Nikon 24-120 VR

[james_martin9]

I currently own a Tamron 18-75 2.8 XR Dii lens. I love this lens, but have

found that 2.8 is typically soft for what I shoot. I do little if any portrait

work and with this particular lens, DOF is not my primary concern. I also own

the 70-2002.8vr which produces shallow DOFs when I need them. Would anyone

consider switching from this Tamron to the Nikon 24-120vr lens? I know it is

f4 on the low end, but I have produced some good photos with f4 lenses in the

past. Thoughts? A 18-200 is unattainable and probably outside my prices range

since I just dropped for the 70-200vr. Sorry for the sloppy typing, doped up

for neck injury here..lol

[ShunCheung]

I have heard a few times that the Tamron 18-75mm/f2.8 is a bit soft at f2.8, but is it fine at f4? If your problem is lens performance at f2.8, I don't see switching to a much slower 24-120mm can fix that problem.

 

If you are using DSLRs, 24mm is not all that wide. In that case the lens you probably want is the 17-55mm/f2.8 AF-S DX, but it is even more expensive than the 18-200 VR.

[hiro]

Like Shun mentioned,I believe that your Tamron @ F4 will be sharper than the 24-120 wide open. I am guessing it is the extended range and vr you are after. I sold my copy after getting a 17-55 but missed having a lighter lens with a longer range. Instead of getting another Tamron. I opted for the 28-105 nikkor and could not be happier.

[lex_jenkins]

You mention a neck injury. Due to back and neck injuries from a car wreck several years ago I've found VR very helpful in helping to counter the occasional problems I have with holding the camera steadily. If this is a problem for you, sure, the 24-120 VR is worth considering despite it being a slowish variable aperture type.

 

Keep in mind, tho', that the variable aperture will force shooting at slower shutter speeds in dimmer lighting. While the VR enables me to shoot as slow as 1/15 sec. even with shaky hands it won't help with subject motion blur.

 

If you prefer a faster lens that's sharp wide open and affordable I'd suggest the 35-70/2.8 AF Nikkor. The 35mm end is not a wide angle on a 1.5x dSLR, but I find it a very useful lens with my D2H and the optical quality can't be beaten for the money. It costs roughly the same as the 24-120 VR. To get an equally sharp zoom that offers a true wide angle perspective you'd have to spend a lot more (for example, the 28-70/2.8 AF-S Nikkor or 17-55/2.8 DX).

 

I wish I didn't need both but I keep the 24-120 VR for my shakier days and prefer the 35-70/2.8 for days when my hands are steady. Some folks disdain the application of VR to daylight action photography but I have days where even at 1/1000 sec. my hands shake enough to induce blur, especially when panning with the subject. The VR helps minimize blur that I might cause while shooting at the faster shutter speed helps freeze subject motion. It's just a tool, one that may be used or turned off as preferred.

[marike1]

<p>I having a hard time figuring out exactly which Tamron lens you are talking about. I

know of the 28-75 2.8 XR Dii and the new 17-50 2.8 XR Dii. I used to have the 28-75

2.8, and while it was a decent lens, it was soft at wide-open aperture. I sold it.</p>

 

<p>The newest Tamron zoom, the 17-50 2.8, that has all of the photography forums

buzzing,

saying things like "It is as sharp as the Nikon 17-55 2.8 DX at half the price", etc. This

lens

actually got a fairly good review on Photozone.de which you can read <a href="http://

www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/tamron_1750_28_nikon/index.htm">here</a>.</

p>

 

<p>Like you, I have the excellent 70-200 VR. This kind of spoils me for my other lenses.

For

this reason I'm about to purchase the 17-55 2.8 DX lens to use at weddings, events, etc. I

toyed with the idea of getting the Tamron 17-50 2.8, but I've seen too many terrific

images

made with the Nikkor and I wasn't exactly blown away with my last Tamron zoom. </p>

 

<p>As for the 24-120 VR, I think it is a better lens than some of the reports online would

lead

you to believe. Good images can be made with any decent glass, but maybe you should

look at Nikon 35-70 2.8, or the newer Tamron if the others are not in your budget.</p>