New Tamron Lens - G2? How are they?

[TheBigE]

All,

I really enjoyed shooting with my 24-70mm f/2.8 Nikon Lens which I rented for my last holiday. At first, there were times when I wanted to "back out more" on the zoom, but after clicking the shutter nearly 600 times with this lens during my last trip, I was able to get into a groove. Even with my Crop Sensor, I was able to make it work most of the time and just take a few steps back.

Also, it was really super nice having the option of going down to 2.8 when indoors or outside for some creative portraits with my family. I would say this lens stayed on my camera 90% of the time.

This was the second time I rented the lens, and likely will rent again in the near future. In short, I think this is going to be one for my camera bag - the Aperture and Focal Range work for me, along with offering me some more options I do not have in my lens lineup.

I really cannot justify the full cost of the Nikon Lens. I have been watching and reading reviews of the new G2 Tamron Lens and have been impressed. I have a Tamron Lens (17-50 f/2.8), but always thought the build quality was a bit low. They seem to have this addressed in the new G2 line. I am just curious if anyone has had there hands on the new G2 lens and can comment on the build quality. I have not been able to find this lens locally yet in Germany to give it a try. I really want to just pickup lens and feel the quality....if that makes sense.

With the Nikon, the build quality was evident and it was important for me to not have to "baby" the lens. Generally, my camera is attached at my side with Black Rapid Strap and gets banged around a bit...not bad, but certainly not "easy" on the camera. Therefore build quality is important and one thing that is hard to assess from the current reviews of this new lens.

Thanks
Erik

[Manfred M]

Erik - let me throw out another consideration when it comes to buying lenses that most people ignore and that are the more intangible aspects that go into lenses. The OEM lenses have certain biases that are found across the line; whether that be the look or inherent colour biases. When I first started in photography, I remember the discussions on the almost surgical sharpness of Zeiss lenses versus the creamy look that Leica produced. The same is true for lenses from different manufacturers today; OEMs match the "look" you get with their lenses, and that is more than just tonal bias.. I can instantly tell which shots were done using my wife's Sigma versus my Nikkor lenses.

So don't just look at the mechanical build quality, also look at what the image looks like between the two lenses when shot under identical conditions. This may or may not sway your buying decision (it did not when when my wife went for the Sigma), but be aware of it as this can be just as important to you as the other more obvious aspects of the lens.

[DanK]

It's still not available in many places. B&H still doesn't have it.

I have seen one review so far--I don't recall where, but if you search for the lens and "review", you will probably find it--which was stellar. It reported that it is a substantial upgrade from the old version, which was itself a very good lens. Among other things, the review said that the build quality appears excellent, better than the first, and that they seem to have done away with the 'onion bokeh' that often showed up as the only real negative in reviews of the first version.

I had a copy of the much lower-end predecessor of these lenses, the 28-75, and I absolutely loved it.

As a Nikon shooter, you would have one advantage I wouldn't: I am not certain, but I think the zoom ring operates in the same direction as on Nikon lenses.

[TheBigE]

Manfred - Thanks, good point and can see how this could make a difference. Only real way is to wait for released. It would be nice to rent the lens for a bit and do some comparisons, but unfortunately hard to find TAMRON lens for rent in Germany.

[Mike Buckley]

Description of build quality excerpted from this review:

"Speaking of Nikon’s ever popular lens, build quality is a major factor [for] most people when purchasing lenses in this price range. Immediately after opening the Tamron 24-70mm G2, I could tell that everything from the plastic to the rubber and weather seals had seen a huge improvement [over the original Tamron model]. Other than the Nikon being quite noticeable heavier, creating a very real sense of quality, the Tamron feels solid in the hand and more like a tool than a second rate option."

[DanK]

Mike,

That looks like the same review in had read. I just didn't recall where. I thought it was an exceptionally positive review.

Dan


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[rpcrowe]

Strange that I never liked the 24-70mm for crop sensor cameras. I shot with the Mark-I Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L for a few years using the Canon 30D and 40D cameras and I always needed (or wanted) a wider lens and a longer lens in my bag. I ended up using two cameras and three lenses: 12-24mm f/4 Tokina ATX, 24-70mm Canon f/2.8L and the 70-200mm f/4L IS. I switched to the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS and the 70-200mm f/4L IS on a pair of cameras (7D and 7D2) which suit me just fine for travel and general purpose work.

However, if the new Tamron 24-70mm is as remarkable as its press indicates, I might sell my 5D2, 7D, and some other equipment to fund a Canon 5D3 and the new Tamron 24-70mm lens. Carrying the combination of 24-70mm Tamron on a 5D3 and the 70-200mm f/4L IS on the 7D2 might be just great!

We'll wait and see I wish that the equipment (and the money) were available when I was younger...

[Black Pearl]

I haven't had a play with the G2 24-70mm (yet) but I have used the 70-200mm G2 and it is a very solid feeling and crystal clear collection of elements. We also have the latest Sigma 24-70mm in and I think I like that one even more. Its a stubby fat thing compared to the Nikon/Canon versions but it feels like its hewed from rock and optically its properly good.

One thing to consider is both the Sigma and Tamron lens have VR which the OEM lenses don't offer. Now there are plusses and minuses to VR but it might just make the difference to the way you are able to shoot and should be a serious factor when choosing which to buy.

[Geoff F]

I purchased the previous version a little while ago, after getting fed up with disappointments from my Canon 24-105 and it is definitely the best small lens which I have every used on my 7D Mk II. Just use the 24-105 for rough use now, so that I wouldn't be concerned if it got ruined.

If the new replacement is an upgrade it must be a stunning lens!

[Manfred M]

One thing to consider is both the Sigma and Tamron lens have VR which the OEM lenses don't offer.

The latest Nikkor f/2.8 24-70mm E does have VR.

That being said, I'm not sure if it really buys one a lot at those focal lengths...

[rpcrowe]

If that review is correct, then that lens and a Canon 5D Mark-iii might be a very good general purpose rig. Combined with a 7D Mark-ii wearing either the 70-200mm f/4L IS or 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS ii lens, a photographer should have the best of all worlds.

The Canon 5D Mark-4 is a bit rich for my blood. I could sell enough equipment to purchase the Tamron lens and a used 5D Mark-iii (I own a 7D and a 5D2 as well as a few lenses that should be pretty well near paying for the Tamron and 5Diii

[TheBigE]

Mike - I had actually also read that review in PetaPixel and it sparked my interest. I was not sure how much of the review was Media Hype and factual, it certainly appears that the build quality is a step up. I am waiting for the lens to get out on the market a bit more to see if it lives up to the review.

Robin - Great feedback, that is what I was looking for...knowing the 70-200mm f/2.8 G2 was out, it is good to hear that it shows some improved build quality. That maybe my second purchase if the 24-70 works out when it is available.

Richard - I was unsure as well how the lens would work on a crop sensor - in the beginning it was a challenge and there were times where I tried to turn the ring outward more to get more FoV. Over time, it started to become a bit more second nature. I felt that having the f/2.8 was more beneficial to me overall than having a wider FoV. Mileage may vary.

Just a few of the shots where the lower Aperature was a nice benefit

[Manfred M]

Over time, it started to become a bit more second nature. I felt that having the f/2.8 was more beneficial to me overall than having a wider FoV.

Which is one of the main reasons to buy "fast glass". One does not pay the extra money or carry around the extra weight just to shoot at f/4 or f/8/ We do so to shoot wide open.

[rpcrowe]

IMO, I am surprised that Canon did not include IS capability with the 24-70mm f/2.8L ii lens. Some folks claim that IS is not needed in a lens of this focal length but, I contend that, while it is not "necessary" it can sure come in handy.

The IS capability of the Canon 17-5mm f/2.8 IS lens makes this lens a very viable low light glass. In fact, I have seldom used my 50mm f/1.8 Mk-1 lens since I bought the 17-55mm.

Sure, Canon has its 24-70mm f4L IS lens as well as the 24-105mm f/4L Mk- and Mk-2 editions. However, IMO, despite the great high ISO capability of today's full-frame cameras, the rather slow f/4 aperture takes these lenses out of the area of low light performance viability.

[DanK]

IMO, I am surprised that Canon did not include IS capability with the 24-70mm f/2.8L ii lens. Some folks claim that IS is not needed in a lens of this focal length but, I contend that, while it is not "necessary" it can sure come in handy.

The IS capability of the Canon 17-5mm f/2.8 IS lens makes this lens a very viable low light glass. In fact, I have seldom used my 50mm f/1.8 Mk-1 lens since I bought the 17-55mm.

Sure, Canon has its 24-70mm f4L IS lens as well as the 24-105mm f/4L Mk- and Mk-2 editions. However, IMO, despite the great high ISO capability of today's full-frame cameras, the rather slow f/4 aperture takes these lenses out of the area of low light performance viability.

Yes, there was quite a fuss when Canon released the new version of the 24-70 f/2.8 without IS. It's one reason that I will probably buy the Tamron if I decide to add a lens in that range.

I use the 24-105 as my default, and I have to say that with a 5DIII, I rarely find the lack of f/2.8 an issue for reasons of lighting. The DOF is so narrow that I would not all that often open up that far for more light. I am more interested precisely because of the narrow DOF, for the times when I really want it. Given what I shoot, however, I am not convinced that there are enough of these to make the additional purchase worth it for me.