Cant afford a Nikon 24 - 70 2.8 , any suggestions?

DigitalRelish said:
I've the Nikon 24-70 and Tamron 28-75 as a backup. Whilst the Nikon has the optical edge, I'd say the Tamron is provides an image which is at least 80% as good for a fraction of the cost. My understanding is that the model without a built-in motor (non-BIM) is the one to go for so as your camera's focusing motor will do a better job.

Tamron pros:
  • Really nice optically
  • Relatively cheap
  • Much lighter than the Nikon (lots of plastic)
  • Much smaller than the Nikon

Tamron cons:
  • No weatherproofing
  • Not as well built as the Nikon
  • Not as robust as the Nikon

I wouldn't be surprised if the AF in the Nikon was superior as well. To be honest, I've hardly used the Tamron since I got it and may end up selling it, but if I didn't want to or couldn't cough up for the Nikon then I'd go for the Tamron.
Click to expand...

Cheers Will! If u decide to sell, let me know! :p
 
With a D300s I'd be tempted to go for either a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 (the older one without a motor or image stabilisation) at around £180-200, or if you're feeling flush, a Nikon 17-55 at around £550-600, both secondhand prices.

The Tamron is nice and light and produces images that are almost a match for those from the Nikon, but it feels a bit plasticky compared to it. The Nikon is fantastic, but it's quite a heavy lens if you're planning to be chasing a baby all over the place with it...
 
The Sigma HSM is an absolutely cracking lens if you get a good copy. The one sitting on my D700 in front of me is corking.
 
another vote for the tamron 17-50 2.8 its a cracking lens.
 
You could always sell a kidney ??
 
missemanuel said:
Just to throw into the mix, I was also thinking of the Tamron 17-50mm as Im not yet full frame...... once again, more kids bookings = more £ = Sara gets a full frame! Woo hoo! :D
Click to expand...

If the plan is to go the FF route as soon as possible, I would avoid spending any money on lenses that will have to be replaced when you make the leap to FF or it will make that jump even more expensive than it will probably be anyway.
 
Tamron 17-50 is superb, optically brilliant for the money. Picked my Mk2 up for £160 off the bay and have been very happy with results.

I've just bought a Nikon 17-55 to replace, simply because I rent one every year for a big event and this I thought "Sod it, I might as well buy". It's a class above anything else available, maybe not that far ahead with UQ, but the build is something else. Paid £599 used. Should arrive tomorrow.

If you want excellent IQ and want good resale value, get the Nikon. If you do happen to go FF, you'll get back near enough what you paid.
 
What about a SH Nikon 28-70 £650 to £750 great lens.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top