Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED Lens vs Tamron 24-70mm F/2.8 G2 Di VC USD G2

[mark4583]

Whats your thought on IQ between these 2 lens to be used for portrait mostly natural light and other out door events? on Nikon D750/D850

[rpcrowe]

Since I am not a Nikon shooter, I cannot specifically answer the IQ question but, I am in love with the IQ that I get from my Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 lens for my Sony mirrorless cameras. IMO, it is the best choice (considering price and weight as well as IQ and AF) of any lens for Sony cameras. Additionally, I have used and very much like, but, do not own, the Tamron 17-28mm f/2.8 lens for Sony. I think that Tamron is producing excellent lenses at relatively decent prices and if I shot Nikon, I would certainly give the Tamron lens a good look. The days of Tamron and Sigma only being interesting because of their lower costs is over. But, you still get a great savings on Tamron glass. The Tamron lens runs $1,200 while the Nikon costs $1,797.

A mid-range lens of this focal range can be the anchor of any lens setup. It is great for numerous uses but, IMO it is not "quite" long enough for serious head and shoulders portraiture. I like at least an 85mm focal length or even better; a lens of around 105mm or longer for head and shoulder shooting on a full frame camera...

OTOH, a 24-70mm (or 28-75mm) can be a great focal range for portraiture of all types (from environmental to head and shoulders) on a crop sensor camera. I really like the equivalent 42mm to 112.5mm equivalent focal length. It is just great for shooting people...

I will be shooting various portraits at a Vietnamese Tet celebration tomorrow and will take my A6600 with the Tamron 28-75mm f.2.8 as my only camera/lens...

[Manfred M]

I shoot the Nikkor f/2.8 24-70mm G all the time. It is generally my "go to" lens; well built and rugged. It is not stabilized, but frankly at those focal lengths, on a full-frame camera, I've never found that feature necessary. It has been replaced by a newer model that has similar optical performance, but is stabilized. Every pro Nikon shooter tended to have it and the f/2.8 70-200mm lens in their bag.

It is okay for group portraits, but at 70mm it is a bit on the short side for head through 3/4 shots.

I remember looking at an older version of the Tamron at the time I bought the Nikkor, and the construction was not as good, but unless you are shooting all the time, the lower price of the Tamron looks attractive.

The only potential downside that I see is that camera / lens profiles may or may not exist for your camera / lens combo. I use this feature 100% of the time in my PP work. CA is hard to remove any other way, so if the profile exists in your PP software, no issue, but if not, that would be a "show stopper" for me.

[Geoff F]

I have the Tamron 24-70 Mk I and it is definitely the best small lens which I have ever used although I can't speak about Nikkor lenses. I got mine to replace a Canon 24-105 and the Tamron produces far superior results. The Mk II is supposed to be even better but I haven't tried it.

[Stagecoach]

Whats your thought on IQ between these 2 lens to be used for portrait mostly natural light and other out door events? on Nikon D750/D850

Having spent a few months considering purchasing either the Tamron 24-70 G2 or the Nikkor 24-70 (new VR or older non VR versions) the conclusions I came to from investigating were that IQ was very similar but main differences were size and cost.

I have given up for now because I can not come up with a single reason that my existing Tamron 28-75 mm f/2.8 non VR is not producing everything I want in all of my various shooting scenarios.

Good luck.

[odds]

Whats your thought on IQ between these 2 lens to be used for portrait mostly natural light and other out door events?

I am likely a singularity, yes I'm Odd :-) as I often focus manually. That is mainly why I tend to end up with Nikon lenses rather than alternatives. It is as simple as the direction the focus ring turns for near/far. This may change when Nikon implements focus by wire as the only option with a focus ring +/- direction setting buried in the menu system.

The focus ring on my Tamron 90mm Macro confuses my left hand (right side brain?), but I see nothing wrong with the image quality.

--
Odd S.

[shreds]

As ever a lot is down to the knowledge and skill of the user as much as the depth of their pocket.

Ruminating over this lens or that lens in minuscule detail will not necessarily get you better pictures, particularly portraits. Having the ability to create a wide aperture in quality glass is a fundamental, as well as considering the bokeh and the lighting conditions and any additional lighting.

I am probably teaching many ‘how to suck eggs’ but would agree that having a system that is easily operated without any conscious thought will certainly assist in concentrating on the more technical aspects of composition and keeping an interesting and good rapport with the subject, to achieve the desired result.

Focal length wise, I like to Nikon f2.8 70-200mm as well as the Nikon f2.8 24-70mm. But will sometimes use the portrait lens such as the Nikon f2 135mm prime. Full frame between 70-135mm are considered to be the traditional portrait focal lengths for good reason, although stepping outside such constraints is more than appropriate depending on the situation and up to 300mm primes can create wonderful effects.

[Abitconfused]

I recently purchased the Tamron 24-70mm G2 and I am very happy with it. It is rugged, well built, environmentally sealed (to some extent) and very sharp. HOWEVER, I spent some time calibrating the lens to my Nikon D810. The lens shipped from B&H with a B&W filter and Tamron TAP-in console. It says something when a lens ships with the calibration adapter. I am experienced with calibration but it still took a few hours to complete the process. How is an aftermarket lens manufacturer supposed to fit a lens to a variety of bodies and keep the price down? Can't happen. After calibration, the lens continues to amaze me especially wide open f/2.8.

See "Thing in Tree" and the junkyard dog on this page: https://cosmos4egypt.tumblr.com/ it was taken with the Tamron 24-70. Forgive the blog, it is in its infancy.

To some extent lenses are rated by sharpness and Canon/Nikon/Tamron are very close...but for the price & quality I selected the Tamron. When you add into the equation conservative post-production experience, the lens shines like a star.

[Abitconfused]

The lens review I wrote for B&H regarding the Tamron 24-70mm: This is an exceptional lens, especially for those willing to invest a little time calibrating the lens with your camera body. I bought this lens with the very good Tamron TAP-in Console and excellent B+W UV haze filter from B&H (by the way a visit to Manhattan is incomplete absent a visit to the B&H store at 420 9th Avenue a block from Penn Station between West 33rd & 34th Streets). Why do you suppose the lens often comes with the TAP-in Console? Right! For this bargain price we cannot expect a perfect fit with every camera every time. Although, I suspect by happenstance, some work perfectly out of the box. Yet not every camera manufacturer can provide a focal plane within +/-0.005 inches for every camera. Ain't gonna happen. So there are variables in lenses and cameras. What to do? I bought a well respected calibration target from B&H. Followed the simple directions provided by Tamron and within two hours I had a lens SIGNIFICANTLY sharper than out of the box. A tack sharp lens. Sharp at f/2.8 and sharp as a sultan's scimitar at f/8. By the way. I didn't struggle with two tripods and measuring tapes. I simply put the camera and target on a table, put a book under my camera to make certain it was at the same level as the target, set the camera to one focus point, turned off vibration compensation, set the lens to f/2.8, slid the target to match the focus indicator on the camera as illustrated in the TAP-in software took photographs at the required distances and mm (24, 35, 50 and 70) and observed for front focus and back focus in my post-production program. I didn't bother trying to calibrate the lens at infinity as it is (1) impractical and (2) perhaps unnecessary as the lens adjustments may be accumulative from the shortest distance onward. Anyway, I calibrated starting with the closest distance first and got that right then moved on. Your experience may be different. With front focus the lens focuses too close and with back focus it focuses too far away. Using the TAP-in software I moved the focus + for front focusing and - for back focus. It's like this... Suppose you are trying to win your true love a cuddly bear at the circus by tossing a ring over a post. You land the ring too short, you are front focusing. Klutz! Never-mind. You need to add distance that's + (plus)...simple. Next you hit the back wall of the booth and the carnie is having a good laugh. Is there no hope for you? You are back focusing. Put a little minus (-) into it and try again. Aha! You got it! Simple. A tip... When you attach the lens, plug in the USB cable, and launch the TAP-in console it does nothing. Well, not for a bit as the console is calling home the mother-ship over the internet. Be patient. It will connect provided you have an internet connection. You can also update TAP-in and lens firmware using the console. Cool! Now field test the lens. I bet you will be surprised.

[William W]

Whats your thought on IQ between these 2 lens to be used for portrait mostly natural light and other out door events? on Nikon D750/D850

I haven’t used Nikon for several years, but I value their stability in producing quality lenses in that particular category.

I have used that Tamron Lens when I was considering purchase, between it and the (Canon) EF 24 to 70 F/2.8 L USM. Its overall IQ is “very good to excellent”, in my opinion, and I am an hard marker and I used it extensively on trial.

Specific to Image Quality – (my educated guess with the Nikon): you’re going to have fall-off at the edges, in both lenses, at the wide angle, exacerbated if you’re using F/2.8.

My point of view on that particular matter, for the uses that you describe, is “who cares – what will it matter in real-life Photography”.

If one is intent on attaining “the best” IQ at wide apertures, then one has a comprehensive set of Prime Lenses: I do have that set, but, for the purposes of “portrait mostly natural light and other out door events” – a (modern day) zoom lens is for practical reasons the go to answer and I think that judging the purchase solely based on IQ is not a good idea.

Between the two lenses that you cited, there is one overwhelming difference – the Tamron has VC and the Nikon does NOT have VR.

The primary question I asked myself when comparing the Tamron to the Canon was “How valuable will be the Vibration Control on the Tamron to me?”

I concluded that the VC would be useful to very useful but not a necessity. I too mainly (only) shoot with Available Light and I mainly (only) photography People – so although VC would be an aid – I am always juggling the Tv and ISO to avoid Subject Motion Blur and VC; VR; and IS are of minute assistance in this regard. So I put the Tamron VC through its paces and I found it excellent in all respects: except for Video. Additionally the Focus Turret on the Tamron exhibited points of more and less resistance throughout the turn – this factor I noted was reported on the www by other users (mainly video users) – but when I use a camera I am quite tactile as the tool becomes an extension of my hand – all my tools have to feel “right” – be they my carving knife, my hammer and chisels, etc or my camera and that Tamron Focus Turret annoyed me. Maybe that issue, if it was a widespread issue at all, is now fixed.

There is probably a factor of price difference: frankly, price matters to me, but for this purchase I would NOT buy on price – and I suggest you have the same attitude.

In the end I really liked the idea of having VC and I decided that I would, if I chose the Tamron, find one with a nice smooth Focus Turret.

However the next stage in my choice was Flare (or more precisely Flare Management) and I suggest that once you make a choice on VC or not, you too consider investigating Flare Management.

The Tamron was good to very good in managing Flare– but like 99.9% of all Zoom Lenses, the Lens Hood is more a window dressing, than a practical tool. This is where the Canon 24 to 70/2.8 shone – and although I originally thought that the usefulness of the Canon Lens Hood would indeed be the crunch decision maker, I did show due diligence in my choice procedure.

I bought the Canon, not the Tamron - the majority of that decision was the (superior) Flare Management attributable solely to the Lens Hood and Lens design.

I assume that the Nikon Lens Hood is just as much window dressing as the Tamron, so, if you intend to include Flare Management in your purchase decision, (I suggest that you do), then you might as well get going harvesting data on how each naked lens, manages Flare.

WW

[Manfred M]

Bill - the one difference between the third party and OEM lens manufacturers is the "pro" lenses have their high end anti-reflective coatings. I could not get decent flare in a situation where I wanted to with my Nikkor f/2.8 24-70mm lens shooting with the sun in my viewfinder. The Nikon lens hood looks similar in size and shape to the Canon one, so I expect it has the same limitations; i.e. the 24mm focal length determines the depth of the lens hood and scallops.

The other aspect of the OEM lenses is that Canon and Nikon do a fantastic job in ensuring that lens performance (colour) is very consistent throughout the product line. That is not necessarily the case in the third party lenses. What I do like is that when I shoot with the Nikkor f/2.8 24-70mm, the Nikkor f/2.8 70-200mm (and the Nikkor f/2.8 14-24mm), the colour is identical.

Like with anything else, what one gets with premium glass is all about subtlety and consistency. I suspect that this is where the 3rd party manufacturers are able to reduce their costs and pass that on to buyers.

[William W]

N.B. There are errors of fact in this post relating to what I assumed were differences of design in the Canon and Nikon lenses being discussed. Please see Manfred's response to my question to him.
Manfred's post (#13) has the clarification that these two (Nikon and Canon) lenses are in fact quite similar.
For the sake of continuity I shall not edit this post from its original.


Hi Manfred -

I concur 100% with your comments regarding coatings; colour consistency; quality glass; and production line tolerances - both for Nikon and Canon "pro" lenses - and in that regard Flare Management will probably be similar: except in this one case.

That stated, the Tamron that I used managed quite well when shooting into the Sun.

However, for this particular situation and comparison of the Nikon and Canon 24 to 70/2.8 it is not a fair comparison and not a correct conclusion to think that the Nikon and Canon will be equal in Flare Management -

Explanation: although the Canon 24 to 70/2.8L USM and the Nikon 24 to 70/2.8 are similar in shape and also their Lens Hoods are also similar, the lens design is quite different.

Particularly in regard to the usefulness of the Lens Hood: the Canon's Lens Hood attaches to the Lens's main barrel and the Lens's Front Element extends through the Lens Hood.

This fact is why I was so particular in mentioning that most lens hoods on zoom lenses are not much more than "window dressing" - except for this one particular (Canon) zoom. I have not found any other zoom lens with this design: although I have not kept up with Nikon's lens developments - maybe they've copied Canon and the 24 70G /2.8 has the same functionality? - you might tell me, please, as I simply continue to assume this Canon Lens is unique.

Probably the Nikon will handle Flare better than the Tamron, but if the OP is using this lens outdoors, in available light for Portraiture at Social Functions - then comparing Flare Management would (should) be on his comparison list.

(Or he could simply swap to Canon) - haha.

WW

[Manfred M]

Bill - the Nikon does the same thing as the Canon, based on what you have written. At 70mm, the front lens element is deep inside the lens hood while at 24mm the front element is much more forward. Definitely a more sophisticated design than any of my other lenses, where the front element and the lens hood are at the same fixed position.

[William W]

Nikon are copycats!

Now I know of two lenses with that design, Thanks Manfred!

***

To "mark4583" -

With that knowledge, prima facie, I would recommend you seriously consider the Nikon Lens; It has an huge advantage over the Tamron, for all the reasons that this conversation has revealed: and possibly more.

WW