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

<p>I was reading an article of DXO comparison of the Tamron SP 24-70mm f/2.8 Di VC USD vs the above mentioned Nikon lens, one of Nikon's Holy Trinity lenses.<br /> <a href="http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Publications/DxOMark-Reviews/Tamron-SP-24-70mm-f-2.8-Di-VC-USD-Nikon-review-An-affordable-fast-standard-zoom-that-comes-out-on-top">http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Publications/DxOMark-Reviews/Tamron-SP-24-70mm-f-2.8-Di-VC-USD-Nikon-review-An-affordable-fast-standard-zoom-that-comes-out-on-top</a><br /> I am not an FX shooter (D300s & D7000 owner), therefore I have very little experience with the Nikon lens and no experience with the Tamron candidate. But it really came to my surprise reading that Tamron, even with a very subtle difference produces sharper images and has low level of Chromatic Aberration, much better CA than the corresponding Nikon lens. I thought that even if Tamron could equal the Nikon, it would be a great success for them. But finding out that not only equals the Nikon but it performs slightly better as far as sharpness and chromatic aberration is concerned and at almost half of the price plus VC, then someone must wonder if the Nikon lens found a very serious competitor that claims the throne...<br /> In real life, has anyone of you who tried out both lenses agrees with the DXO results? What are your experiences or thoughts...Cheers!</p>

<p>Its a lot more than half the price where I come from, just over $400 cheaper. I wonder how the warranty compares to Nikon's 5 years.</p>

<p>I haven't used the Tamron lens, but I find it extremely hard to find any straightforward correlation between DXO lens scores and real-world image quality as perceived by human observers who are experienced in evaluating lens quality. I've used <em>many</em> lenses and I find no such relationship between my experiences and DXO lens ratings - in fact I'm at a loss trying to understand them.</p>

<p>I would look at e.g. photozone.de, or those by individual, experienced photographers, if you want lens tests that actually mean something and are easy to understand.</p>

<p>Phil, I know that there are differences in pricing around the world, but it's true that the Tamron lens is substantially cheaper than Nikon's 24-70 f/2.8G ED.<br /> Ilkka, I have also gone through the Photozone.de review of the Tamron (Nikon mount). More or less they say the same things. Here's their <a href="http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/789-tamron2470f28fx?start=2">Verdict</a></p>

<p>Holy Trinity... a King. Please. It's a lens. A very good lens.<br>

There is no fight for the throne. Tamron launches a good alternative, great. But lets not forget, the Nikon has a proven trackrecord with many, many professional users that depend on the 24-70 to put food on the table - and clearly, the Nikon can do that. So, honestly, even if the Tamron squeezes out that tiny bit more of resolution, if my income would depends on it, I'd cough up the difference and get the Nikon (which on all accounts is known to AF reliably and fast, plus takes the same 77mm filters as those other pro-grade Nikkors).<br>

And some others might choose the Tamron because of that optical performance for less money.</p>

<p>Choice, it's a great thing. We do not need winners or kings on the throne. We need more great choices like this.</p>

<p>I own and shoot with both the Nikon and Tamron 24-70 lenses. My experience is that on a tripod I prefer the Nikon because the edges of the images seem a little better in terms of sharpness and edge darkening. But given event shooting like weddings, etc., or just walking around, I grab the Tamron every time for its VC. I come back with way more keepers in low light then I ever could with the Nikon. I did not think the difference would be that dramatic when I first bought it 8 months ago ( because the Nikon was 6 weeks in Nikon Repair), but the more I shot with it the more I liked the results.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I own and shoot with both the Nikon and Tamron 24-70 lenses. My experience is that on a tripod I prefer the Nikon because the edges of the images seem a little better in terms of sharpness and edge darkening. But given event shooting like weddings, etc., or just walking around, I grab the Tamron every time for its VC. I come back with way more keepers in low light then I ever could with the Nikon. I did not think the difference would be that dramatic when I first bought it 8 months ago ( because the Nikon was 6 weeks in Nikon Repair), but the more I shot with it the more I liked the results.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That to me sounds spot on to what I would expect based on the photozone review. The Tamron's weak points are with vignetting and corner sharpness but it has VC/VR which translates into more keepers when camera movement comes into play.</p>

<p><br /> Personally I'm thrilled that other manufacturers are producing lenses which can be considered viable alternatives and don't trade off performance for price. It can only benefit us, the users.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I grab the Tamron every time for its VC. I come back with way more keepers in low light then I ever could with the Nikon.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That should very much be expected.</p>

<p>Last year, I was having lunch with my wife at a restaurant, and I took similar images indoors with my 85mm/f1.4 around f4 and my 24-120mm/f4 AF-S VR also around 85mm. Hand held images captured with the 24-120 are by far superior precisely due to VR, as some camera shake/motion blur is noticeable from the 85mm/f1.4 images.</p>

<p>Tamron, Tokina and Sigma are all capable of doing good optics. What they don't do so well is lens construction. Nikon "pro" level lenses will last you 20, 30 years. The others won't. Hence the price difference. </p>

<p>J Sevigny: I don't have any experience with Tamron and Tokina lenses, but I can tell you that if you were to pick up, handle, and shoot with Sigma's new 35/1.4 you reconsider your take on lens construction being unique to Nikon. I say this as someone who owns <em>some</em> Nikon lenses specifically for the construction quality - but the competition is getting very, very good. Better, even, in some specific cases.</p>

<p>Matt Laur is right on. The new Sigma 35mm/f1.4 has great construction quality; so does Nikon's 24-70mm/f2.8 AF-S.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I have also gone through the Photozone.de review of the Tamron (Nikon mount). More or less they say the same things.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>um, no. comparing the photozone review of both lenses on FX, the <a href="http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/456-nikkor_afs_2470_28_ff?start=1">nikon</a> clearly outresolves the <a href="http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/789-tamron2470f28fx?start=1">tamron</a> in most parameters.</p>

<p>the tamron tops out at <strong>3595</strong> lines in the center at 2.8 and 24mm, which falls to <strong>3217 </strong>at 70mm. the nikon is at <strong>3723</strong> at 2.8/24mm and <strong>3519</strong> at 70mm -- <em>more than 300 lines more</em>, which is significant. the tamron's peak resolution is reached at 70mm and 5.6, where it scores <strong>3797</strong> on Imatest (edging out the nikon at the same settings but not by as much as the nikon beats the tamron wide open). the nikon's peak resolution is at 24mm and f/4, where it scores <strong>3988</strong>. so while the tamron appears to be an excellent, sharp lens, and one with the added boost of VC, for event shooters, the nikon beats the tamron by being sharper at more commonly used apertures for that type of application, i.e. 2.8 and f/4.</p>

<p>if you shoot at 2.8 a lot--which i do--the nikon is clearly superior. if you're going to stop the lens down to 5.6 most of the time, there's no real benefit to getting the nikon, except build quality. but i rarely shoot events at 5.6. and of course VC doesnt help with freezing subject motion.</p>

<p>the king is dead? nonsense. long live the King!</p>

<p>My Tokina 12-24 f/4 was every bit as rugged and well built as Nikon, as is the new 11-16 f/2.8 I traded to. I also have the Tamron 17-50 VC, Sigma 50-150 f/2.8 OS, Tamron 60mm f/2 Macro, and just traded in a Sigma 120-400 for a Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 OS and 1.4x teleconverter. Obviously I don't hold at all that only Nikon is the best, these lenses are top notch and solid as can be. I'm a pro using two D300s bodies, get paid for my work and have no qualms what-so-ever using third party lenses. I too get far more keepers with VC, OS than without. I actually traded in my original Sigma 50-150 for the new one with optical stabilization (OS).</p>

<p>The construction of the newer pro line Sigmas seems excellent. I haven't had any Tamron lenses recently so I can't comment on those.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p>I sold my Nikkor 24-70mm a few months after purchased the Tamron 24-70mm. My assessment:<br>

IQ: They are so close in practical terms for event, portrait and landscape photography, Unless you are splitting hair which puts the Nikkor a bit ahead of the Tamron.<br>

VC/VR on Tamron: Makes a real difference.<br>

Construction quality: Nikkor looks better.<br>

Price difference: I don't care.</p>

<p>I have read many times comparison between Nikkors and third party lenses. For sure some 3rd party ones could be better in terms of optical quality... but I never have prefered any of them.</p>

<p>That`s true that my last 3rd party one happened years ago... Maybe current Tamrons, Sigmas and Tokinas are as good as Nikkors? In that times, I used to read the very same thing... The new xx is better than the Nikon pro lens!... and after a couple of shots, I used to find that they were very good lenses, but also really behind the Nikon counterpart.</p>

<p>Personally it`s not only resolution, or "good looking", but a "compendium" of many parameters like color, AF, lens design, construction quality, durability, handling, etc., etc., etc. There are many things, -many of them aren`t even mentioned in most reviews-.</p>

<p>I remember when Sigma attempted it then with the "EX" series (after using it I`d have called them "yellow" series), now again with the "Art" series (which really looks something different, and reputable people says it is something really good). The 35/1.4 calls my attention a lot (but from what I have seen, it is still stucked to the "yellow taste"... ).</p>

<p>I don`t want to be rude, and I haven`t used the mentioned Tamron, but from what I see in the brochure photos, it is just <em>another one</em> with a "classic" cheap design and construction. From my point of view, at least the 24-70 design is still <em>far ahead</em> of it.</p>

<p><em>the king is dead? nonsense. long live the King!</em><br>

hehe! Eric, your knowledge and experience is appreciated, but honestly If I was an event shooter (weddings, concerts....), I would, anytime, pick the Tamron over the Nikon due to VC mainly. As other said: More keepers, and sometime that's crucial especially if you're getting paid to do this. If you're using a tripod, that's another story. But most of these things are done handheld. That's my humble opinion. I consider Nikon 24-70 a super fine lens. But when a new kid is around the neighborhood, I have my eyes and ears open. And this time this "kid" seems to have all what it takes not only to stand on his feet, but also prevail, (or to be more useful and effective), in some cases. Take care!<br>

By the way and in order to refer to "build quality", Matt mentioned, and gave an example, of the fact that third party lenses are getting more and more better constructed day by day. That's good for us the consumers. I know that's hard for some who are used to wear Nikon's hat, vest and glasses, but that's the way it goes. Hopefully we will see pretty soon how Nikon will react and if they are going to add VR to their 24-70 lens. Nice talking with you all!</p>

<p>Not a comment for or against as they both sound like they take comparable images, just a question, when selling the used Nikon lens, opposed to the used Tamron, both a year old and in "like new" condition, which one will fetch the highest bid in comparison to the new cost.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I would, anytime, pick the Tamron over the Nikon due to VC mainly. As other said: More keepers, and sometime that's crucial especially if you're getting paid to do this.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>idk, i shoot paid events all the time and havent needed stabilization, mainly because i need higher shutter speeds than stabilization can impact, usually. also, stabilization mainly works for still subjects, not moving targets. the other thing as i pointed out is that 2.8-f/4 are the most-used apertures in my experience for the 24-70. so critical sharpness edge at these f-stops can make a difference. those are real-world conclusions, not test lab statements.</p>

<p>i do have stabilization for my DX body with the sigma 17-50 OS, but honestly that only comes into play for me when shooting still lifes. and i have several tamron, tokina and sigma lenses as well as pro nikons. i did buy the tamron 70-300 VC over the nikon version, and used to have the 17-50/2.8, which was my go-to lens for 3 1/2 years. i still have the 28-75/2.8 as well (which i find is almost as good as the 24-70 nikon, but much more compact). so no brand bias, just an objective view.</p>

<p>the tamron 24-70 wasnt out when i bought the 24-70. not sure if i would have gone that route if it had, but i certainly dont regret getting the nikon, which is a lens that just performs and i dont even really have to think about it. besides IQ and AF speed, the build quality is top-notch. so it works for me.</p>

<p>for others, the tamron might be a better option. that's perfectly ok. but i think it's silly to try to declare the tamron a "better" lens which is clearly a subjective POV not entirely backed up by test results at all. the findings depend on the criteria, but the truth seems to be that they are very close in performance, however the nikon is sharper wide open at all focal lengths and apertures, as well as sharper at many other settings.</p>

<div></div>

<p>Eric, nobody said that the Tamron is "better" than the Nikon. I said that I have read that Tamron is better in some cases (links to DXO tests are given earlier), and when it comes to Price/Performance ratio, Tamron gets a significant advantage. <br /> In short here are DXO and Photozone.de verdicts:<br /> "A <strong>DxOMark</strong> Overall Score of 29 <strong>ranks the Tamron 1st for image quality on professional standard zooms</strong>, just pushing the own brand Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8G AD into second with 28 points, and is well ahead of the Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 IF EX DG HSM with 23.<br /> <strong>The Tamron offers better sharpness overall</strong>, scoring 17 P-Mpix, compared to 15 P-Mpix for the Nikon, <strong>good performance at f/2.8 and boasts significantly better chromatic aberration results, too.</strong><br /> What’s more with a $1299 price tag it’s a whooping $600 cheaper than the own brand alternative making it superb value for money for Nikon shooters."</p>

<p>Photozone.de<br /> "The Tamron AF 24-70mm f/2.8 SP Di USD VC is not a perfect lens - none really are - <strong>but regarding the sum of its qualities it is a worthy competitor for Nikon's AF-S 24-70mm f/2.8 lens. In any case it is very hard to beat from a price perspective"</strong><br /> Also our PN member<strong> <a href="/photodb/user?user_id=6105810">James Scholz</a>, who owns and shoots with both lenses</strong> wrote<strong>:</strong><br /> "My experience is that on a tripod I prefer the Nikon because the edges of the images seem a little better in terms of sharpness and edge darkening. <strong> But given event shooting like weddings, etc., or just walking around, I grab the Tamron every time for its VC. I come back with way more keepers in low light then I ever could with the Nikon. I did not think the difference would be that dramatic when I first bought it 8 months ago."</strong><br /> I tend to believe these guys who had in their hands both lenses and did some real life tests. If for some reason your technique allows you to neglect VC and your customers are happy with the results, who cares of what I believe...I have a friend who "dumped" the D700 & Nikon 24-70 combo and moved to A99 with the Zeiss 24-70 and he's happier than ever. He shoots indoor events, mainly concerts. You know why?...because that combo works better for him.<br /> But at least he tried both combinations. That's a key factor for someone to decide what's "best" (for him). Have a very good night, it's really late in Athens. See you!</p>

<p> </p>

After several years of robust, reliable service, the King now provides impressive edge to edge sharpness on the D800/E.

 

I do have a few quibbles. Size and weight are significant, but perhaps that's necessary for fast, robust performance. Minimum focusing

distance is long in comparison with Canon's 24-105 f/4. And of course the latter has stabilization and a longer range, albeit at the expense of speed and distortion.

 

As much as I enjoy VR/IS/stabilizatiom, I tend to use fast shutter speeds when hand holding the D800/E. For slower shooting, a tripod is critical anyway.

 

I'm extremely pleased with the King's performance. Unless I need macro capability or extended zoom capability, it's the perfect midrange zoom. And did I mention how amazing those D800E files look when captured with this lens? Wow!

<blockquote>

<p>Eric, nobody said that the Tamron is "better" than the Nikon.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well, a description such as "The dethronement of a King?" in the title, even as a question, clearly carries that kind of suggestion.</p>

<p>The 24-70mm/f2.8 AF-S is the only Nikon constant f2.8 zoom that I have never owned, mainly because I already have the very good 28-70mm/f2.8 AF-S and I also prefer the longer zoom range from the 24-120mm/f4 AF-S with VR, but I have used at least 6 or 7 different 24-70mm/f2.8 AF-S on loan from Nikon or from friends. It is clearly an excellent lens.</p>

<p>Having VR on that kind of lens can make a somewhat important difference for indoor work. In these days certain 3rd-party lenses are also excellent, such as the Sigma 35mm/f1.4 I tested last month. However, I for one wouldn't put too much weight on those measurement and numbers from review web sites. If I use a lens and it can help me generate great images, and it is at least somewhat robust so that it can hold up over time, it is fine for me.</p>

<p>Nice to hear very satisfied users of the King. They should be with that fine lens. As I mentioned earlier, shoot with whatever makes you happy.<br>

Shun, a question is always a question. It leaves space for doubts and never concludes. Maybe the pompus style is what made you think otherwise, but believe me it was just for the fun of it.<br>

If I wanted to summarize I would say that everybody who owns the Nikon 24-70 is a very happy owner with a brilliant lens. <br>

People who owned both lenses and contributed their experience with us, like <a name="00baB8"></a><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=6105810">James Scholz</a> and <a name="00baGJ"></a><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=1892789">Bahram Monshat</a>, seem to like better the Tamron for their needs.<br>

DXO is pretty clear about their results: Tamron. Your experience and thoughts is not to take it 100% for granted. Very respectful. That was my original question moreover:<br>

<em>"In real life, has anyone of you who tried out both lenses agrees with the DXO results? What are your experiences or thoughts...Cheers!"</em><br>

Once again thanks for participating and sharing your experience.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p><em>DXO is pretty clear about their results: Tamron.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Ok. Now put that little extra goodness inside a quality barrel, of a good durable design, and made to be used under pro requirements... then the king will be <em>actually</em> dethroned.<br /> It is relatively easy to dethrone kings with only pixels, watts or cubic centimeters... what is really difficult is to dethron the whole product.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><strong>The Tamron offers better sharpness overall</strong>, scoring 17 P-Mpix, compared to 15 P-Mpix for the Nikon, <strong>good performance at f/2.8 and boasts significantly better chromatic aberration results, too.</strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>just to add on to what i said earlier, DxO's summary here is extremely subjective and subject to misinterpretation. the Tamron has good performance at 2.8, sure, but the Nikon is excellent wide open and beats it at every focal length, according to Photozone. and, most modern cameras correct for CA, which can also be adjusted in post-, so not sure how relevant this is. i would have to question "better sharpness overall," since that's the opposite conclusion I drew from looking at of Photozone's analysis.<strong><br /></strong></p>

<p>one thing a lab test will never tell you is real-world results from actual field use. how does one use a 24-70 in the field? if you're doing PJ or event work, the better build quality of the nikon might be something you'd prioritize, as well as performance at 2.8 and f/4. a 2.8 lens which is only "better" at 5.6 isn't really better in my book. i'd also be interested in the tamron's AF acquisition speed; the nikkor is nearly instantaneous and in my experience, stabilization can slow that down. that could be the difference between a Page 1 shot and the 'delete' button, so it's not an insignificant value to consider.<strong><br /></strong></p>

<p>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. in any event, in this particular game of thrones, the King has not been usurped, as far as i'm concerned. my fealty remains unchallenged.<strong><br /></strong></p>