about | support
home
 


  Reviews by: adamz  

View profile View recent posts View reviews Add adamz to your Buddy List
Nikon 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6G ED-IF AF-S VR

2145NCP_180
Review Date: Aug 14, 2005 Recommend? no | Price paid: $600.00 | Rating: 2 

 
Pros: Vibration reduction, Great zoom range
Cons:
Very slow aperture, soft focus, VR doesn't keep subjects from moving

I returned this lens after a week of use. It's photos were much softer focus than my other lenses. Even if that particular lens was a lemon, the speed was just way too slow and the VR didn't make up for it. I got much better photos in low-light with my F2.8 Tamron 28-105mm lens. The only time the VR lens was sharper was when it was at 24mm wide open with VR on at less than 1/15s handheld. Even at 1/160s, f8, 70mm the Tamron is perfectly sharp while the Nikon is soft by about 8-10 pixels (6.1Mp Nikon D70). See my post here. If the Nikon 24-120mm VR lens had an F2.8 constant aperture and sharper image quality, then we'd be talking.

 
Tamron 28-105MM F/2.8 LD Aspherical (IF)

28105mm_1_
Review Date: Aug 1, 2005 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $650.00 | Rating: 10 

 
Pros: Extremely sharp, very useful zoom range for portraits, fast constant f2.8, big/heavy lens is very intimidating (people will get out of your way.)
Cons:
Very large lens hood will block the on-camera AF assist lamp (use a flash assist lamp instead).

I didn't know how good this lens really was until I started comparing it to other lenses like the Nikon 24-120 VR. The Tamron gets sharper photos in every situation, except when the Nikon is at 24mm wide open with VR on at less than 1/15s handheld. Even at 1/160s, f8, 70mm the Tamron is perfectly sharp while the Nikon is soft by about 8-10 pixels (6.1Mp Nikon D70). See my post here. When compared to my Sigma 50mm f2.8 Macro, which is said to be one of the sharpest lenses (and in my tests was just as sharp as the Nikon 60mm f2.8 Macro), the Tamron yields the exact same results.

As seen by the other reviews here, there must be some major variations in quality with these lenses. I read that it is very difficult and expensive to produce, but I must have gotten a good one. I also hear that the Canon version is of less quality than the Nikon mount version I'm using, but I wouldn't know about that. I am unable to reproduce Mr645's review results. The focal point of a shot at f8 for me is perfectly as sharp as at f2.8 in my samples. The only difference is about a 3% change in contrast. That's practically nothing.

Regarding slow autofocus, mine is as fast as the Nikon 24-120 VR or Nikon 17-70 DX or the old Nikon 70-210 F4-5.6 D. The Sigma 50mm f2.8 Macro is definitely slow, compared to the Tamron. In shooting fast paced wedding reception events I've never missed a shot waiting for the AF. The AF seems to be more accurate than other lenses as well, since I've experienced much more focus hunting with the Nikon 24-120 VR.

By the way, the Tamron is very good at getting big lens flares on your photos, hence the need for the humungous hood.

Anyway, if you can find one that's made the way it's supposed to be, it will be an great lens.