I have Tamron 24-70 in Canon mount and it is heavy. About the same size as 24-120, but considerably heavy. VC is good, Sharpness Ok, but nothing spectacular.
Unless you must have f/2.8, I dont see any advantage of this lens over 24-120.
gurtch wrote:
"Now that the Nikon mount Tamron 24-70 VC is shipping, I hope some folks out there with access to both can chime in re the relative strengths and weaknesses of both lenses."
I am interested in the Tamron 24-70 VC in Nikon mount also. Can you tell me who may have one in stock?
Thanks
Dave
Sorry, but I can't. I'm on a "call when it comes in" list but haven't heard from the shop. I'd keep searching the internet - you may get lucky. That's how I found a 24-120 Maybe someone else has some better info?
Have you thought of looking at the older Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 Macro lens. I did a test where I compared the new Sigma (HSM version), old Sigma (Macro version), and the 70-200 VRii all at 70mm. I varied the aperture and took photos in a controlled environment. The 70-200 was much sharper and had better colors than the other two, but I did notice that the older sigma outperformed the newer sigma wide open (and by a very noticeable amount!).
Can't compare to the Tamron but I've been very happy with the 24-120 on a d800 and d4 when I want a walk around lens.
Esp on the d4 - if I need more light just bump up the iso and all still looks good.
It is a little bigger / heavier than the 25-105. I could fit a 5d2 and the 24-105 in my front winter coat pocket. This Nikon is going to be tight.
For me a "walk around" lens is just that. I'm not locking down a tripod and using a cable remote. So good VR and versatility is key. 120 is much more than 70.
No definitive imatest stuff here - but I give mine a thumbs up.
I tried out two copies of the Sigma 24-70 f2.8 HSM before buying the Nikon 24-70. The Sigma could not find focus on my D700. It would hunt for as long as the AF-ON button was depressed. The Nikon 24-70, in the same situation, would find focus instantly and stop searching.
I am curious about the Tamron 24-70 f2.8 'VR'. I would love VR in that range - especially with the D800 where every little bit helps. The MTF's on the Tamron look really good.
It's not as good on the D800, but on the D7000, the Nikkor 24-120 f/4 VRII is an excellent lens (I've made some 13x19's with the D700 and that lens that are sharp even in the corners).
I've been going back and forth. Since my order on amazon showed that it would ship at the end of august, I thought I had more time. Well, Amazon is reporting that my Tamron 24-70 arrives tomorrow.
While I liked the extra range on the Nikon 24-120, the fact that it uses a 77mm filter and as a Nikon brand lens it would be fully supported by the the d800 lens distortion control (Not sure if this works on RAW or just JPEG but it is nice to have), the Tamron does do f2.8 which I find I am using a lot, especially for portraits of my kids.
I do think that the quality is there. I think it will also have less chromatic aberation issues than the 24-120 but that is only my interpretation based on some samples I saw
I got my Tamron 24-70 VC today. I immediately found two problems with it. First, the VC jumps/shifts within the first second of being engaged, causing blurry photos at any shutter speed if taken within this settle time. Apparently this known behavior of Tamron's VC in general. The second problem is that the aperture lever is miscalibrated, at least on my copy. Here's my dpreview post about it (with images): http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1030&message=42138310&refresh=908
I hate to revive such an old thread, but I'm in the same predicament as OP. Anyone have any further thoughts on this specific question: Nikon 24-120 f/4G vs Tamron 24-70 Di VC? I've gone back and forth on this so many times. I really did love my Canon 24-105 f/4L (except bokeh quality): it almost never came off my 5DII. But then I got it in my head I was going to get awesome bokeh by going with just primes (Sigma 35mm and 85mm f/1.4 pair), which was true, but also a PITA swapping lenses, plus times when 85 not being long enough or the 35 not wide enough. Grrrr.
I just made a spreadsheet for myself, I don't know if it will help anyone else:
I gave the Nikon 2 points for zoom range; 71% longer at the long end, possibly more; one reviewer said the Tamron was more like a 22-66, giving the Nikon 82% more reach. I also gave 2 points for stabilization; that's a biggie, at least for me. Also 2 points for bokeh quality, which is huge for me. And 2 points for weight, as a travel/walkaround lens needs to be manageable.
Don't overthink / overanalyze this - it's quite simple. You either want speed (2.8) or you want zoom range. Pick what's most important to you, put it in the cart, hit the buy button, and enjoy the lens.
We all want the mystical 12-600/2.8 that weighs 500g, has VRIII and costs $999 but in the meantime we have to make do with what's on the market.
@Edmund, great advice, I just can't decide which is more important, speed or reach. I think I'm leaning toward reach.
I have actually done research on decision making that shows 1) fewer choices leads to more satisfaction, and 2) going with your gut leads to more satisfaction than exhaustive analysis. I try not to overanalyze, but as the scorpion said to the frog, I can't help it, it's my nature.
In this situation, I would open LR and filter your shots by exposure info. You can check the various apertures and focal lengths you use, which should help you decide if speed or reach is more important.
Your comment above that you loved your 24-105/4 and dislike swapping primes tells me you should go with the 24-120/4 VR.
I was just reading a thread on this very comparison on dpreview and someone mentioned DxOMark's comparison panning the Nikon. I went to DxOMark thinking to show the error of the poster thinking he had looked at the older 24-120 f3.5-4.5, but sure enough, their resolution score shows 12 perceptual megapixels for the 24-120 f/4G and 15 P-Mpix for the 24-70 f/2.8 and Tamron 24-70 f/2.8.
This now sways me in favor of the Tamron again. Grrrrr.
If you are going to be swayed by DXO mark, at least go in and look at the sharpeness field maps and not just the single theoretical MP score. I have always found the CA maps and sharpness maps to be much more useful than a single score number
To me it comes down to whether you have any 35/50 1.8/1.4 primes. If you do, then get the 24-120 and pocket a small 50 when you really need more isolation/light than F4 provides.
The times I've traveled with 17-50/2.8 lenses on a crop body I always found myself racking it out to 50 and being short on focal length way more often than I needed 2.8 speed. Your mileage will of course vary, but on FF, 24-120 is incredibly flexible as a travel/general purpose, IMO.
Maybe someone else has some better info?