Tamron SP 24-70mm f/2.8 Di VC USD G2

[MichelBraunstein]

Hello,
Does anyone have any positive/negative experience with this lens?
I'm looking for a lens in this range for the D850 I'm planning to buy.
I read quite a few good reviews about it, it's sharp, with a good VR, but not sure about autofocus speed and apparently beyond 50mm, the quality is not as good as from 24 to 50.
The lens is half price from the Nikon 24-70VR and this last one is apparently not much better than the Tamron.
Any feedback would be welcome.
Best,
Michel

[MFloyd]

There has been a lot of badmouthing about Nikkor’s latest 24-70mm f/2.8. I recommend you to read Cicala’s review https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2015/10/nikon-24-70mm-f2-8-ed-af-s-vr-sharpness-optical-bench-testing/

Now, the price question remains. But, nowadays, lenses are more than optics alone: e.g. AF, VR, micro-focus adjustment, construction quality. These are the main reasons, wrongly or rightly, I always stayed with Nikkor 😉

NB: I don’t own the 24-70mm; I stayed with the cheaper 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 - which I can recommend -, as I’m not frequently using this range of focus lenghts; at least what is not overlapped by my other lenses (range 35-70mm).

[MichelBraunstein]

Hi MFloyd,
Thank you for your kind answer. I actually previously looked for the 24-85 and it seemed quite a nice piece.
I read quite a few good reviews on it but friend sent to me a review from DxO which was not that good.
I also thought that 2.8 may be a better choice because I'm shooting some concerts or views outside in very low light.
Is it sharp? Is there a quick AF? What are the downsides? Are you happy with all the focal lengths?
Thanks!
Michel

[Steven Paulsen]

I'm cannot comment on the camera or lens in the OP's question, however.......

I recently got my hands on a D800 & have the ancient version of the Tamron 24-70/3.3-5.6 <<<<which is a sub $100, lens. I don't have a Nikkor 24-70/2.8, any version to compare, but this old "piece of crap" lens performs better than any of the Nikon 24-85's.

It's sharp, decent rendering of colors, tiny & disposable. I thought it may be a lucky "copy," if you believe in that. The only downside I've found; Corners are a bit dark @ 24, & the camera data says 25-70.

I went OCD on this lens & compared.....(I'm not going to say "I now have three of these.") I can read soup, ingredient labels @ 20 feet, both wide & zoomed, (not stopped down) with my D800 & a SB-800 speed light.

JMHO,
Regards,
Steven Paulsen

[MFloyd]

Hi Michel. I have no comparison points, as I only own the 24-85mm. You should ask Steven who also appears to have this lens. To summarize the plus points: sharp, small, light and reasonable price. Negative points: relative small (and variable) aperture. I use most of the time a D5 body, so smaller apertures are not really a major burden for me, except if you are aiming for shallower DOF.

[David H. Hartman]

I read quite a few good reviews on it but friend sent to me a review from DxO which was not that good

How many here trust DxO lens tests? They publish a lot of numbers. What about photographs from the lens? All lenses are a compromise. What might be give up to obtain perfect numbers? I don't have the answers but I'm concerned that numbers have become more important than photographs to many.

Dave Hartman

[MichelBraunstein]

Thanks all for all the info.
David H. you are correct, I also do not trust too much to all the numbers, I prefer real opinnions from real photographers, that's why I've asked the question here 

[arthurking83]

I have the first version of this lens.
More than happy with it.
I don'[t think they altered the optics in any way from the first version to the G2 version.

I have briefly played with the N24-70(non VR) and more so to experience the difference in focusing speed/accuracy more than sharpness.
Didn't compare sharpness as the N24-70 was mounted on the owners D750 and I have my T24-70 on a D800E.
But the Nikon lens focused microseconds faster and more positively.
My version of the is plenty fast enough for my tastes, and I think Tamron did update the focusing ability in the G2 lens too tho ..

I'd be pretty sure that you wouldn't be dissapointed with the Tamron lens as a purchase.

My only gripe with the Tamron lens is just the physical design of the body.
On my D800(and D300) I use a bluetooth adapter that fits the 10pin port on those bodies.
With every other lens I have(and other's I've quickly tested too) the issue has never come up, but what happens with the Tamron 24-70VC lenses is that to mount this bluetooth adapter to the 10 pin port, the lens needs to be removed first(same goes if the adapter is to be removed too).
This Tamron lens design has a very large bulge for the switchblock(for AF and VC) and it leaves minimal room in front of the 10 pin port and flash sync port on those body types.

I no longer have the Nikon MC36 remote, but I think it also impeded fitment and removal of this plug too(but still, only just! ... allowed it to be mounted/removed with lens still attached).
The remote I use now has a much slimmer attachment plug for the 10pin port, so can be removed a little bit easier.

Note that this issue is not really so much of an issue, and in some ways it's a bit of a bonus(in that the bluetooth device will never fall off and get lost with the Tamron lens attached! )
It's just that this lens is the only one I've ever tried that does this, so when removing the Bt device I forget that this happens when this lens is mounted .. etc, etc.

For all intents and purposes it's a great lens.

I haven't had a lot of time to do photography recently, and from memory the most use I've had from this lens has actually been doing video all day a long time back for a street event.
I was collared into doing some stills for this day(family!) .. and when I got there the person also rounded up to do video couldn't make it, so I was forcibly reallocated the role of video0ing for the day instead.
I wasn't prepared for it tho, no tripod barely any gear gear etc .. but I did use the T24-70, and having the VC was a massive bonus needing to do the video hand held all day.
Took approx 3 hrs of video, with VC on all the time.
The AF motor was never heard through the sound( I did have an external mic tho) and the VC worked a treat.
In a sense it 'saved the day' for my sis's needs on the day.

I suspect that the G2 version would be at least equal to the first version if not better.
And I've thought of updating to the G2 lens(aas well as getting myself their 70-200 G2 lens too) .. but I just don't get enough time to do photography .. so it wouldn't be money well spent for me for now.

I'm not a regular pixel peeper, but the D800E doesn't really stress the IQ of the this lens in any way.
I also have the older Tamron 28-75/2.8(still!) and by comparison that lens is stretched a bit in some instances(lens settings) .. plus that it's always backfocused on all my cameras at 70mm!
I also have the Nikon 24/2 Ais and the Tamron at 24 is definitely sharper across all aperture values up to about f/5.6 or so where they've equal.
I like the Nikon 24/2 tho as it has a nice rendering for some situations(less contrasty).

[Jack Dahlgren]

How many here trust DxO lens tests? They publish a lot of numbers. What about photographs from the lens? All lenses are a compromise. What might be give up to obtain perfect numbers? I don't have the answers but I'm concerned that numbers have become more important than photographs to many.

Dave Hartman

Tests are an odd thing. What they mostly measure is forced to be objective though, so we get tests on resolution or flatness of field rather than how nicely it draws an image. Such information is useful, for some sorts of photography, but unimportant for others. Many times how well I hold the camera or set focus has a bigger impact on sharpness than the difference between two different lenses (or between two examples of the same lense) so I can still have an unsharp photo even with the highest rated lens. I prefer lenses which are fun and don’t care that much how they test according to some lense testing site.

[Ilkka Nissilä]

Does anyone have any positive/negative experience with this lens?

I think the G2 version of the Tamron has been out for such a short time there may not be many actual user experiences at this time.

I know someone with the previous versions of both Tamron and Nikon and he said the Nikon has nicer out of focus rendering but that sharpnes was comparable. In cameralabs' review of the G2 comparing to the Nikon E VR, the Nikon maintains nicer out of focus rendering than the G2. Also there is spikey coma in images from the Tamron G2 vs. the relatively standard, well controlled coma in the images from the Nikon. I personally value the quality of out of focus rendering highly and feel the E VR is improved in this respect from the earlier Nikon G version.

Additionally the Nikon VR E has improved corner sharpness and reduced field curvature which mean it is easier to get images sharp across the field without stopping down a lot, something that was an issue for me with the earlier Nikkor. I'm very pleased with the lens, especially the "look" of the images, contrast, colour, bokeh, AF, feel of the zoom mechanism.

I think there is a lot of negativitity towards expensive lenses online, which can cloud the judgment of reviewers. I think lenses should be reviewed by both objective and subjective measures (in test charts / optical bench as well as in practical applications based on the results) and the price should be just reported as a fact without letting it affect the other aspects of the review. I understand that price is always a consideration when making purchase decisions but what some aspect of performance is worth is highly subjective and in my opinion the value assessment should be presented separately from the main parts of the review.

The lens is half price from the Nikon 24-70VR and this last one is apparently not much better than the Tamron.

How did you come to that conclusion?

Ultimately one can only find out how a lens performs in one's applications by trying it out. Lens quality is such a subjective topic.

[Roland Vink]

There is a useful review here which compares the Tamron with the Sigma Art and Canon 24-70 lenses:
https://dustinabbott.net/2017/10/tamron-sp-24-70mm-f2-8-di-vc-usd-g2-review/

[norvaldo]

I have this lens.
It replaced the previous version, which in turn replaced the Nikkor 24-70 2.8.

I find this lens very good. Clearly an improvement from the older version.
I have used it on the D810.
My sample did need some focus adjustments using the Tap-In console.
Especially in the close focusing at 50-70 mm.

[longzoom]

I think the G2 version of the Tamron has been out for such a short time there may not be many actual user experiences at this time.

I know someone with the previous versions of both Tamron and Nikon and he said the Nikon has nicer out of focus rendering but that sharpnes was comparable. In cameralabs' review of the G2 comparing to the Nikon E VR, the Nikon maintains nicer out of focus rendering than the G2. Also there is spikey coma in images from the Tamron G2 vs. the relatively standard, well controlled coma in the images from the Nikon. I personally value the quality of out of focus rendering highly and feel the E VR is improved in this respect from the earlier Nikon G version.

Additionally the Nikon VR E has improved corner sharpness and reduced field curvature which mean it is easier to get images sharp across the field without stopping down a lot, something that was an issue for me with the earlier Nikkor. I'm very pleased with the lens, especially the "look" of the images, contrast, colour, bokeh, AF, feel of the zoom mechanism.

I think there is a lot of negativitity towards expensive lenses online, which can cloud the judgment of reviewers. I think lenses should be reviewed by both objective and subjective measures (in test charts / optical bench as well as in practical applications based on the results) and the price should be just reported as a fact without letting it affect the other aspects of the review. I understand that price is always a consideration when making purchase decisions but what some aspect of performance is worth is highly subjective and in my opinion the value assessment should be presented separately from the main parts of the review.

How did you come to that conclusion?

Ultimately one can only find out how a lens performs in one's applications by trying it out. Lens quality is such a subjective topic.

    There are a lot of parameters one can judge any lens immediately. Sharpness to extreme corners, contrast/microcontrast, vignetting, distortions, color/CA - to name only few, and this judgement will be objective, for one's solely discretion.  LZ

[richardHaw]

haven't posted in awhile and I have a cold today so I am going to make it short 

I saw a chinese review at nikon rumors and they did a test on the canon, tokina, sigma, tamron and nikon.

from the test, i think nikon is the best in my opinion. it is the most well-rounded lens in the bunch. the tokina sucked the most unfortunately.

the tamron is OK but isn't great at the corners. some of the lenses do appear to be either longer or wider than what theyre marketed as such as the Nikon lens having a slightly tighter frame. this is due the design of the lens. I really don't feel well so I'll add what mr Sato and mr Abe (he looks like Iron Chef) said about this lens when I get better

[Ilkka Nissilä]

    There are a lot of parameters one can judge any lens immediately. Sharpness to extreme corners, contrast/microcontrast, vignetting, distortions, color/CA - to name only few, and this judgement will be objective, for one's solely discretion.  LZ

I don't agree with that. Those parameters depend  on the specific part of the frame, distance and focal length and in practice the lighting may change the apparent quality in a lens-dependent way. In my opinion it takes a good while of use (months, preferably distributed over all seasons) in various applications to form an educated opinion.