tamron too, its the same weight as the nikon, and a bit cheaper. wont hold its resale value which is nice if you can get one second hand. I didnt get a chance to shoot with it, but the zoom felt a lot more solid as did the barrel, the focus ring had more travel (nice for MF) and was nicely damped. I'd expect it to go downhill with use though. buying one of these second hand maybe with some dust in it for a bargain and spending $50 on a god rebuild/clean might be worthwhile. it isnt worthy of the 'SP' title. most of the second hand ones will be owned by hobbyists and be baby'd. they'll see only a little use.

 

I am once again starting a one year trip and will probably buy one of these two lenses again. I am also looking at the tamron 28~105 f2.8 fixed aperture. I've seen lots of prints from these and played with one, it was *nice*. it weighs half as much again as the other two lenses and was a bit bigger as well as costing a wedge more cash, but all that extra light! they look decent wide open too. will be keeping my eyes open for a second hand one, but being a pro lense any you find are bound to have actually been used.

"Eric Friedemann wrote:

 

 

Alan-

 

 

Having sold, handled and shot all three lenses you are describing, I would rank them

as follows with 1. being best:

 

 

1. New Nikon 24-120mm GEDIFAFSVRASPH lens- love the VR, ED glass, S focusing,

cool lens hood "

 

Eric, how about expanding those remarks a bit? Aside from the negative feedback

that I've read about this lens, the only samples I've seen from it have been online, and

those are hardly worthy of basing a decision on. Has the slow speed been an issue?

Has that speed left you wanting? My main concern has been it's supposed lack of

sharpness, is that justified?

 

As for the original question, I stay with Nikon lenses, period.

"Has the slow speed been an issue? Has that speed left you wanting?"

 

Understand that I don't own a 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6 GEDIFAFSVR lens. Speed isn't the issue for me, given that the lens has VR, which is swell, particularly at wide angle settings, for hand-holding in low light. I have two problems with all the slow, floating-aperture Nikon zooms which would be the same for the other lenses discussed:

 

1. If I'm shooting a wedding reception in a dark room, below f/2.8, the AF on all Nikon SLRs and DSLRs I've tried struggles to see the red illumination grid projected by Nikon flashes. So, I basically have to turn off the AF and guesstimate focus in one of the primary situations when I really need and want AF.

 

This is one of the reasons I spent the extra money on a 17-35mm f/2.8 Nikkor and- more particularly for event photography- the 28-70mm f/2.8 Nikkor. I can shoot 95% of the stuff I would shoot at a wedding with 35mm cameras with the 28-70mm f/2.8.

 

2. Particularly with zooms, I like to shoot in the sweet spot of a lens to squeeze all the sharpness I can out of a lens. With a fixed f/2.8 Nikkor zoom, that sweet spot is almost always f/5.6-8.0 (2-3 stops off of maximum aperture). With the 24-120mm, the sweet spot is f/5.6 and a half-8.0 and a half on the short end (not bad), but is f/11-16 on the long end- not a comfortable aperture when shooting 100 ISO film with a shoe-mount flash.

 

"My main concern has been it's supposed lack of sharpness, is that justified?"

 

No and yes, like the original 24-120mm Nikkor, the current 24-120mm Nikkor lens is amazing ... for a lens that goes from 24mm to 120mm. If you are going to make prints up to 8x12 and need a single lens to cover from very wide through most of the portrait range, the 24-120mm VR lens is swell. If, on the other hand, you regularly enlarge to 11x14 or larger and demand tack sharpness, you'd be better off with a less ambitious zoom in terms of focal length or fixed focal length lenses.

 

"As for the original question, I stay with Nikon lenses, period."

 

This viewpoint is a bit narrow. Understand that Tamron makes Nikon's current crop of 70-300mm lenses. Also understand that Tamron has been the pioneer in extreme wide-to-tele aspheric lenses.

 

I think Nikon has mostly caught up in the extreme wide-to-tele-aspheric-lens genre. And I would pay more for the Nikon to get the VR and the S focusing. However, there is something to be said for the Tamron 24-135mm retailing for $349 after rebate, while the 24-120mm VR Nikkor retails for for $570.

Thanks Eric, actually you pretty well firmed up what I already thought about this lens

that I have admittedly not used. Call me a speed freak, but that has never hurt me.

While this lens may be acceptable for some situations, as you know, there are lenses

that surpass it

in quality, if not in focal length range. See next.

 

"As for the original question, I stay with Nikon lenses, period."

 

That wasn't meant for you, but for the original poster. It's not that I have any problem

with your response, but now want to reply to your reply.

 

"This viewpoint is a bit narrow. "

 

Yes, it is narrow. But, it works well for me, and I'm not at all interested in the 70-

300, or extreme wide to tele lenses. When they go beyond 2-2 1/2 X, I get off the

boat due to distortion issues. I just don't hold out a lot of hope for a "one-lens-fits-

all" world. Like you, I prefer the fast Nikon zooms, and 3 lenses that cover everything

from 17mm to 200mm, that rival primes, are more in line with my thinking, if not in

harmony with my pocketbook. The 17-35 (rich man's 20-35), 28-70 (rich man's 35-

70), 80-200, along with a couple of fast primes like the 50mm and 85mm offerings,

are my preferred way to cover the field. Every time I read a topic like this it reminds

me of Al Feng and his famous 20-2000 f/22.4. The 24-120 is not that severe, but

neither is it as good as some other lenses, from what I've been able to gather. Maybe I

just find myself in dark places too often? I guess that one could get away with calling

it a "travel lens", if you only traveled in bright light. :o)

 

Am I too harsh? I don't care if some call me a lens snob, but I do want to be fair.

"Am I too harsh?"

 

No, and don't go into another thing about everybody's feelings like the other day. I read that thread and felt like I was watching "The View."

 

"I don't care if some call me a lens snob, but I do want to be fair."

 

You aren't snobby. At this point, Nikon makes a better lens than any third-party manufacturer in almost all configurations. By adding an internal motor "S focusing" to most of its newer zooms and VR to some, Nikon has added value to its zoom lenses that makes Nikon's higher price more reasonable.

"No, and don't go into another thing about everybody's feelings like the other day. I

read that thread and felt like I was watching "The View." "

 

I confess to not doing "touchy-feely" very well, I'm inexperienced at it. "The View"

huh? I'm more the Bill O'Reilly type.

 

 

However, I am a supporter of AFS, and that is even more important if you have a

D100 etc., due to slower AF abilities. Too bad I don't have any AFS lenses, but at

least my F100 will do a fair job with my non AFS stuff. I am wanting to go into a DSLR,

some of the D100's details leave me wanting, but I like the price. The D2H is of

course much more satisfying as a camera, but much less so as to price. As the frenzy

and and hype of my recent Nikon School classes wear down, and the monetary

realities begin to focus, I don't see any action toward a DSLR in my immediate future.

In any purchase decision, it will be restrcited to Nikon equipment. The quality of

Nikon equipment is what brought me to Nikon.

 

What other TV programs would you like me to emulate? :o)