Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 Di VC G2 Lens

Is anyone using the Tamron SP 24-70mm f/2.8 Di VC USD G2 Lens (even better if it is on a D750)? I am considering buying myself a Holiday present and this is at the top of my list.

 

If you are using it, I would be interested in you experience and opinion.

The G2 version, no. But if it's better than the original SP VC 24-70, then it must be very good indeed.

My understanding is that the optics haven't changed, although it now supports Tamron's dock for AF fine tuning. I'm a happy customer of the original as well. It's not perfect (or as good as, say, the latest 70-200s), but it blew the 24-120 out of the water, it was much smaller and cheaper than the Nikkor, and I'm not convinced that anyone has got a zoom in the retrofocal-to-telephoto range right - by which I mean I'm reserving judgement on the mirrorless glass, and arguably Sigma have an advantage with the 18-35 because it never reaches telephoto.

Thank you very much, Rodeo_joe and Andrew.

 

@rodeo_joe. If I understand your response correctly when you write "no" you mean you have not used the G2 version of the lens but have used and like the previous version. You do not mean "No" do not buy the G2 version. (Before I spend about $1,100 I like to make sure.)

 

BTW which camera(s) did you use the previous version on?

@rodeo_joe. If I understand your response correctly when you write "no" you mean you have not used the G2 version of the lens but have used and like the previous version.

 

- Yes.

Errm, if that's not confusing also.

 

I definitely meant that I haven't used the G2 version, but own, use and would recommend the original version. I use it on a D800. It's also been on my D7200 and stands up pretty well on those very revealing 24 megapixels.

Edited November 19, 2018 by rodeo_joe|1

Thank you very much, Rodeo_joe and Andrew.

 

BTW which camera(s) did you use the previous version on?

 

Glad to help. I assume the query was are both of us? D810, D850, occasionally IR-converted D90. I try not to use it wide open for a little more sharpness, but it's not bad as a walk-around lens. IIRC DxO reckons it's weakest at 70mm - but since I have a 70-200 and some decent primes, I'd prefer that to being soft(er) at 24mm.

Oh, meant to say: beware the 82mm filter thread. It pushes the price of polarisers up. I have a 77mm LPR filter that's the biggest I could find, so I was a little hesitant about losing my wide angle when I ditched my 24-120 - but it does fit my 50mm Sigma and 70-200. I digress. The polariser and variable ND for the 24-70 cost me quite a lot, anyway. To bear in mind, if you care about that kind of thing.

Thank you, Andrew and Rodeo_joe. Yes, the query was meant for both of you.

 

If the lens works well on both your 810 and 850, it should be wonderful on my D750.

 

Yes, I am aware of the 82mm filter size. I do not use a polarizer much (I probably should use it more often). Even the UV Haze filter is expensive in 82mm. I have budgeted for the haze filter.

 

I, too, have the Tamron 70-200 and like it very much both on the D750 and my F100. I realize the G2 with the electronic diaphragm will not work on my F100, drat. I'll just have to continue to use the Nikon 35-70 f/2.8 on the F100.

 

If either of you has used the Nikon 35-70 f/2.8, is the Tamron a good step up?

 

With two "yeses", it looks like I found my Holiday present.

I suspect the G1, if you can find one, would work fine on an F100 - I think it has a mechanical aperture, although I've not looked at mine. You lose out on a bit of VR (VC) and the dock compatibility, though. I've never tried the 35-70; I've tried a mk1 24-70 AF-S, and the Tamron didn't seem worse optically and was vastly nicer to carry around, given VC and that it's much smaller - it's my typical walkaround lens if I'm not knowingly going to shoot telephoto or wide. In the latter half of 2016 the Nikon Wednesday images got a lot of my travels around the US, and a fair proportion was shot with this lens.

 

Given that it's a relatively recent design, I'd hope it's an improvement over older Nikon glass; the original Nikkor 24-70 was supposed to be a significant jump above its predecessors. I don't want to tell you it's perfect, but it's a decent performer, and I'm not convinced that there are alternatives which are much better (although I think I saw a recent review saying nice things about the Sigma Art). Add in "for the money" and I don't regret my purchase.

Kinda late to the party but I figured I'd say a few words since I happen to own the actual lens (and a D800)

 

Image sharpness: nothing spectacular, though decent, even by today's standards (at the right apertures that is). Prepare to invest some money in the tap-in console and lotsa time in calibrating the focus (not that much time, actually, if you know what you're doing). Anyway, my copy was all over the place but I was able to tame the focus, eventually. I mostly focus via Live View, BTW but I still wanted the focus to be at least in the ball park when I'm not in LV.

*At 70mm the images are "almost soft" with my D800 but you should be pretty happy with what you get out of your D750.

 

Focus acquisition: on the slow side.

 

VR: Just "OK" but better than "no VR", I guess. (some minor customization via the console)

 

Ergonomics: Meh.. This is a heavy and bulky beast which I do not enjoy carrying around. Also, the focus ring is kind of a disaster. You're guaranteed to override (and throw off) your automatically acquired, perfect focus in lots of photos. At least everything rotates in the right direction (unlike with some lenses...)

 

The lens cap: It almost touches the front element. Every time I have to put mine back on the lens I get annoyed because of how carefully that has to be done in order not to touch/scratch the front element. You'd think that a clear filter would relieve some of that tension, well, not so fast, which brings us to the next point.

 

Vignetting and filters:

No filter:

24mm -> "acceptable" vignetting when stopped down to f-5, anything wider is just "bad"

35mm -> same thing: from f-4

50mm -> ditto

70mm -> only from f-5.6

 

It is actually that bad. I personally consider this lens to be "unusable" at wide-open. BTW, the actual "vignette" is not some darkening of the corners due to the light fall-off but rather something distinctly physical obscuring the corners of the image. That is just bad design. Some people don't mind it, I do.

 

WITH an 82mm filter you're looking at similar results, except at the 24mm setting. Widest "usable" aperture becomes f-6.3, with no "apparent" vignetting at f-11

If you do decide to throw on a permanent filter on this lens - say goodbye to corner sharpness, which isn't all that great to begin with. With wide lenses like that, there's just nothing you can do about it. Physics don't care if you pay $300 for your 82mm filter, corner sharpness IS OUT, baby.

 

 

Given everything AND the price, I... really don't know, man... I mean, what else is there? The Sigma?.. It is what it is, I guess. Just don't expect too much of this lens, it is not that good.

 

PS: Just a heads-up: Reportedly, the 24-70 is incompatible with the new Nikon mirror-less line.

Edited November 21, 2018 by david_r._edan

I think I should explain any differences between my report and David's...

 

Sharpness: It's certainly better stopped down a bit, but it's usable. I believe there's a difference in the AF behaviour between the D800 and D810 (possibly the latter allows for some telecentricity changes?) which has made the D810 a bit more reliable for me; I wish Nikon would follow Canon (and the third parties) in allowing tuning at different focal lengths, and I suspect the dock will help. Live view certainly helps if you're locking critical focus at wide apertures, but then that's as true of the Sigma Art primes - another wish list item is an optional contrast detect final tuning step. If I can, I use mine at f/4 or f/5.6, but if I need f/2.8 at least it's there. It's no modern 70-200 at the 70mm end. I do tend to use DxO in my processing path, and its lens corrections are probably sorting out some of the mess. Really my understanding is that the Nikkor 24-70 lenses, even the latest one, aren't significantly better (and may be worse in some areas), so there's no good lens in this area. I believe it was handily outperforming the 24-120 f/4, and certainly my lightweight 28-80.

 

VC is certainly not brilliant - it's perhaps a bit like the 70-200 VR2, in that it's there, but it doesn't lock the image solid like the 70-200FL or 200-500 do.

 

Ergonomics: The focus ring is in a dumb place, and I do tend to roll it if resting the camera on something for stability. Actually using it is fine, and I have when trying to get my D850 to lock onto hovering dragonflies and failing, but it's absolutely where you might move it accidentally. The same is true for various other lenses with the zoom at the front (like the 70-200 FL), although that there's not much weight to the AF and the ring is tiny perhaps makes it more likely with the 24-70VC. I won't say this is a light lens (like the 28-80), and it is a bit chubbier than the 24-120 f/4, but certainly not much. It's tiny compared with Nikon's 24-70s (and has the centre of gravity nearer the camera). I often carry around a 14-24, 70-200 or 200-500, so I still think of it as portable; YMMV, and it's certainly big if you normally use a 50mm f/1.8...

 

Lens cap: Yes, it's very close to the front element, and I keep worrying about scratching it. So far it seems okay, but I understand the concern.

 

Vignetting: DxO is probably fixing some of it for me, but it's certainly there. I'm not sure it's worse than the competition, and that I try to shoot at f/4-5.6 is hiding the worst from me.

 

Summary: Yes, please don't take the fact I'm moderately happy with this lens as an indication that it's perfect. It's not, but nor is anything else in this range, and Nikon's alternative uses a lot more weight and a lot more money to do about as bad a job. (And "bad job" does depend what you're comparing with - it's leagues ahead of the variable aperture 24-120 VR, if you want an actually small walk-around lens, and it's easily got the legs on the 28-200G that used to be my D700 go-to lens.) If you want a decent and (trading for quality when you need it) fast mid-range zoom, it's about as good as anything current; if you want something that'll make you throw out the 24/35/50/85mm Sigma Art prime lens set (or even the Nikkors), it's not that.

 

The secret is low expectations. Then you'll be pleasantly surprised. :-)

Andrew:

 

I completely agree, a thinner focus ring would have been much better.

 

And when I said that I considered the lens unusable at wide-open, I was talking about the awful vignetting in the corners, not image sharpness, which is fairly decent, compared to other zooms. At the optimal apertures the sharpness with this lens is almost prime-like, except at the far end of the zoom range.

*Since I never capture my photos at wide-open anyway, the horrible vignetting is actually not much of an issue for me. Plus, I guess, one could correct for it in post but at some lens settings, it would be pushing it.

 

Not expecting too much and then being pleasantly surprised? That is actually what happened to me with this very lens in regards to image sharpness, at the wide apertures. I was expecting some dull, blurry, CA-ridden pictures, but when I looked at the first test-shots I went: Huh.., what do you know... And then I noticed the black corners...

Oh, I was commenting more that the thin focus ring is weird (in that you tend to touch it without realising it's a focus ring, because it's so thin). That seems to be true of both versions. That it's a bit near the camera and very light (so it shifts easily) is a problem; if it was at the front of the lens like most designs it would be fine. If the focus ring was closer to the body and easier to avoid with the hand, it would help, though.

 

Likewise I rarely shoot wide open with this lens, and when I do I normally care about what's in the middle, so I guess the vignetting hasn't hurt me as much as it could. I'm fairly keen of off-centre compositions in general, but since this lens won't lose the background all that much anyway, it doesn't bother me like it would with, say, the 85mm f/1.4 or 70-200 lenses. I'm not so much suggesting that one should correct the vignetting as that DxO is probably applying a vignetting correction as part of lens corrections without my noticing! It would bump up the noise in the corners, obviously.

 

Still, no lens is perfect, but I'd confidently put this in the category of "not nearly as awful as some"!

I erred, the zoom ring is the one that should have been made thinner, or basically anything else that would provide for a decent grip on the lens WITHOUT touching the focus ring. Good thing I'm like 99% on a tripod with this lens, using AF in the Live View.

 

"not nearly as awful as some" - Well put. Couldn't have phrased it better myself.

 

If you also own the 70-200 G2 I would recommend you get the Tap-in console, it's pretty neat. "Proper" focus calibration aside, there are "goodies" you do not get access to without it.

Also, with the new X1.4 TC (which I own) you get a separate set of focus calibration settings, which was reason enough for my shelling out the extra dough.

Thank you Andrew and David. After reading you posts and reviewing the images I took with the Nikon 35-70 f/2.8, I have decided not to purchase the Tamron. There were a few of my images that would have benefited from VR, but if the VR is only marginal perhaps they would not have benefited. The other images that I was dissatisfied with were taken at 70mm setting which you both think is marginal on the Tamron (drat!). A few might have benefited from faster focus - the 35-70 is a screwdriver focus lens. On the other hand, I would lose the benefit of the Macro setting of the 35-70.

 

@ David BH is selling the Tamron with the TAP console at the $100 off Tamron seasonal discount (just under $1,100 for lens and console), so I would have the console. As for vignetting, I always crop my prints, and if the lens profile is in Lightroom 6, Lightroom should correct the problem.

 

If I read your posts correctly, the Tamron is not an $1,100 step up from my old Nikon 35-70 f/2.8 lens and may even be a step down.

OP:

 

You do what you think is right for you, of course, I personally would not go for a D Lens at this point in time. It's all AF-S and E-aperture for me from here on out.

Screwdriver focus has always been less consistent than internal motor, even in the pre-digital age. And in any future purchases E-aperture will always be a must for me because of the (theoretical) cross-platform compatibility. I guess, I'm planning ahead because I don't want to have to buy all new glass, should I decide to jump ship and switch over to a Sony body or something else. There's a bunch of adapters and, at least in theory, any AF-S, E lens should work with a proper adapter on any mirror-less body, be it Canon, Sony, etc... Ironically, the OEM FTZ refuses to cooperate with my Tamron 24-70 G2 as well as the 70-200... Don't know where you personally stand with regards to DSLRs and Nikon in general but I felt that this was important enough that it had to be said.

 

So, basically, I'm just waiting for a 3rd party to come up with a proper Z-mount adapter, one that works with the two of my Tamron lenses. In the meantime, Nikon should be hard at work trying to fix that banding issue in the Z series. I am not shelling out $3K+ on a faulty camera.

 

While waiting for their mirror-less to come out I was on the fence about the D850. Now, that Z7 is a no-go, buying a new D850 still feels like a stupid idea, especially given that I don't shoot sports or any fast action in the rain/mud/snow... Pretty pissed off at Nikon right now.

 

One last thing. 24-70 is not a great range. It is actually quite limiting, especially if that lens is all that you have with you. And with a 35-70 it's almost like being stuck with a bad prime. Not sure what you're looking for but maybe consider something with a wider focal length range. With a D750 body, lens sharpness is less of an issue than let's say with a 40MP+ sensor.

It is actually that bad. I personally consider this lens to be "unusable" at wide-open. BTW, the actual "vignette" is not some darkening of the corners due to the light fall-off but rather something distinctly physical obscuring the corners of the image. That is just bad design.

 

- I'm just not seeing that with the G1 version on a D800. It's perfectly useable at f/2.8 throughout the zoom range, and that's with an 82mm Sigma UV filter fitted to it.

 

And the VC works very well for me too.

 

Are you certain you haven't got a faulty sample David?

Joe:

It appears that with the G1, Tamron weren't trying very hard, they were just setting the first benchmark. With the G2, they had to produce a lens which was significantly better than its predecessor while also being a seemly competitor to similar lenses from Sigma and Nikon. So, they cut every corner and tried very hard but they overdid it and, consequently, there's a price to pay. Just one example: the lens cap literally comes within microns of the front element, that's how close they were cutting it with the filter thread. Tamron really did (overdid) everything they could to lower the dimensions and weight of the G2.

 

From my quote it should be clear that I was expressing my personal preference/opinion. Again, I, personally, do not want to put myself in a position where I have to deal with that kind of vignetting by cropping out the dark corners or by any other means. Therefore, I choose to avoid those wide apertures altogether, also because of the somewhat subpar overall image quality.

 

My G2 is not a lemon and the VC does work and is useful to me at times. However, I found the results produced to be rather inconsistent, which was a very bad thing for my type of shooting techniques (I don't just snap away, you know). With this lens you CAN get pin-sharp pictures at ridiculous shutter speeds with the VR on but it's a crapshoot, which is not what I need.

 

I did run the G2 through rigorous tests, including the VR and I have the actual numbers. Those obviously are very subjective but may be of some use to someone or even you, Joe. I remember posting the data in one of the threads in this very forum awhile back. Anyone who cares enough about the subject should be able to find it.

What are the odds?.... Look at the date.

 

 

 

*The 70-200's problem has also been solved, apparently.

I did not know that but good for Tamron and good for me.

With this lens you CAN get pin-sharp pictures at ridiculous shutter speeds with the VR on but it's a crapshoot, which is not what I need.

What actually goes wrong? The AF doesn't nail it or the VC doesn't stop camera motion?

 

If it's optically capable, it's the other things that are ruining it.

 

Again, I, personally, do not want to put myself in a position where I have to deal with that kind of vignetting by cropping out the dark corners or by any other means.

Any worthy RAW converter will entirely remove dark corner vignetting.

I don't mind the zoom ring being large enough to find - I'm used to holding lens by their zoom rings. At least on mine, it's not so easy to move that it shifts unintentionally, unlike the focus ring, which is very light. YMMV; the 35-70 under discussion is a push-pull zoom, after all!

 

My impression from reviews was that the G2 24-70 is optically identical to the original - I've never even seen it myself. If it's much better, I'll pay more attention to it - I wouldn't turn down slight improvements, especially in areas like bokeh. The upgradability of the G2 is good to know, especially with the FTZ under consideration - but it also might mean mk1 versions have just got cheaper!

 

The VC works, don't get me wrong. I don't usually think about it, but at least on the mk1 the VC is comparable to other lenses of its vintage. The 200-500 and 70-200FL are dramatically better than, say, the 70-200 VR2 in holding the image steady; it's not as good as them, although the mk2 version might have improved things a bit. It's a couple of stops, not the many stops you get from the big glass. It doesn't matter nearly so much with a shorter lens, although if you're trying to hand-hold at somewhere in the 1/20-1/60s range, you might run into shutter shock anyway.

 

DxO reckon the Tamron generally outperforms the 24-70 Nikkor - and that's the older one, which they rate slightly better than the newer VR one. It's weaker at the 70mm end than the 24, and the non-VR Nikkor is better at 70mm (though the VR one isn't); I don't mind since my 70-200 covers that nicely anyway. This doesn't mean it's bad at 70mm, just that the corners at f/2.8 aren't quite up to the rest of the performance.

 

I've never used the 35-70, and I struggled a bit to find a review because it's discontinued; Hypnoken has a comparison with the mk1 24-70 (in a bulk "pro normal zoom" comparison), and the frame corners do look especially weak at wide apertures - though I'm sure it's fine in the middle. And the Tamron is strongest at 24mm where you can't reach with the 35-70. If you were even considering replacing it, I assume you felt it had issues; I'd be astonished if the Tamron isn't at least better, but with an open question of whether it's better enough to justify $1100 - at least the mk1 was fairly cheap when I bought it. Finding a used mk1 might tip the money balance your way, especially if you think getting a dedicated pro middle zoom for mirrorless would be worthwhile because it's the kind of design that benefits from it (the retrofocal/telephoto transition being awkward on a dSLR) - people have said nice things about Canon's mirrorless pro zoom, other than it being big.

 

I think we're walking a line here between trying to say "this is a really good lens for a mid-range pro zoom" and "but like every other mid-range pro zoom, it's not perfect". I'm not really a huge fan of the middle range, certainly not to the extent that I'm willing to pay £2000 for a Nikkor to do the job badly, but for me this hit the acceptable size/acceptable performance/acceptable price balance. The same argument has made me buy the 50mm f/1.8 AF-S and the 50mm Sigma Art, but avoid the 50mm f/1.4 AF-S, for example.

 

I do agree that 70mm is a funny place for a zoom to stop. Well, it's a reasonable place in that it's the "hand over" to a 70-200, which a pro obviously has permanently welded to the other body they have with them. But if you want a walk-around lens, it's a bit short for portraiture or candids; arguably the 24-85mm is more useful as a "do everything" (unsurprisingly for something sold as a kit lens), and performs well if you don't mind treating it as f/5.6 - but obviously you don't have f/2.8 if you need it. The 24-120 f/4 is more flexible, but seemed visibly softer to me, and not much smaller, which is why I traded mine in and kept the Tamron - I found myself carrying the Tamron more, and it's not so huge a crop to match the field of view of the 24-120, especially with the latter being a little weak at the long end. None of these will help if you want enough reach for wildlife, but the 28-300 has its own compromises.

 

The problem with digitally correcting vignetting is that it effectively boosts the ISO in the corners of the frame, so you'll get noise (or less dynamic range). But the alternatives have at least some vignetting as well. Worth bearing in mind for stitching, but I don't lose sleep over this otherwise.

 

I'd go for it, but it absolutely matters how much you're bothered by the limitations of the 35-70 and how much the money means to you!

?

Weird.

I think some people are up themselves...

I have the G2 and use it on a D600. No problems.

Focus is fast - fast enough for me.

Focus is spot on every time.

I don't have the dock - I don't need it.

I don't use filters.

 

Just take images. It's better than pixel peeping - who cares?

BTW :) here's one I did earlier:

1/40 85mm

Samhuinn 2018 by Ken, on Flickr

As the original poster may I restate my question.

 

1) I have a D750 as my DSLR. (I also have a F100 as one of my film cameras).

2) I have a Nikon 35-70mm f/2.8D which I purchased used from KEH about 12 years ago for use on my F100

3) I have a Nikon 50mm f/1.4D which I purchased about 15 years ago for use in my F100. I am happy with the performance on the F100.

4) I have the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 (A007 model i.e. pre-G2) which I acquired with my D750 2 years ago. The is the only lens I have with VR.

5) I have Nikon manual focus lenses in 24mm f/2.8 and 105mm f/2.5 which have been AI'ed and work on both my D750 and F100.

 

I feel the Nikon 35-70 f/2.8D leaves something to be desired on the D750 especially when compared to the results of the Tamron 70-200. (I realize this may be comparing apples to oranges.)

 

The Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 G2 lens is on sale for about $1,100 including the TAP console from BH.

 

I am considering upgrading to the Tamron for the VR (I am 76-years old and perhaps not a steady as I was 20-years ago), the improved optics, and faster focus.

 

My question to the group is, is the Tamron an upgrade from my current Nikon 35-70mm?

 

So far both Rodeo_joe and Andrew Garrard have and like the previous version of the Tamron 24-70 or at least so it seemed before David Edan posted. It is my understanding from other reviews the optics of the two Tamron lenses are the same, but the VR has been improves slightly and the G2 will use the TAP console. The G2 is the only version that is currently available new.

 

David seems to dislike the lens intensely, but from his posts, I am not sure if it is the lens itself on his D800 (both Rodeo_joe and Andrew use the previous version on D800 series cameras) or the fact that it would not work on the Z series camera he wants to purchase. If David's description is accurate, the VR is worthless and the lens vignettes almost as badly as the time I put the sun shade from my 50mm lens on the 24mm lens (but that is another story <grin>). From David's description it would be the worst lens I own.

 

Andrew now thinks it will be OK if I have "low expectations" (although with a grin). I do not expect this lens to be like Zeiss primes across the range. But I do expect it to be worth the $1,100 I would pay for it - which means about 3-stops of VR, faster focus, and slightly sharper than my current Nikon zoom.

 

So is the Tamron worth the money?

?

Weird.

I think some people are up themselves...

I have the G2 and use it on a D600. No problems.

Focus is fast - fast enough for me.

Focus is spot on every time.

I don't have the dock - I don't need it.

I don't use filters.

 

Just take images. It's better than pixel peeping - who cares?

 

 

Thank you, Ken.